tdogg: Exactly! But we only have 5 known receptors with which to gather data, and they all rely on physical detection. Gonna have to give you a fallacy for the whole "God, by definition" part though #5 Argumentum ad ignorantium
I submit that we have 5 known receptors and are not certain we know them all. I further submit that while we know those five, we only understand the rudiments of what exactly is sensed by each. We know the ears pick up sound waves, but we don't know that this is all they do (for instance). The same applies to the olfactory glands, the tongue/taste buds, our skin (tactile transmission and reception), and even our eyes.
Those things that are received which are physical are all we have detected, but to be fair these are also (conveniently) the only things the Scientific Method is suitable for detecting. Are you unwilling to allow even the possibility of a basic limitation in the method itself that may cripple its ability to explore all of reality, including the subjective?
You cannot prove, scientifically, that you have a capacity for love. You can only report that to be true. You also cannot scientifically prove that love exists. You can only report that you feel it. Therefore, the Scientific Method has flaws in its effectiveness for discovery of all reality. It is demonstrably self-limiting in its scope.
You state, "They all rely on physical detection." Which you know for sure, because the Scientific Method has been used to prove it so. And yet, the Scientific Method CAN ONLY DETECT physical reality, so how could it possibly be used to exclude anything else? You present a logical fallacy and you don't even know it. One which, due to overuse, has become a fact of Science. It isn't really your fault. Everyone knows that you are right.
I am sure you grasp the conflict, even within the rules of discovery. You have designed Deep Thought, now you need to use it to design a better discoverer.
Respectfully,
OldSoul