Modal Argument: The Mind is Not the Brain

[pocaracas]

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

How about you prove they are received or having preexisting harmony?

[Esquilax]

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

Yeah, see, when we have a brain, and every time that brain is damaged the mental properties in it are affected, in some cases outright bifurcated in the case of split brain patients, and when pumping chemicals into the body causes altered states of consciousness, and when cutting out pieces of the brain can sometimes change a personality or how those mental properties operate, and when sufficient brain damage causes mental properties to cease, and when we can map changes in mood and reactions to external stimuli directly onto the brain, and a bunch of other things, the natural conclusion one comes to is that mental properties are tied to the brain they live in.

Your claim has no evidence- that I have seen- backing it, and so I'm more interested in how you would go about justifying it as a contention against what we know to be true about the interactions between the brain and the mind. And even what "recieved" mental properties having a "preexisting harmony" even means.

[Chas]

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

Received from where? And what is 'preexisting harmony'?

[Simon Moon]

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

Oh please...

Provide a single example of a mind without a physical substrate (brain).

No unsupported assertions please. Demonstrable evidence.

And no, the silly argument of the OP does not support the claim that a mind can exist minus a brain.

[bennyboy]

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

Oh please...

Provide a single example of a mind without a physical substrate (brain).

No unsupported assertions please. Demonstrable evidence.

And no, the silly argument of the OP does not support the claim that a mind can exist minus a brain.

That's a silly request. We don't actually have any way of KNOWING something/someone has a mind except by talking to them. The same goes for near-death experiences: nobody ever reported one who didn't have a working brain.

Show me proof that any brain has an actual mind associated with it, and doesn't just seem to.

[Brian37]

Oh please...

Provide a single example of a mind without a physical substrate (brain).

No unsupported assertions please. Demonstrable evidence.

And no, the silly argument of the OP does not support the claim that a mind can exist minus a brain.

That's a silly request. We don't actually have any way of KNOWING something/someone has a mind except by talking to them. The same goes for near-death experiences: nobody ever reported one who didn't have a working brain.

Show me proof that any brain has an actual mind associated with it, and doesn't just seem to.

The only credence I could attach to the word "mind" would be nothing more than a placecard metaphor for what we observe about our brains when they are in motion, but "mind" is not a separate thing or even an actually physical thing. In reality all we are is our brain in motion. Much like we say 55 miles per hour when describing the speed of the car in motion.

It just doesn't sound sexy to say "you have a beautiful brain" so "mind" is a romantic placebo word to avoid the reality that we are merely our brains in motion.

[Brakeman]

Oh please...

Provide a single example of a mind without a physical substrate (brain).

No unsupported assertions please. Demonstrable evidence.

That's a silly request. We don't actually have any way of KNOWING something/someone has a mind except by talking to them.

Yes, we do. Strap sensing electrodes to an animal. Poke him with a cattle prod once every 15 seconds but turn it on only every 5th poke or so. The anxiety rise between the fourth and fifth poke is evidence of a thinking mind. This test can be extrapolated and can measure various levels in complexity of thought. The more complex the pattern - the higher level of sentience.

[Captain Colostomy]

That sounds like classic B.F. Skinner sadism to me. *shudders*

[Lion IRC]

first, what's wrong with Plantinga? second, to dismiss an argument because of its source is a genetic fallacy. I hope you'll consider the argument on its own merits.

Fuck off.

To show you are not just a bag of disingenuous hot air, like Plantinga, prove there is any aspect of mind that is not an aspect of the emergent property of the brain.

...it kind of sounds like you expect to be treated with insults and rudeness just because you're a Christian on an atheist website. We don't really swing that way. We show everyone the same respect that they show us, but we don't respect false arguments, baseless assertions, or preaching. So as long as you don't do any of those you should get along OK here.

[Lemonvariable72]

Fuck off.

To show you are not just a bag of disingenuous hot air, like Plantinga, prove there is any aspect of mind that is not an aspect of the emergent property of the brain.

...it kind of sounds like you expect to be treated with insults and rudeness just because you're a Christian on an atheist website. We don't really swing that way. We show everyone the same respect that they show us, but we don't respect false arguments, baseless assertions, or preaching. So as long as you don't do any of those you should get along OK here.

Okay one forum member got rude, your point?
If you are trying to say that atheists on here are rude to Christians for being Christian, then you are mistaken. Its the holier then thou attitude I think.