Modal Argument: The Mind is Not the Brain

[Rational AKD]

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

I never said I didn't, so what makes you come to that conclusion? there are some that have said this that I've seen.

If you can't point to a real atheist actually making the mind-brain identicality argument (as opposed to simple equivalence)

they weren't so obvious as to point to a brain and say "that's a mind." when I claimed God is an un-embodied mind they said "so he's an immaterial brain."

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

excuse me, I misread thinking you left parts out. the last bit is unnecessary, the conclusion should stand as "the mind and brain are not the same." that would be a mistake I made creating a redundancy since that was established as a part of P1.

That it is a phenomenon dependent on a functioning brain.

how do you know that to be a fact?

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.

it does when the additional property makes it different than what it was. your example is a false analogy because you didn't add anything to the apple it didn't already have. all apples have color, no horses have wings. if you take a human, and you add bull features to its upper half, you no longer have a human. you have a Minatare. a Minatare is not a human, and a Pegasus is not a horse.