It appears to me that all this establishes is that there is a logically possible world I'm which your conclusion is true.

What it does not do is establish that the logically possible world is *this* world, or that it even exists in reality at all.

Platinga may find his mental masturbation satisfying, I for one do not.

You cannot name ONE function that a mind does, that does not require a brain.

YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE EDUCATION QUESTION.

Your C1 does NOT follow from your P1 and P2.
You have asserted that it does, (apparently because you lack ANY science education). But you have in no way demonstrated it is actually possible. (Attempted) "proof by assertion" is utterly worthless, in rational discourse.

They are EXACTLY the same in every aspect.
You saying they aren't, is the same as my saying "the moon is made of green cheese".

Modal logic is crap. Relativity, Uncertainty, and the maths of Dirac, (matrices, tensor transformations), and others mathematicians, have proven than what appears to be "logical" to human brains is unreliable in the determination of what is, or is not, real. Human brains evolved to work in a limited bandwidth of what is real, and "logic" could only determine what might be real in a small "macro" bandwidth. The only reliable thing left is EVIDENCE. You have none. Logic, and least of all the shit logic of "modal logic", is a nice game philosophers fap with, but is not a valid way for determining reality.

---

(October 6, 2013 at 1:00 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(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.

Right.
How much "modal" supper are you going to eat this evening ?
Modal my ass.

---

(October 6, 2013 at 1:09 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: 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.

Which is exactly why I asked the science education question, which he evades.

(October 6, 2013 at 11:12 am)Rational AKD Wrote:

(October 6, 2013 at 10:16 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: 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.

So your result is that the mind is as likely to exist separate from the brain as glittery unicorns flying around Bucky's head!

(October 6, 2013 at 11:12 am)Rational AKD Wrote:

(October 6, 2013 at 10:16 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: You didn't answer the science education question.

i thought you were facetious since it really doesn't matter in a philosophical discussion..

Dodge!

What's wrong? Not smart enough to pass a few college courses but want to annoy us with your inanity?

Better yet if dualism is true then how do you explain the results of wilder penfeild and his Montreal procedure?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilder_Penfield

(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.

Sorry, nothing scientific about this at all. It is mental masturbation. "We" are merely what we call "I" being our brain in motion. Once the structure is no longer functioning, you are dead. You are your brain in motion, nothing more.

(October 6, 2013 at 3:38 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(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.

Sorry, nothing scientific about this at all. It is mental masturbation. "We" are merely what we call "I" being our brain in motion. Once the structure is no longer functioning, you are dead. You are your brain in motion, nothing more.

And actually what we are "conscious" of, ("consciousness" is also not precisely a correct/precise term), is, by the time we put it together, actually in the past. We perceive what we label as "consciousness", but what that really is, is an "assemblage" of distinct elements, and is what we WERE, a few nanoseconds ago, (and maybe further back than that). It actually takes time to assemble all the pieces of sensory input, reference them to memory, and sort out the input, to make sense of the input, and create a picture. We don't notice all that's going on, but many brain processes are happening all at once, most of which are beneath consciousness. An infant has to learn to put the pieces of sensory input together. Nothing of that is possible without functioning brain cells, and structures. I think one the Nobel prizes last year went to a couple guys who work on the epigenetics of memory. Fascinating stuff. Ira Flatou interviewed them on Science Friday, somewhat recently.

Hey I know.
The Modal Diet.
I'ma gonna write me a new diet book.
Make a frickin' fortune.
:p






meow

(October 5, 2013 at 11:52 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: this is another complex argument developed by Plantinga.

The problem I have with Plantinga is that although his arguments are complex as you describe, they don't really achieve anything other than showing stuff as "possible".

I mean, it's "possible" that there is a large amount of gold buried under my house right now, and I could probably create a complex argument to show that, but it doesn't mean I should go and dig up the foundations.

It's all very well and good showing that stuff is possible, but when dealing with reality, you also need to show how likely stuff is, and unfortunately for Plantinga here, there is overwhelming evidence that the mind is part of the internal workings of the brain.

(October 6, 2013 at 9:18 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(October 5, 2013 at 11:52 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: this is another complex argument developed by Plantinga.

The problem I have with Plantinga is that although his arguments are complex as you describe, they don't really achieve anything other than showing stuff as "possible".

Exactly.

There isn't even a method to discern probabilities.

I sure hope that AKD isn't going to post Plantinga's modal ontological argument next.

AKD, if you are, please don't. It's really tedious.

These philosophical arguments are are not designed to convert nonbelievers. They are designed to convince the already convinced.

Chas, prove that mental properties are emergent. As opposed to received or having preexisting harmony.

(October 7, 2013 at 1:49 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Chas, prove that mental properties are emergent. As opposed to received or having preexisting harmony.

What does it mean for a mental property to have 'harmony', and which mental properties are you referring to?