(October 6, 2013 at 9:49 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: What you are doing is committing the Reification fallacy.I didn't treat the mind as though it were a concrete material object. there are only 2 things I said about the mind. "P1: it is possible (meaning conceivably possible) for the mind to act independently of the brain." this doesn't make it a concrete or material object. it makes it the idea of our consciousness, and says it is conceivably possible for it to function apart from the brain IE mind switch, mind transfer, astral projection etc. "C2: the mind and the brain are not the same (C1, P3)." which still doesn't make it a concrete or material object.
Quote: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.yes, and this is supported by P2 of the argument: "P2: it is impossible for the brain to act independently of the brain." so you are correct, the brain cannot act normally apart from physical brain structures.
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
