You clearly do not know how to distinguish the thought process, which I agree can be measured, and the content of a thought. I'm saying what cannot yet be measured is the content of thought, the information in a thought.
https://sapienlabs.org/measuring-a-thought/. "What is its relationship to information? Must a thought contain information?"
Let’s disentangle this complete and utter mess.
Your position is that thoughts are not physical. That is both your conclusion and the inherent assumption you make.
Your objection to everything said is basically “but thoughts are not physical”, and “but we have free will”. As I keep saying, and you keep ignoring - this is completely begging the question.
Let’s first start by pointing out that you absolutely no evidence, argument or justification for this claim - it’s completely made up, as there is absolutely no direct or indirect evidence that anything non physical happens in your brain, or can even exist.
Repeating the assumption - and then using it to draw your conclusion that wholly depends on that assumption - is begging the question.
What you’re doing however, is wholly misunderstanding the nature and intent of the above.
I can’t prove that your brain does not have some hidden, thinky magic force that is non physical and acts as some force for free will. This is proving a negative; it’s not possible. You often suggest or imply that we need to disprove this; unfortunately as stated this is shifting the burden of proof.
In these two critical respects - your link doesn’t change the fact that your arguments are begging the question and shifting the burden of proof.
To not be doing those two things: you must provide evidence that there is a hidden think magic force in your brain - which you don’t, and your blog post (and while authored by a PHd, is still a blog post) doesn’t either.
The key to my argument: is whether thought is the product of something physical, or is a hidden magic thinky force. There are indeed experiments with fMRI that I shared where a machine can work out the thing you are thinking about - conflating thought and thought process at this stage is just arbitrary question begging at this stage - but the crucial aspect is that your thinking and decision making is both impacted by physical changes to your brain; and readable through it.
You’re coming at this like an apologist - how can I explain this data in a way that my opinion can still be correct. I am coming at this like a scientists - what does the physical nature of the brain indicate?
Indeed, these points offer potential for falsification - if neither of the above things were true it would help prove you right.
So in this respect, all these physical aspects and outcomes of the brain help establish the substantial credibility of arguing that there is no hidden magic thinky force - because the brain behaves as one would expect if there was none.
And to this objection, you effectively just continually parrot that I’m wrong because there is definitely a hidden magic force. Begging the question.
Your silly insults aside; you miss some key nuance in your blog post; and you infer from that I’m making some categorical error; which is kinda weird.
The blog post is effectively pointing out that we don’t really know what a thought is; and as a result we don’t know how to measure it. Given that I’m not suggesting we know what a thought is, or suggesting that we can directly measure thinking (as opposed to indirectly measuring it, which we can), your claim that I’m confused about it is a bit of a straw man as if misrepresents what I’m saying.
The blog post is, in no way, suggesting that thoughts aren’t the product of physical processes, or are the manifestation of magic thinky force - only drawing that specific distinction - which I mostly agree with. So as before, you share a link that doesn’t really affirm your position at all.
At the very best, you're just making a huge argument from ignorance - suggesting that not knowing what a thought is, means it’s exactly what you’re saying it is.
You keep evading these points with silly nonsense such as the above.
You don’t have an argument; you have an unfalsifiable opinion that you cannot show is true; which you use to beg the question - assert in response to anyone showing it should be considered false; and for which you continually attempt to shift the burden of proof; and don’t seem able to defend.
I mean come on, let’s work through the problem scientifically - what observation can we make today that we shouldn’t be able to make if the brain is a purely physical entity - and why