(October 6, 2013 at 7:39 am)genkaus Wrote: 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.
Quote:If you stipulate to your use of possible meaning "conceivably possible", then your argument becomes the following.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.
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.
Quote: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?
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo
-Galileo
