I'll give you this much. Your arguments are trite but you present them intelligently enough. It's a shame that you waste your intellect arguing for Christianity when its mainstream manifestations exist to lead its followers to self abnegation. You don't appreciate what you are or at least you don't respect it.

(October 6, 2013 at 1:47 am)whateverist Wrote: 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?

I don't necessarily mean a thing apart from the brain. it could be a part of the brain, but that's not necessarily the case. it could also be a part of the brain that can separate from it. and I said thing, not object.

(October 6, 2013 at 1:56 am)Rational AKD Wrote:

(October 6, 2013 at 1:47 am)whateverist Wrote: 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?

I don't necessarily mean a thing apart from the brain. it could be a part of the brain, but that's not necessarily the case. it could also be a part of the brain that can separate from it. and I said thing, not object.

It is every bit as much a process. Cognition is a process. Memory is a process. Emotions are events. Why do you call it a thing if digestion is not a thing?

(October 6, 2013 at 1:54 am)whateverist Wrote: I'll give you this much. You're arguments are trite but you present them intelligently enough. It's a shame that you waste your intellect arguing for Christianity when its mainstream manifestations exist to lead its followers to self abnegation. You don't appreciate what you are or at least you don't respect it.

I don't think my arguments are trite at all, in the aspect that they are overused. as for your disappointment, I don't care what the mainstream of Christianity does. I follow the truth wherever it leads, and I find true Christianity to be the most rational. I will not judge the few by the many.

---

as it says in 1 Corinthians 14:20 "brothers, stop being childish in your thinking. Be like infants with respect to evil, but think like adults." rational is not contrary to Christian teachings.

"Conceivable possibilties" do not cut it. Xtians have invented a god who came back from the dead and flew up to heaven. Its absurd but they did conceive it.

Evidence requires facts...not supposition.

(October 6, 2013 at 2:14 am)Minimalist Wrote: "Conceivable possibilties" do not cut it. Xtians have invented a god who came back from the dead and flew up to heaven. Its absurd but they did conceive it.

Evidence requires facts...not supposition.

you obviously don't grasp the concept of the argument. this may be because you don't have an understanding of modal logic. I suggest you start here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTE29cFurYw
as for your God objection, you may think it absurd but that doesn't make it logically absurd.

(October 5, 2013 at 11:52 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: 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.

The fallacy is strong in this one.

1. Strawman Fallacy - Atheists argue mind-brain equivalence, not mind-brain identicality. If you show an atheist the brain of a dead person, he would typically not argue that it is a mind as well. He would not regard chunks of neurons as mental events. When someone says "mind is brain", it is a trite way of saying "a functioning brain gives rise to the phenomenon identified as mind". This distinction should be obvious after reading the explanation of any monist philosophy. Thus, the claim you are trying to disprove has never been made in the first place.

2. Fallacy of Equivocation - In your "objections" 1 and 3, you equivocate between "possible" and "conceivably possible". That something is conceivable does not prove it is possible (Its relation to logical incoherency is explained in the next argument). "Conceivably possible" means that it is possible to conceive of such a thing and that conceivability depends upon an individual's power of imagination and the factual premises he chooses to ignore. That does not make what he conceives actually possible

3. Argument from Ignorance - Or rather, argument from willful ignorance. By ignoring an aspect of an entity's essential nature - typically, an aspect not within direct perception - what would otherwise be logically incoherent becomes "conceivably possible". The trick is simple - ignore an essential aspect of an entity's identity, substitute is with something similar so that it appears the same and the previously inconceivable becomes "conceivably possible". For example, having never heard the official definition of a bachelor, suppose I identify a bachelor as "someone with no apparent permanent companion, living alone, hanging out with similar friends, picking up girls, partying etc." - then the idea of a married bachelor becomes "conceivably possible". Similarly, for a blind man, having never seen the visual representation of a circle and only knowing it as a shape with no vertices, the idea of "square circles" or "triangular circles" is equally conceivable. Similarly, ignore that the DNA makeup of a horse is essential to defining what constitutes a horse and ignore that that DNA makeup does not support feathers - and suddenly, Pegasus is no longer logically incoherent but "conceivably possible".

You are doing the same thing here. As do the movies depicting mind-switches, transference or astral projection. Ignore the essential functional nature of the mind which requires the physical functioning system called brain - regard it, instead, as a disembodied spirit - and suddenly, mind acting independently of the brain becomes "conceivably possible". However, the fact remains that conceiving of something by ignoring its factual nature does not change the factual nature - thus separating what is conceivable from what is possible.

4. Circular Reasoning - Which is, basically, what this whole argument is in an elaborate form. For the very first premise to be true, i.e. in order to conceive of mind acting independently from brain, you have to assume that mind and brain are two separate and distinct entities. Without that assumption, the very first premise would be logically incoherent. Thus, you are implicitly assuming from the start that mind and brain are distinct entities and concluding, based on that assumption, that mind and brain are not the same thing.

Poor showing. A very poor showing.

Hardware isn't software + Data.

If your hard drive crashes, however its gone man, its just gone.

Unless God keeps regular backups of course.

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

I'm still not fully read up on modal logic, so please forgive me if I make a silly statement... but isn't this begging the question? So the big question is if the mind(/conscience/soul?) is separate from the physical body i.e. brain. But then without even knowing if the mind exists as a separate entity, it seems like this argument is valid only because of semantics i.e. the mind is *really* the brain, but because of the different label and the question-begging of such a thing even existing, it seems like we have the "mind" possibly being separate to the brain.

---

I'm going out on a limb here... but I just had this crazy thought:

1) The brain needs chemical energy to function
2) The mind is not the brain
3) Therefore, the mind does not need chemical energy to function
4) The mind commands our physical body to move
5) Our physical bodies require chemical energy to move
6) Therefore, energy is being *created* whenever the mind commands the body to move
C) Energy can be created by the mind

(October 6, 2013 at 2:59 am)genkaus Wrote: The fallacy is strong in this one.

1. Strawman Fallacy - Atheists argue mind-brain equivalence, not mind-brain identicality. If you show an atheist the brain of a dead person, he would typically not argue that it is a mind as well. He would not regard chunks of neurons as mental events. When someone says "mind is brain", it is a trite way of saying "a functioning brain gives rise to the phenomenon identified as mind". This distinction should be obvious after reading the explanation of any monist philosophy. Thus, the claim you are trying to disprove has never been made in the first place.

there are atheists who use such arguments, so it's not a straw man.

Quote:2. Fallacy of Equivocation - In your "objections" 1 and 3, you equivocate between "possible" and "conceivably possible". That something is conceivable does not prove it is possible (Its relation to logical incoherency is explained in the next argument). "Conceivably possible" means that it is possible to conceive of such a thing and that conceivability depends upon an individual's power of imagination and the factual premises he chooses to ignore. That does not make what he conceives actually possible

both mean conceivably possible. objection 1 is concerning P1 which directly says it's conceivable possibility. this whole argument is a modal argument which uses the modal definitions. the definition of possible in modal logic is "not necessary negation" or "not necessary to be impossible." and actually yes, conceivable possibility does mean relation to logical incoherency. a unicorn is conceivably possible, it is logically coherent. a square circle is conceivably impossible, it is logically incoherent. factual premises don't matter because we're talking about "any possible world" which means any factual premise that is not necessary but is rather contingent doesn't make it impossible. look up modal logic.

Quote:3. Argument from Ignorance - Or rather, argument from willful ignorance. By ignoring an aspect of an entity's essential nature - typically, an aspect not within direct perception - what would otherwise be logically incoherent becomes "conceivably possible".

you really don't know what you're talking about do you? i'm not ignoring any part of its nature. i'm pointing our a single aspect of its nature that is different. it doesn't matter if it's a modal property of its nature, it doesn't matter if other properties are the same, one difference means they are not the same.

Quote:For example, having never heard the official definition of a bachelor, suppose I identify a bachelor as "someone with no apparent permanent companion, living alone, hanging out with similar friends, picking up girls, partying etc." - then the idea of a married bachelor becomes "conceivably possible".

do you even know what you're saying. someone who is married has a permanent companion, which makes a married bachelor conceivably impossible.
also, i'm not ignoring definitions of mind and brain. more importantly, i'm not showing something that is actually conceivably impossible into something conceivably possible. mind existing without brain is already conceivably possible as I showed in objection 3. I use that possibility to show a difference in properties of mind and brain. it is conceivably possible for the mind to exist without the brain, it's not for the brain to exist without the brain. that means there is one property (a modal property of possibility) that is different therefore they are not the same.

Quote:and suddenly, Pegasus is no longer logically incoherent but "conceivably possible".

a Pegasus is logically coherent because it is not a horse, so of course it won't have the DNA of a horse. it's also 'conceivably possible.'
also, you need to know what an argument from ignorance is. it's when you say "no evidence for A therefore not A" or "no evidence against A therefore A."
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

Quote:4. Circular Reasoning - Which is, basically, what this whole argument is in an elaborate form. For the very first premise to be true, i.e. in order to conceive of mind acting independently from brain, you have to assume that mind and brain are two separate and distinct entities.

there are two types of circular reasoning. circular reasoning that begs the question, and circular reasoning that is the result of deductive reasoning. in deductive reasoning, the conclusion is hidden in the premises waiting to be reveled by the rules of logic. if i said that P1 is true because they are separate, then i would be begging the question. but i give reasons for P1 in objection 3.

(October 6, 2013 at 4:08 am)max-greece Wrote: Hardware isn't software + Data.

If your hard drive crashes, however its gone man, its just gone.

that's assuming the mind and brain have the same relationship as hardware and software. that is not necessarily the case.