Modal Argument: The Mind is Not the Brain

[Rational AKD]

The fallacy is strong in this one.

1. Strawman Fallacy - Atheists argue mind-brain equivalence, not mind-brain identicality. If you show an atheist the brain of a dead person, he would typically not argue that it is a mind as well. He would not regard chunks of neurons as mental events. When someone says "mind is brain", it is a trite way of saying "a functioning brain gives rise to the phenomenon identified as mind". This distinction should be obvious after reading the explanation of any monist philosophy. Thus, the claim you are trying to disprove has never been made in the first place.

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

2. Fallacy of Equivocation - In your "objections" 1 and 3, you equivocate between "possible" and "conceivably possible". That something is conceivable does not prove it is possible (Its relation to logical incoherency is explained in the next argument). "Conceivably possible" means that it is possible to conceive of such a thing and that conceivability depends upon an individual's power of imagination and the factual premises he chooses to ignore. That does not make what he conceives actually possible

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.

3. Argument from Ignorance - Or rather, argument from willful ignorance. By ignoring an aspect of an entity's essential nature - typically, an aspect not within direct perception - what would otherwise be logically incoherent becomes "conceivably possible".

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.

For example, having never heard the official definition of a bachelor, suppose I identify a bachelor as "someone with no apparent permanent companion, living alone, hanging out with similar friends, picking up girls, partying etc." - then the idea of a married bachelor becomes "conceivably possible".

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

and suddenly, Pegasus is no longer logically incoherent but "conceivably possible".

a 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.'
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."
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

4. Circular Reasoning - Which is, basically, what this whole argument is in an elaborate form. For the very first premise to be true, i.e. in order to conceive of mind acting independently from brain, you have to assume that mind and brain are two separate and distinct entities.

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.

Hardware isn't software + Data.

If your hard drive crashes, however its gone man, its just gone.

that's assuming the mind and brain have the same relationship as hardware and software. that is not necessarily the case.