Monkey seems to think that these two statements are in contradiction with each other. I can understand that this would be his assessment if he does not understand the issues involved or fails to integrate them properly. So, I shall give a few brief words on what those issues are and why these two statements are not in contradiction to each other.

The concept 'existence' as I use it refers to everything that exists, whether they are entities, or attributes, qualities or actions of entities. The concepts 'attribute' and 'entity' do not refer to the same thing. So, when I say that "I do accept that there is non-physical existence" and then say "I do not accept the claim that there are non-physical entities," I am in no way contradicting myself, especially since I clarified this point by saying that "the non-physical is always an attribute of a physical entity." Again, entities and their attributes are distinguished here. But both entities and attributes exist. Thus, there is no contradiction here.

Monkey wrote: "So you believe(and don't believe) in the non-physical."

Wrong. You should now have more data in order to re-integrate the points I've presented so as to avoid such misunderstandings.

Monkey wrote: "The non-physical is dependent on the physical."

I would agree with this.

Monkey wrote: "--Would be interested how you reach this conclusion."

I explained my reasoning to this conclusion in an earlier post in response to Peter. Please review it.

Monkey wrote: "Why for example do you feel confident in making this claim instead of the opposite position: that the physical is dependent on the non-physical?"

Because the evidence which I have does not support this opposite position. It supports the one which I affirmed. If the evidence of which I am aware supported the conclusion you are suggesting here, I would have no problem affirming it. However, that is not the case, so I do not affirm it.

Monkey wrote: "How would you attempt to justify the former rather than the latter?"

By looking at reality.

Monkey wrote: "Why would the rejection of one of these positions in favour of the other be preferable to the physical and non-physical being mutually dependent?"

Again, because the evidence does no support the conclusion you suggest here. The evidence of which I am aware supports the conclusion which I affirmed. If you are aware of evidence to the contrary, by all means, please advise us.

Monkey wrote: "If you still insist holding to your declared position, can you show me any evidence of physical man existing without any non-physical attributes?"

I'm not aware of "any evidence of physical man existing without any non-physical attributes." As I have already mentioned, "Consciousness… is non-physical" and "consciousness is an attribute of man." These two quotes were taken from the very same paragraph you lifted from my post #57. Did you not read it? Or, did you not integrate these two points?

Monkey wrote: "Or is this non-physical thing (which does and doesn't exist) which you call conciousness, an unnecessary and superfluous part of physical man?"

Consciousness is a necessary part of man. Without it, he could not live.

Monkey wrote: "Could any function of physical man occur without this non- physical thing?"

Yes, for instance his heart can beat and his blood can circulate without his being conscious of it (since these are autonomic functions of his body). But without consciousness he could not seek out food, build shelter, form concepts, identify values, recognize false philosophy, etc.

Monkey wrote: "If so, what kind of function or process is it?"

Consciousness is its own kind of function and process. As I have pointed out in the past, the concept 'consciousness' is axiomatic, which means it cannot be defined in terms of prior concepts. The lecture on "The Metaphysics of Consciousness" is a great place to start if you're genuinely interested in learning more about these matters. But since you deliberately took the effort to replace the 'g' in the lecturer's name with a 'k' when you lifted the paragraph you quoted from my post #57, I suspect you probably are not that sincerely interested after all.

Monkey wrote: "I believe the mutually dependent view has more validity. Read David Albert's 'Quantum Mechanics and Experience' and Tipler and Barrow's 'The Anthropological Principle and Related Issues'. to find out why."

Well, of course this depends on what you mean by "mutually dependent." There are senses in which I can see how one might think that man's physical body and his consciousness are mutually dependent, but arguments to this point would simply underscore the basic Objectivist conception of man as an indivisible being (as opposed to the corpse-ghost dichotomization of man found in Christianity). So I do not see this as anything truly novel or unique, since Objectivism has already identified man in such terms. But this would not support the more generalized thesis that existence as such is by nature a mutual dependence of the physical with the non-physical. This is a completely different position, and if one wants to affirm it, he would be expected to provide evidence and argue to this end.

Monkey wrote: "You might be impressed with some of it if you were to examine it firsthand."

I'm sure I would. Indeed, you seem to be presuming I have not examined them firsthand.

CertainVerdict