this is another complex argument developed by Plantinga. it uses modal logic so it may be difficult for some of you to grasp. since it seems many people misunderstand the purpose of my prior arguments, i'm going to be more clairvoyant with my arguments by establishing the purpose before I share the argument.
Purpose: many atheists claim the afterlife is impossible since the mind and the brain are the same. my aim is specifically against those claims, showing they are in fact not the same and establishing the independent function of the mind from the brain is possible.
Argument:
P1: it is possible (meaning conceivably possible) for the mind to act independently of the brain.
P2: it is impossible for the brain to act independently of the brain.
C1: there is an aspect of the mind that is different from the brain (P1, P2).
P3: if two things are the same (meaning same identity), they must have exactly the same aspects and properties. if there is a single aspect that is different, then the two are not the same.
C2: the mind and the brain are not the same (C1, P3).
Conclusion: the mind and the brain are not the same thing, therefore it is possible for the mind to function independent of the brain.

Objections:
1. this doesn't prove the mind can function independent of the brain-- correct. it only proves it's possible, which is all this argument aspires to establish.
2. but what happens to the brain can affect what happens to the mind, so that proves they are the same-- that may be true, but that only establishes a connection not an equivalence. the brain can affect the mind without being the same as the mind.
3. P1 is false therefore both conclusions are also false-- in that premise I was speaking of conceivable possibility. it would be easier to understand that with some basic knowledge of modal logic. what it means though, is we can conceive of such a thing happening without creating a logical incoherence. it can be shown that it is not incoherent by the numerous stories/movies of people who have their minds switched, or transferred, or astral project. we can conceive of such things without thinking it incoherent, therefore it is conceivably possible.

You are lost as far as worthiness to talk to in an rational, truth seeking way when you mentioned Plantinga.

(October 6, 2013 at 12:02 am)Chuck Wrote: You are lost as far as worthiness to talk to in an rational, truth seeking way when you mentioned Plantinga.

first, what's wrong with Plantinga? second, to dismiss an argument because of its source is a genetic fallacy. I hope you'll consider the argument on its own merits.

(October 6, 2013 at 12:05 am)Rational AKD Wrote:

(October 6, 2013 at 12:02 am)Chuck Wrote: You are lost as far as worthiness to talk to in an rational, truth seeking way when you mentioned Plantinga.

first, what's wrong with Plantinga? second, to dismiss an argument because of its source is a genetic fallacy. I hope you'll consider the argument on its own merits.

Fuck off.

To show you are not just a bag of disingenuous hot air, like Plantinga, prove there is any aspect of mind that is not an aspect of the emergent property of the brain.

Quote:P1: it is possible (meaning conceivably possible) for the mind to act independently of the brain.

Evidence to sustain this position? Without evidence the premise is merely a preposterous assertion.

(October 6, 2013 at 12:26 am)Chuck Wrote: Prove there is any aspect of mind that is not an aspect of the actual brain, as oppose to not an aspect of the notional brain that you in your limited, plantinga spouting ignorance, had conceived of.

i don't have to. all I need to do is show a single aspect of deference. if one has a modal possibility that the other doesn't, that still counts as a difference proving they don't have the same identity. they don't necessarily need to be property differences to count as a difference. if something is possible for the mind but not the brain, then they are not the same.

---

(October 6, 2013 at 12:30 am)Minimalist Wrote: Evidence to sustain this position? Without evidence the premise is merely a preposterous assertion.

I gave my evidence in objection 3.

The mind is what we perceive as our brain. The brain is the biological entity that allows this perception. They're not one and the same, but the mind depends on the brain, we don't know yet, but I'm inclined to think it depends COMPLETELY on the brain. Meaning no brain=no mind.

They don't need to be one and the same. And they're quite obviously not.

(October 6, 2013 at 12:41 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: The mind is what we perceive as our brain. The brain is the biological entity that allows this perception. They're not one and the same, but the mind depends on the brain, we don't know yet, but I'm inclined to think it depends COMPLETELY on the brain. Meaning no brain=no mind.

They don't need to be one and the same. And they're quite obviously not.

that may be possible, but that doesn't mean the mind completely necessitates the brain. the argument aspires to show that it is possible for the mind to be independent of the brain whereas many atheists say it's not since they're the same thing.

I think you just broke Liebniz' law. Isst kaput.

(October 6, 2013 at 12:46 am)apophenia Wrote:

I think you just broke Liebniz' law. Isst kaput.

Liebenz' law is actually what substantiates P3.

Quote:If x is identical to y, then for any property x has, y has and for any property y has, x has.

this means if the mind is identical to the brain, then any property the mind has the brain has. if the mind has a property the brain doesn't, then they are not identical.