Why do you bring the quote up at all? It really doesnt help your case at all.
I have explained why many times in the past two pages.
- - - Updated - - -
There is a causal relationship with the mind and body, yet the mind does not need to exist in a purely physical reality.
Yes, it fucking does. What is this, the output of the Deepak Chopra Woo Generator?
That tells us that the mind at least runs parallel with physical rules. That's the non-physical argument. However, I also believe that the mind actually has a non-causal properties, but that is a discussion I had with everyone on the other thread about free will.
Your beliefs don't add up to shit.
You can't refute physics by saying 'Nuh-uh'; you actually have to come up with some observations that don't fit the current theories, or at the very least a new hypothesis that fits the observed facts.
If you are satisfied with contrived woo and appeals to belief, then abandon all reason and admit that you are engaged in religion, not philosophy or science.
You can believe that you can fly; but science says 'No'. You can believe that the mind is non physical; but science says 'No'. Your only remaining choices at this point are 1) Accept that you were wrong; or 2) Continue to be wrong.
You obviously don't even understand my argument because you won't address it.
I don't need to care about the details of an argument that is based on a premise that is demonstrably false.
It is physically impossible for there to be a non physical entity of any kind that has any effect on the physical components of a living human being.
Unless you can show that basic fact to be in error, the rest of what you say is meaningless.
So how does a non physical entity interact with a physical person?
We know it isn't:
Gamma rays, X-Rays, UV, visible light, infrared, microwaves or radio; because all these are easy to detect.
Magnetic or electric fields; also easy to detect
Gravity; easy to detect, and too weak to do much of anything given the low mass of a human.
Neutrino radiation; doesn't interact enough with matter.
Ionising radiation; very easy to detect.
The strong or weak nuclear interactions; too short range, and far too energetic
Higher energy particles - such as Muons - too energetic. Not only would they be obvious, they would also be deadly.
Higgs bosons; far too massive/energetic.
There is nothing else. Physics has ruled out the existence of anything else, except at scales tens of orders of magnitude too small to be relevant, and/or energies tens of orders of magnitude too high to be survivable.
There CANNOT be a non physical interaction with the brain that we don't know about.
Figure it out, and then maybe you will actually think up a counter point.
All of modern physics.
That's your counter point.
I am sorry if it is too big for you to see it.
It is not necessary to be able to refute someone's hypothesis about the layout of Noah's ark in order to show that creationism is bunk.
Your idea is impossible at a fundamental level; the details are therefore irrelevant.