(October 6, 2013 at 10:02 am)Rational AKD Wrote: "P1: it is possible (meaning conceivably possible) for the mind to act independently of the brain." this doesn't make it a concrete or material object. it makes it the idea of our consciousness, and says it is conceivably possible for it to function apart from the brain IE mind switch, mind transfer, astral projection etc. "C2: the mind and the brain are not the same (C1, P3)." which still doesn't make it a concrete or material object.

Quote:There is NO, (NOT one) example in all of medicine, where an injured brain continues to function normally, or apart from intact physical brain structures.

yes, and this is supported by P2 of the argument: "P2: it is impossible for the brain to act independently of the brain." so you are correct, the brain cannot act normally apart from physical brain structures.

Now you're equivocating the Reification fallacy.
It is NOT conceivable, (to anyone who has an education in science) to "conceive" that brain functions occur apart from brains.

Seriously "mind transfer", "astral projection", ??? Woo-woo. You're really THAT desperate ? Being able to "conceive" of woo woo, in no way means it exists. I can "conceive" of glittery unicorns .... oh please.
Your P1 is false. "Mind" is a *concept*. You YOURSELF just said it was a *THING*. THAT IS the Reification fallacy.
"Mind" is a pre-scientific concept used by humans who knew nothing about Neuroscience.
Name ONE function or action of a "mind" that happens in the absence of a normally functioning brain.

You didn't answer the science education question.

I know where you're going with this.
If you can get anyone to agree there is a "mind" it is a small step to "soul".

BTW, "soul" is not a Biblical concept. The Hebrews did not believe in immortality. Sheol was not hell.
All "shades" (in the Bible) , good shades, and bad shades were "dormant" in Sheol. "Shades" were not souls.
Saul of Tarsus thought only the saved were immortal.

Psalm 39 :
"Turn your gaze away from me, that I may smile again,
before I depart, and am no more"
Psalm 115 :
The dead do not praise the Lord,
nor do any that go down into silence".

I thought Christians believed in the Bible ?
I guess I was wrong.

(October 6, 2013 at 8:54 am)Rational AKD Wrote: you don't know of any that doesn't mean there aren't. a straw man is committed when I fabricate an argument and present it as an opponent's argument and claim them defeated. in this case, I had no particular opponent, and I didn't say it was any particular person's argument. so I didn't commit a straw man.

The question isn't if I know of any, the question is if you do. And apparently, you don't.

If you can't point to a real atheist actually making the mind-brain identicality argument (as opposed to simple equivalence), then you are fabricating the argument and you are presenting it as an opponent's (here referred to as certain atheists) argument and you are claiming them defeated. That is a quintessential strawman.

(October 6, 2013 at 8:54 am)Rational AKD Wrote: that is not what would be concluded. if you have 2 things A and B and there is one thing possible for A but not possible for B, then A and B are not the same.

You are the one who concluded that. That's your conclusion word for word. Are you now denying your own argument?

(October 6, 2013 at 8:54 am)Rational AKD Wrote: what nature of mind am I ignoring?

That it is a phenomenon dependent on a functioning brain.

(October 6, 2013 at 8:54 am)Rational AKD Wrote: first, a companion can be a companion without living together. second, changing definitions in your mind doesn't actually change the definitions. the reality is using the actual definitions, a married bachelor is conceivably impossible and logically impossible.

Glad we agree. Now apply the same standard to your own argument.

Ignoring mind's essential nature doesn't actually change its essential nature. That you can imagine mind as a disembodied spirit doesn't make it so - the same way my imagining a bachelor to be "man who lives alone" doesn't make it so. Which is why a mind independent of brain is as conceivably and logically impossible as a married bachelor.

(October 6, 2013 at 8:54 am)Rational AKD Wrote: no, it's not. I can use the actual definitions of mind and brain whereas you had to redefine them.

But you have to ignore the logical implications of those definitions - which is, in effect, a redefinition.

(October 6, 2013 at 8:54 am)Rational AKD Wrote: no, it is a winged horse. a winged horse isn't just a horse. there's an addition to its description making it different. since there is a difference between a Pegasus and a horse, they are not the same.

A descriptive addition does not change the essential nature of the entity. A red apple is still an apple and a winged horse is still a horse.

(October 6, 2013 at 8:54 am)Rational AKD Wrote: the movies show it is conceivably possible for the mind to exist without the body. in a modal sense, this means there is at least one possible world where the mind exists without the body. the conclusion is the mind and the body are not the same thing. the conclusion is not the same as the premise, but logically follows when coupled with all the other premises.

The movies presume that mind and body are two distinct, independent entities. Which is why they can conceive of mind existing independently form the body. Using that conceived possibility, you are attempting to show that mind and body are are two distinct entities. The conclusion is exactly the same as the premise. Thus, circular reasoning.

(October 6, 2013 at 10:16 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: Now you're equivocating the Reification fallacy.

equivocating the fallacy with what exactly?

Quote:It is NOT conceivable, (to anyone who has an education in science) to "conceive" that brain functions occur apart from brains.

which is exactly what P2 says. weren't you listening at all?

Quote: I can "conceive" of glittery unicorns

yes, and thus glittery unicorns are conceivably possible. which means in a modal sense, they exist in at least one possible world. concerning minds, that's all that's needed to substantiate P1.

Quote:Your P1 is false. "Mind" is a *concept*. You YOURSELF just said it was a *THING*. THAT IS the Reification fallacy.

the mind is the concept of your consciousness, self awareness, and thoughts. those match the definition of things.

Quote:Name ONE function or action of a "mind" that happens in the absence of a normally functioning brain.

just because they have the same functions and actions doesn't mean they are the same thing. they are only the same thing if they are exactly the same in every aspect, which C1 derived from P1 and P2 shows is not true.

Quote:You didn't answer the science education question.

i thought you were facetious since it really doesn't matter in a philosophical discussion.
the rest of your post is off topic and i am not going to go off topic on a ton of tangents just because you can come up with a list of 'problems' with Christianity.

(October 6, 2013 at 9:27 am)Rational AKD Wrote: in this post, I am going to try and explain to those who think this argument begs the question, exactly why it doesn't. first, the reasoning for P1 is not a part of the conclusion. P1 states it is conceivably possible for the mind to exist apart from the brain. it is supported by reasons in objection 3.

And the reasoning in objection 3 is not valid without assuming you conclusion.

(October 6, 2013 at 11:09 am)genkaus Wrote: The question isn't if I know of any, the question is if you do. And apparently, you don't.

I never said I didn't, so what makes you come to that conclusion? there are some that have said this that I've seen.

Quote:If you can't point to a real atheist actually making the mind-brain identicality argument (as opposed to simple equivalence)

they weren't so obvious as to point to a brain and say "that's a mind." when I claimed God is an un-embodied mind they said "so he's an immaterial brain."

Quote:You are the one who concluded that. That's your conclusion word for word. Are you now denying your own argument?

excuse me, I misread thinking you left parts out. the last bit is unnecessary, the conclusion should stand as "the mind and brain are not the same." that would be a mistake I made creating a redundancy since that was established as a part of P1.

Quote:That it is a phenomenon dependent on a functioning brain.

how do you know that to be a fact?

Quote:A descriptive addition does not change the essential nature of the entity. A red apple is still an apple and a winged horse is still a horse.

it does when the additional property makes it different than what it was. your example is a false analogy because you didn't add anything to the apple it didn't already have. all apples have color, no horses have wings. if you take a human, and you add bull features to its upper half, you no longer have a human. you have a Minatare. a Minatare is not a human, and a Pegasus is not a horse.

(October 6, 2013 at 11:43 am)Rational AKD Wrote: I never said I didn't, so what makes you come to that conclusion? there are some that have said this that I've seen.

Good. Prove it.

(October 6, 2013 at 11:43 am)Rational AKD Wrote: they weren't so obvious as to point to a brain and say "that's a mind." when I claimed God is an un-embodied mind they said "so he's an immaterial brain."

That doesn't sound like an mind-body identicality argument to me.

(October 6, 2013 at 11:43 am)Rational AKD Wrote: how do you know that to be a fact?

By looking at conclusions made by neuroscience.

(October 6, 2013 at 11:43 am)Rational AKD Wrote: it does when the additional property makes it different than what it was. your example is a false analogy because you didn't add anything to the apple it didn't already have. all apples have color, no horses have wings. if you take a human, and you add bull features to its upper half, you no longer have a human. you have a Minatare. a Minatare is not a human, and a Pegasus is not a horse.

Addition of wings don't make a horse a non-horse. Your example, too, is a false analogy because the addition of bull features in a Minotaur is accompanied by subtraction of human head. However, since nothing has been subtracted from the horse, it remains a horse.

I also see that you've ignored quite a few of my arguments. Does that mean you concede those points or are you simply pretending - I mean, possibly conceiving - that they don't exist?

AKD, I think I follow your reasoning, except for one detail that seems to go amok...
The part where you say ", they exist in at least one possible world." can be misleading, as this "possible world" is a hypothetical world, a fictional world... like Middle earth, or Never ever Land...
And when you call it a world, you then transpose the quality of that world onto our own... but only the quality you want... god.

@rAKD

Look how silly this sounds. And yet it's your exact argument.

(October 5, 2013 at 11:52 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: Argument:
P1: it is possible (meaning conceivably possible) for the horsepower to act independently of the engine.
P2: it is impossible for the engine to act independently of the engine.
C1: there is an aspect of the horsepower that is different from the engine (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 horsepower and the engine are not the same (C1, P3).
Conclusion: the horsepower and the engine are not the same thing, therefore it is possible for the horsepower to function independent of the engine.

I have easily demonstrated the lunacy of
your argument and conclusion by simply
exchanging the following two words...

'brain' - engine

'mind' - horsepower

The brain is the mechanism (engine) through
which the output (horsepower) is produced.
Simply put, no engine - no horsepower.

(October 6, 2013 at 11:12 am)Rational AKD Wrote: yes, and thus glittery unicorns are conceivably possible. which means in a modal sense, they exist in at least one possible world. concerning minds, that's all that's needed to substantiate P1.

Well, hold on: This "possible world" in no way needs to be our world. I can conceive of a great many things that can't exist in the world we actually live in, so a thing can be "conceivably possible" without being actually possible. You can't go around defining real world possibilities into existence with the imagination.

Can you provide any evidence to back up p1? As there is a body of evidence in neuroscience that refutes that such as emotion based MRI experiments.