>the mind being non-physical -- let alone what that would even mean It's all just words - Philosophical language games [1]. Physical and non-physical are just

>the mind being non-physical -- let alone what that would even mean It's all just words - Philosophical language games [1]. Physical and non-physical are just words that we, humans made up. They are concepts - useful distinctions. Nothing more. There is no methodical way - no experiment you can perform that can confirm OR falsify the claim "Existence is physical". It's not a scientific claim - it's a philosophical one. It's not even wrong. It can't be wrong because it's an axiom. People who axiomatically assume that existence is "physical" (whatever that means) are called physicalists [2]. >if it could be precisely defined in a scientific way. Big IF. Does the absence of a scientific definition make it non-physical until a definition is produced? Even if it could be precisely defined then all you have produced is a definition of the mind in the language of Mathematics. A Mathematical model. Are Mathematical models "physical"? In 2019 some people even say that the Turing Machine is a model of the human mind. Are Mathematical models physical? If the mind is indeed a Turing Machine, does that mean the mind is physical? Myself, I am not a physicalist. I am not a non-physicalist either. I am a Model-dependent realist [3]. But more than that - I am a Linguistic Determinist [4] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy) [2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism