I see. Let's say we completed the study of a new field, neurophilosophy, where we learn precisely the neural mechanisms for how and why we generate the philosop

I see. Let's say we completed the study of a new field, neurophilosophy, where we learn precisely the neural mechanisms for how and why we generate the philosophical questions we do, and why we find them "interesting," and why we reason about them the way we do. I don't think that would convince anyone as to why classical philosophical arguments bear no merit. I never bought into the fundamental category division, but for the first time, I see the issue clearly. Then I am flabbergasted as how to even conceive bridging the gap, my mathematical intuition tells me it is nonsensical, and that we must throw away the non-physical category--but is that like throwing out the baby with the bathwater? This is very tricky, and my arguments above on religion don't appeal to my last few posts on "philosophy before 1859," but we digress. Thanks for the back-and-forth!