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.