'Numbers' are our way of conceptualizing an aspect of reality that we perceive, which follows from our classifying what we perceive into discrete entities. It a description of a basic feature of a multiplicity of associated discrete objects, ie 'how many of them there are. A number of other creatures are able to recognize different numbers of objects, ie to 'count' up to small numbers.

EDIT: Just saw today a program on Monitor Lizards, where they said that one they have been conducting tests with was able to count to six. They had trained it to wait until it had been fed a given number of items of food before doing some other action.

'Number' exists as a particular pattern of thoughts in a mind, it is a truly 'immaterial' thing, ie, it has no persistence or existence as any kind of 'thing' outside our imaginations.

Imagination is material. Unless you want to show me how imagination exists without a brain. 

Without the brain the emergent property would not exist, hence the emergent property is material.

It is as much an assumption that gravity exists. Just because you'd like to believe otherwise does not make it so.

What an odd reading. Where do I cite the literal expanse of the universe as the cause?  The point is that the universe is the single constant, the 'substratum' if you will. Sentient brains are capable of generating the same numbers given that they exist in the same universe, with a consistent identity. THe universe could be the size of a closet and still allow for this result. 

I will never understand theists completely, because of that kind of argument. It says nothing and goes nowhere, yet they seem to think it proves something.

So Mary does not know "all the physical facts" because what color looks like to her is a physical fact. Knowing how other people see color is not the same as knowing how you are going to see it since viewing color is completely subjective. You posit a scenario where Mary knows all facts except for one, so obviously when she learns that new fact she knows one new thing. That doesn't change that Mary seeing red is a material process and a material process which is different (albeit similar to) John seeing red. 

Then what is it? How else do we see color other than our optic nerves and all the activity that happens in our brain to interpret it? Unless you can point to a case where someone was unable to see a color with everything we have identified in our optic system working perfectly there is no reason to believe there is anything else to it and an if we do find such a case it is a very large leap to believe that there is something non-material rather than something material we just have not identified yet.  

It is only ineffable in that our language is imperfect and it is impossible to perfectly convey meaning and descriptions using it. Just because we are unable to accurately relay our physical experiences to others has no relevance to whether or not those experiences are material. It is a commentary on our ability (or lack thereof) to communicate with others. Such sensations also provide the unique problem that no one else in the world can have the exact same sensation that you have because every brain is unique and doesn't interpret things exactly the same as any other brain.

As such I can read Robert Parker's reviews of wine while sipping on the same vintage, but I will never truly know exactly what he experiences. Perhaps at some point in the distant future we will find a way to experience sensations as they are experienced in someone else's head. However, I think it is a mistake to assign some extra-material influence simply because we don't currently have the technology to really observe a person's consciousness. We know we are technologically limited when it comes to studying the brain and what we have that can measure activity within it is likely going to be considered very crude even in the near future. All you have is a "god of the gaps" argument and while you are not filling it with a tradition deity, there is no reason to believe there is something extra-material. 

Edit:

lol I just read the review on the coffee I am drinking,

Just reading the review you wouldn't even know if it was coffee or wine being reviewed. Pretty sure I have read the exact same review for a bottle of wine at some point. The inadequacies of language. 

The badge may have caused me to label you as a theist more casually, but your argument is faulty regardless.

Alternative is presented, I believe, in the philosophical zombie argument. In case of conscience and it's raw perceptions.

In case of abstract numbers and the ontology of mathematics perhaps Einstein can clarify: "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is THAT it is comprehensible."  This is in a peculiar way, telling us something about the ontology of mathematics and that it exists appart from physical reality.

There is no proof of this, it's just an interpretation of the observable reality processed subjectively by a brain...

However I believe that computational science and it's developments might give light to the question of conscience. Basically I think if we can develop conscience with binary microprocessors then Roger Penrose is wrong. But if we can only develop conscience with quantum computing he was right.

I bet he is right.

Finally I just want to say that deep down I feel that physicalist provides no alternative as well given it's strong materialistic sense. (everything that exists HAS to be physical or else does not exist). So basically I can accuse you of the same sin.

We should keep our minds open that's all, even to outrageous possibilities.

I disagree. The fact that physicalism is not falsifiable actually doesn't help much. Science starts has a philosophical thought and premises and builds up from there. Science gains a lot of points due to it's empirical nature which is very consistent, but that doesn't mean this is the end of the story and there is nothing else.

Penrose work for example shows that some things in the world is not computational, and he says he can prove this mathematically. Meaning that some things are true but cannot be proven by mathematics. And that this relates to consciousness.

I'm not saying that there is a reality forever hidden and appart from measurement. I don't know. What I'm saying is that there are things in reality that might not be recognizable as standard physics... yet. but in the future they can be. Like QM, dispite being weird it is today part of the natural world. Other weird things will come.

I must say that we are actually watching a change in the minds of physicists regarding what the physical world REALLY means. Quantum information theory is gaining a lot of people under it's umbrella. More and more physicists are embracing the idea that reality is not really made of matter but made of information.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069

Well you are excused for making such a comment, for sure you are not a scientist!

In the foundations of science there is philosophy. There would be no science without philosophy! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

The scientific method itself was developed by philosophy! That is the most innacurate comment I've seen from you!

Moreover: "Falsifiability or refutability is the trait of a statement, hypothesis, or theory whereby it could be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". 

Can you, in your mind, imagine a concievable observation that would indicate that physicalism might be false?!

Finally it is more than clear (as I've shown before) that scientists are embracing Quantum information theory more and more. Which basically says that reality is not made of matter but information - Immaterial. If you can grasp the true meaning of the double slit experiment you may wonder the same.

There is a difference between physics and physicalism and you seem to be mixing the two.

Physics: "knowledge, science of nature"

Physicalism: "Physicalism is a philosophical theory holding that everything that exists is physical, that is, that there are no things other than physical things. Physicalism is often called "materialism"

I can see the not so crazy possibility that the definition of physics in the future changes from "the study of matter" to "the study of information" or something similar.

I think it's important for websites like this to exist, to counter the insanities of religious thought in society. But please don't you be guilty of the same sins of those you wish to destroy. Let the mind wonder into possibilities and don't be afraid of considering interpretations which are not intuitive when everything else fails. Studies that you think cannot bring anything usefull must be done despite, if others think otherwise.

...show anything which is not material continuously invalidates your argument.

"There is a difference between physics and physicalism and you seem to be mixing the two."

Not in the context we are discussing. The laws of physics describe the physical nature of nature. Which requires a 'materialist' point of view.

"I can see the not so crazy possibility that the definition of physics in the future changes from "the study of matter" to "the study of information" or something similar."

Only because you don't understand either information or physics can you be forgiven for making such an ignorant claim.

The final refuge of the theist: Projection.

Thanks for conceding the argument.

Slinging ad hominems only weakens your position further. I presented proof and logic, you presented incoherent thoughts and irrational propositions.

I win.