It's not about whether I want it to be true or not; that is a poor mode of discussion.
I could say that by you saying "So what more do you need?" your dismissing further research into the area to examine whether there is a possibility of a mental dimension because you want it to be "not more". But I won't seriously argue for that.
Ok, define "mental dimension". Define how it could be falsifiable.
Otherwise anything you say is non-sense from the scientific point of view.
I don't think anything is falsifiable, except against a set of assumptions.
For example, the claim 2+2=5 is not falsifiable. It is possible that you are under the spell of a demon when you reason your way towards 2+2=4. I think induction might be a more reliable method of science, but I am not well-versed in this subject, yet.
A mental dimension cannot be adequately defined, as language was created to categorize those things which we can detect with our senses. However, if I was pressed I would probably say that the mental dimension is something which is not limited by the boundaries of space; I'm not yet sure about time. Thus, things of the mental dimension cannot collide. That would not be a sufficient description though.
What "further research" are you talking about?
Psychological research?
We have factual evidence of how any change in thought and mental patterns corresponds to a biochemical and electrical change in the brain.
But what causes these changes in thought and mental patterns?
And we have factual evidence of how any change in biochemistry and electricity in the brain corresponds to a change in thoughts, feelings, emotions.
So, yes, "what more do you need?"
A satisfactory explanation of the nature of consciousness, vision, sensation, etc.
That would be like saying that accepting a "material" explanation to mechanics means dismissing further research into examining whether there is a possibility of extra-physical dimensions with intelligent beings instructing matter in the physical world to move here and there.
Your pursuing a point that I said I wasn't going to seriously argue for. I made that point in order to show you that you shouldn't assume my emotions are getting in the way of my rational capacity. If I did the same, it would lead to absurdities in our discussion, as you seem to realize.
Like I said, removing the physical components that collectively produce vision, and witnessing that this results in blindness, we have logically shown nothing more than that the physical components are an essential ingredient in the production of vision. But we have not shown that it is the only ingredient.
I want to seriously consider whether we can reasonably assume that it is the physical components and nothing else that produce this phenomenon which cannot be described in physical terms, except to describe the physical effects that this phenomenon can have on the body when it changes.
If something doesn't function without its "physical components", you can assume whatever you want about the "non-physical components"... it will simply be completely unfalsifiable: so all non-physical explanations are equally valid, equally invalid, and, most importantly, equally irrelevant.
[/quote]
According to the principle of falsifiability, yes, but I see problems in the principle of falsifiability that lead me to doubt it.
Topic: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain