"Any claim that a non-physical entity can have any influence on a physical entity is outright bullshit"
(I prefer the term "cowplop" myself, but...)
This raises a rarely asked question: "Just what do we...consensually...mean when we use the term 'physical'?"
Clearly, anything that we can agree consists of atoms is 'physical.' This would include ions. Electrons, well, ok...but there's some ambiguity about just how 'physical' photons are (yes, I know, they're affected by gravity; I'll get to that.) And as for electrical, magnetic, or gravitional fields go, can we say there's ambiguity there also?
How does one determine the 'physicality' of a field APART from it's effects on an atomic structure? One can empirically observe an 'atom-built' structure (nowadays, even an atom!) But...a field? This, so far, is an induction. (Lewis Little's idea of 'Elementary Waves' which seems to coherently overturn the old, weird interpretation-'theories' put on QM experiments seems to imply that there's no such thing as fields, Einstein [my favorite genius] nwst...but I may be wrong there.)
Anyhoo, any 'physicality' of a magnetic field clearly seems to be so for only some atomically-structured matter...but not other matter. If the magnetic field IS 'physical' yet has no affect on some atoms (directly, that is), ergo, to these atoms the magnetic field does not appear to be directly 'physical,' then conceivably some other things may be 'physical'...yet not appear directly to be so also, no? If so, this implies that maybe we need to amplify our meaning of 'physical' beyond consisting of mere atoms.
Alternatively, we may need to incorporate into our philosophy-of-physics a meaning for 'non-physical' entities (which, granted, have some metaphysical dependency for existence on physical entities.) In which case...we're back to consciousness not ='brain state.'
Just food-for-thought. :)
(Edited by John Dailey on 7/30, 3:51pm)