Modal Argument: The Mind is Not the Brain

[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.