Modal Argument: The Mind is Not the Brain

[genkaus]

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.

The question isn't if I know of any, the question is if you do. And apparently, you don't.

If you can't point to a real atheist actually making the mind-brain identicality argument (as opposed to simple equivalence), then you are fabricating the argument and you are presenting it as an opponent's (here referred to as certain atheists) argument and you are claiming them defeated. That is a quintessential strawman.

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.

You are the one who concluded that. That's your conclusion word for word. Are you now denying your own argument?

what nature of mind am I ignoring?

That it is a phenomenon dependent on a functioning brain.

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.

Glad we agree. Now apply the same standard to your own argument.

Ignoring mind's essential nature doesn't actually change its essential nature. That you can imagine mind as a disembodied spirit doesn't make it so - the same way my imagining a bachelor to be "man who lives alone" doesn't make it so. Which is why a mind independent of brain is as conceivably and logically impossible as a married bachelor.

no, it's not. I can use the actual definitions of mind and brain whereas you had to redefine them.

But you have to ignore the logical implications of those definitions - which is, in effect, a redefinition.

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.

A descriptive addition does not change the essential nature of the entity. A red apple is still an apple and a winged horse is still a horse.

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.

The movies presume that mind and body are two distinct, independent entities. Which is why they can conceive of mind existing independently form the body. Using that conceived possibility, you are attempting to show that mind and body are are two distinct entities. The conclusion is exactly the same as the premise. Thus, circular reasoning.