(March 12, 2016 at 8:13 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So let's consider what conclusion should be reached, using the OP's linked argument. We have brains, and all of the evidence available suggests an inextricable correlation between them. No evidence at all exists that suggests that the mind is separate from the brain, can exist without a brain, or is in any way supernatural, and in many cases the available evidence directly contradicts these claims.
Let us also accept that yes, correlation does not uniformly map to identity. While this is true, it also fails to take into account the state of the evidence at our disposal: given what we know about the brain and minds, would it be rational to throw all that away because it's possible (yet unevidenced) that it's only a correlation and not a case of the two being identical? Should we reverse the burden of proof and say that because we haven't proven that possibility wrong, it's anywhere near as valid as the other conclusion, that fits with all the evidence? Should we conclude that the two are separate, at all?
The answer, on all counts, is no. We must follow where the evidence leads, not ignore the evidence because it's not yet complete and perfect.
The author wasn't arguing that we should accept dualism. He wasn't arguing even that materialism shouldn't believed in. He was simply saying the arguments against dualism are all fallacious and baseless.
As I said, he is an Atheist, and he use to rely on some of the fallacious arguments.
