"Humor. It is a difficult concept."

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

(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.

if it depends on the brain, then yes, the brain is necessary for the mind to function.

The mind has never been the same thing as the brain, that's why we have 2 different words for it. Most people get that. I don't know who you're referring to who says that the mind = the brain, either way I'm not obliged to defend someone who doesn't understand the meaning of words.

(October 6, 2013 at 1:03 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: The mind has never been the same thing as the brain, that's why we have 2 different words for it. Most people get that. I don't know who you're referring to who says that the mind = the brain, either way I'm not obliged to defend someone who doesn't understand the meaning of words.

I've talked to a few atheists who have said that. some have said it directly, and some have implied it by saying "you think God is an immaterial brain" as a parody of actual claims "God is an un-embodied mind."

And ... ?

I fail to see the point of this entire exercise, whoever thinks the mind = the brain obviously needs some english lessons. It's not a philosophical question.

(October 6, 2013 at 1:19 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: And ... ?

I fail to see the point of this entire exercise, whoever thinks the mind = the brain obviously needs some english lessons. It's not a philosophical question.

as I stated in the purpose, the aim is against those that do. you may think them irrational, but i'm simply using an argument to prove it. as they say, an argument convinces a reasonable man and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. this is a proof to attempt to convince the unreasonable.

philosophical arguments aren't proofs.

You still haven't said why this would be a philosophical question.

Digestion. It is not the gastrointestinal tract.

---

For those with god on their mind who might not get the connection ..

The mind, in other words our first person experience of consciousness, is what the brain does just as digestion is what the G.I. tract does.

(October 6, 2013 at 1:29 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: philosophical arguments aren't proofs.

a philosophical argument usually is not a proof because the argument usually can't be shown without a doubt to be sound. they can show without a doubt it is valid, but only show evidence supporting the premises. there is no reasonable doubt that the premises are false here.

Quote:You still haven't said why this would be a philosophical question.

it is against the philosophical position as naturalistic materialism.

(October 6, 2013 at 1:35 am)whateverist Wrote: Digestion. It is not the gastrointestinal tract.

digestion is a process, a mind is a thing.

(October 6, 2013 at 1:39 am)Rational AKD Wrote:

(October 6, 2013 at 1:35 am)whateverist Wrote: Digestion. It is not the gastrointestinal tract.

digestion is a process, a mind is a thing.

Seriously, the mind is a thing? Can you prove that? I assume you mean a thing apart from the brain. What does it weigh? What color is it? What's its shape? Is it organic? Oh and what is its location?

If the mind is a thing, where does it go when you're given anesthesia for surgery? Or when you are knocked unconscious? Or go into a dreamless sleep?