Modal Argument: The Mind is Not the Brain

[Chas]

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.

No, I haven't seen anyone assert that the brain and mind are the same thing. The premise fails, and your argument falls.

Mind is an emergent property of the brain - it depends on the brain.

[Rational AKD]

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?

it would only be begging the question if I said P1 is supported by the conclusion. but P1 is supported by the reasons in objection 3, that we can coherently conceive a mind separate from the body. which means, in a modal sense, there is at least one possible world where the mind exists without the body. there is no possible world where the brain exists without the brain. therefore, the conclusion follows that they are not the same.

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.

it's not just semantics. the fact that we can coherently conceive of mind existing without body means there are possible worlds where they exist separate. that is something impossible for the brain. therefore they are not the same.

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

premise 6 doesn't follow from premise 5 because the mind can be connected to the brain without chemical energy being shared between the two. the only necessity for premise 5 is chemical energy being sent from brain to body.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Every time I run across the term 'conceivably possible' is an otherwise well constructed argument, I can't help but feel that the arguer is desperately trying to find a justification - any justification - to hold onto some cherished notion that the real world continually grinds into a fine powder.

There has never been any evidence whatsoever that minds function independently of brains, so Alvin asserts that it is 'conceivably possible' that they do, and Alvin doesn't have to cry himself to sleep at night. Modal logic is the philosopher's equivalent of a security blanket.

As mentioned above, the mind is an emergent property of the brain. By way of analogy, I have a motorcycle ('68 Electraglide - envy me) that is sitting quietly in my garage. At the moment, it has no emergent properties, only quiescent ones. Yet I can start it up and so create the emergent property of 70 kph. But the 70 kph doesn't exist until and unless the bike functions. You can do any tests you like around a non-operant motorcycle and you'll never detect 70 kph. But if it makes you uncomfortable, all you need do is declare that it is 'conceivably possible' that a motorbike which is sitting still, not moving, not operating in any detectable way, is somehow generating 70 kph.

Tonnes of things are 'conceivably possible'. For all you lot know, I'm an eight-foot tall trillionaire with fully functioning wings and corkscrew-shaped genitalia. It is 'conceivably possible', isn't it?

What Alvin has given us isn't so much an argument for mind-brain separation as a dolled-up way of saying, 'C'mon, guys...'

Boru

[genkaus]

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

Really? Name one atheist on the forum who, upon looking at the autopsied brain, would argue that it is also a mind. Or if you are talking about an atheist off this forum, provide his name with his testimony.

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.

You equivocate between "possible" and "conceivably possible" in your argument - that's fallacy of equivocation. If you stipulate to your use of possible meaning "conceivably possible", then your argument becomes the following.

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(meaning conceivably possible).

P1: it is possible (meaning conceivably possible) for the mind to act independently of the brain.
...rest of the crap...
Conclusion: the mind and the brain are not the same thing, therefore it is possible(meaning conceivably possible) for the mind to function independent of the brain.

That is, your argument becomes another form of circular reasoning.

Simply saying you are using modal logic does not excuse your fallacies.

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.

The basis on which your difference is conceivable is ignoring the fundamental nature of mind - thus argument from willful ignorance.

do you even know what you're saying. someone who is married has a permanent companion, which makes a married bachelor conceivably impossible.

No, he doesn't. A person can be married and live apart from his wife - thus making a married bachelor conceivably possible.

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.

Your "mind existing without brain" is conceivably possible in the same way a "married bachelor" is conceivably possible. Both ignore the basic nature of mind and bachelor. That's the ignorance you are showing in "objection 3".

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.'

Except, Pegasus is a horse, by definition - thus logically incoherent and yet, "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."

Seems to fit your argument just fine. Except for the part about ignoring evidence - thus argument from willful ignorance.

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.

And the reason given was that that the idea that mind can function independently of the brain has been conceived by various stories/movies which presume mind-brain dichotomy. Thus, begging the question.

[Rational AKD]

Really? Name one atheist on the forum who, upon looking at the autopsied brain, would argue that it is also a mind. Or if you are talking about an atheist off this forum, provide his name with his testimony.

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.

If you stipulate to your use of possible meaning "conceivably possible", then your argument becomes the following.

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(meaning conceivably possible).

P1: it is possible (meaning conceivably possible) for the mind to act independently of the brain.
...rest of the crap...
Conclusion: the mind and the brain are not the same thing, therefore it is possible(meaning conceivably possible) for the mind to function independent of the brain.

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.

The basis on which your difference is conceivable is ignoring the fundamental nature of mind - thus argument from willful ignorance.

what nature of mind am I ignoring?

No, he doesn't. A person can be married and live apart from his wife - thus making a married bachelor conceivably possible.

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.

Your "mind existing without brain" is conceivably possible in the same way a "married bachelor" is conceivably possible.

no, it's not. I can use the actual definitions of mind and brain whereas you had to redefine them.

Except, Pegasus is a horse, by definition - thus logically incoherent and yet, "conceivably possible".

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.

And the reason given was that that the idea that mind can function independently of the brain has been conceived by various stories/movies which presume mind-brain dichotomy. Thus, begging the question.

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.

[Tonus]

Every time I run across the term 'conceivably possible' is an otherwise well constructed argument, I can't help but feel that the arguer is desperately trying to find a justification - any justification - to hold onto some cherished notion that the real world continually grinds into a fine powder.

When you think about it, "conceivably possible" is the fundamental basis for religion.

[Bucky Ball]

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.

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

it is against the philosophical position as naturalistic materialism.

Digestion. It is not the gastrointestinal tract.

digestion is a process, a mind is a thing.

Really ?
Show me one.


thing
noun
1.
a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object.



meow

[Rational AKD]

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. P2 shows it is not conceivably possible for the brain to exist apart from the brain. and C1 states this means there is 1 aspect that makes them different. understand so far? any objections to C1? P3 is uncontroversial since its a rewording of Liebniz' law. then C2 logically follows from C1 and P3. C2 states the mind and the brain are not the same. this is not equivalent to saying it is possible they act independently of each other. C2 is supported by C1 and P3. C1 is supported by P1 and P2. P3 is uncontroversial. P2 is uncontroversial. P1 is supported by the fact that we can conceive the mind apart from the brain as a coherent thought. P1 doesn't logically entail C2 without P2, C1, and P3.
is this clear enough?

---

Really ?
Show me one.


thing
noun
1.
a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object.



meow

the definition of thing I was using was actually this one.

An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thing

[Bucky Ball]

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. P2 shows it is not conceivably possible for the brain to exist apart from the brain. and C1 states this means there is 1 aspect that makes them different. understand so far? any objections to C1? P3 is uncontroversial since its a rewording of Liebniz' law. then C2 logically follows from C1 and P3. C2 states the mind and the brain are not the same. this is not equivalent to saying it is possible they act independently of each other. C2 is supported by C1 and P3. C1 is supported by P1 and P2. P3 is uncontroversial. P2 is uncontroversial. P1 is supported by the fact that we can conceive the mind apart from the brain as a coherent thought. P1 doesn't logically entail C2 without P2, C1, and P3.
is this clear enough?

---

Really ?
Show me one.


thing
noun
1.
a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object.



meow

the definition of thing I was using was actually this one.

An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thing

Exactly.

What you are doing is committing the Reification fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29

What exactly is your highest education level in Neuroscience, or Neurobiology or Neurochemistry, or even basic Biology ?

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.

[Rational AKD]

What you are doing is committing the Reification fallacy.

I didn't treat the mind as though it were a concrete material object. there are only 2 things I said about the mind. "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.

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.