There is zero evidence that anything non-materialist actually exist, literally zero. But what we do have is an island of things people have claimed is non-materialist to get smaller and smaller over time. Childish arguments like "But you can't prove this rock isn't conscious" is just the standard god of the gaps argument in a purple shirt that has been done to death.
My favourite one in this line is “you can’t prove there isn’t an invisible pink unicorn in the middle of your living room and we can still agree it’s very unlikely to be there”.
You've just appealed to a wide array of necessary non-physical concepts while making the claim that non-physical concepts are unprovable - don't you see the contradiction here?
This is Aristotle 101, no need to rehash this debate because it's been settled in this exact form for thousands of years.
I didn't make any claim to anything non-physical.
Is an axiom physical? Can I touch a mathematical axiom? Can I kick it down the stairs?
> Boolean algebra is made physical
So what was it before it was "made physical"? This statement necessitates Boolean algebra having had some other, metaphysical form before physical instantiation.
> I didn't make any claim to anything non-physical
Yes you did. And you did again just now. "I" - appeal to the self. Non physical. "Didn't" - appeal to the past. Non physical. "Make any Claim" - appeal to truth or falsehood. Non physical.
Again, these are debates that have already been hashed out millennia ago. I don't want to appear rude or condescending, which is near impossible not to do over written debate, but I would highly suggest putting in the work to learn the history of fundamental philosophical concepts like Epistemology, Metaphysics, and Ethics before engaging in debate over them.
In fact there is evidence it is physical. We have been able to decode low fidelity images of stuff people are imagining using brain imaging. That would never work if imagination is non-physical.
We are less than 2 decades away from digitally migrating to a doppelgänger body.
So we must first know what it means to be human, which is to say, what the actualization of human nature consists of, actualization as the satisfaction and raison d'etre of human activity. It is the nature of a thing to seek to realize itself, to become fully the kind of thing it is. This does not necessarily involve conscious, purposeful act. Bacteria do the same, and this is by virtue of how they are organized and ordered, as well as their operation in accord with this ordering. For human beings, it is to become fully human, which, again, is the question posed: what is the end of a human being? Only in light of human nature can we determine the meaning of death, whether death is to be understood as an aberration needing a solution, or the natural terminus of human existence. If it is the former, then we might ask what, if anything, could or should be done about it. If the latter, then we must accept it as our natural end against which any resistance is not only misguided, but harmful.
To answer this question, we must first recognize that what is most essential and definitive about human beings is that we are rational animals. Our rationality is not some thing tacked on to us, but what it means to be human, and our organization, our substance, everything from the operations of the intellect, our ability to choose between alternatives freely, and our bodies, follows from this fact.
Then, we must determine what it most means for human beings as rational animals to attain finality. Classically, the highest good is to know and thus experience union with the Highest Good. But the Highest Good is infinite. Perhaps by human nature a certain finite degree of knowledge of the Highest Good suffices, but if the intellect is by its nature open to expansion by the act of the Highest Good, then it could, indefinitely, spend eternity coming to know increasingly better the Highest Good by first becoming indefinitely expanded. This would be transcendence, this expansion of the human person beyond what is merely given by nature, but which, by nature, is open to expansion by the Highest Good.
Of course, we cannot attain this condition ourselves, as we cannot engineer our own transcendence. If we could, we would already be in possession of the cause, and thus it would already be part of our nature and therefore not transcendent (the effect is, after all, virtually in the cause; you cannot give what you do not have). This makes transhumanism a fool's errand, as we can only cripple or deform humanity in our quixotic attempts to lift ourselves by our own bootstraps, unlike medicine, which only restores what is already due by nature, but is for some reason missing and in a state of defect.
Assuming this is true, then only eternal life would suffice. Anything less, merely life extension, would not change our fundamental condition, only postpone what was always inevitable. Death would remain an obstacle. But nothing in this world attains this eternal state. As I've said, technology cannot attain this end. Only the Highest Good would have this power, and thus something beyond our power to control and use. Furthermore, there is no one on this planet who can be said to have received this eternal state, at least no one walking among us that we can see. So either this eternal state is possible only after death, which means death is not non-existence but some kind of transition, or it cannot be attained. The first gives reason for at least some hope, the latter is world-weary hopelessness, an absurd condition in which Man is condemned to seek an end he cannot possibly arrive at by any means, but must seek if he is to live.