>>1421313>Geometric shapes do not have color, sound or flavor. They only have shape.Why can color, sound, and flavor not come from geometric shapes? Can the whole not be something entirely different than the sum of it's parts? Particles are not just geometric shapes anyways.
>EVERYONE has evidence for such a thing. It's literally the ONLY thing in existence that can be properly said to be *evident*I'm not talking about consciousness existing, I'm talking about an unseen non-material force creating or causing consciousness in some way. There is no evidence for this. There is no evidence that consciousness itself is immaterial either. In fact, the opposite seems to be true. Changes in consciousness correspond to chemical changes in the brain and vice versa.
>But wait! What if the material world is acting in tandem with an unknown immaterial force?What reason do I have to believe that when it seems that the consciousness will eventually be completely explained in material terms? We have not yet run up against the boundaries of materialism, why turn to asspulls?
It's like if at the emergence of germ theory, people proposed that germs worked in tandem with a yet unseen miasma. Why believe that?
>You don't need to test it because it's already tested *by default* (see above)No.
>Actually, materialists are the ones who claim to have a mechanism for that, but refuse to expose it.Materialists do not acknowledge any non-material things, by definition.
