Modal Argument: The Mind is Not the Brain

[Bucky Ball]

in this post, I am going to try and explain to those who think this argument begs the question, exactly why it doesn't. first, the reasoning for P1 is not a part of the conclusion. P1 states it is conceivably possible for the mind to exist apart from the brain. it is supported by reasons in objection 3. P2 shows it is not conceivably possible for the brain to exist apart from the brain. and C1 states this means there is 1 aspect that makes them different. understand so far? any objections to C1? P3 is uncontroversial since its a rewording of Liebniz' law. then C2 logically follows from C1 and P3. C2 states the mind and the brain are not the same. this is not equivalent to saying it is possible they act independently of each other. C2 is supported by C1 and P3. C1 is supported by P1 and P2. P3 is uncontroversial. P2 is uncontroversial. P1 is supported by the fact that we can conceive the mind apart from the brain as a coherent thought. P1 doesn't logically entail C2 without P2, C1, and P3.
is this clear enough?

---

Really ?
Show me one.


thing
noun
1.
a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object.



meow

the definition of thing I was using was actually this one.

An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thing

Exactly.

What you are doing is committing the Reification fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29

What exactly is your highest education level in Neuroscience, or Neurobiology or Neurochemistry, or even basic Biology ?

There is NO, (NOT one) example in all of medicine, where an injured brain continues to function normally, or apart from intact physical brain structures.