(October 6, 2013 at 11:43 am)Rational AKD Wrote: 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.
Good. Prove it.
(October 6, 2013 at 11:43 am)Rational AKD Wrote: 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."
That doesn't sound like an mind-body identicality argument to me.
(October 6, 2013 at 11:43 am)Rational AKD Wrote: how do you know that to be a fact?
By looking at conclusions made by neuroscience.
(October 6, 2013 at 11:43 am)Rational AKD Wrote: 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.
Addition of wings don't make a horse a non-horse. Your example, too, is a false analogy because the addition of bull features in a Minotaur is accompanied by subtraction of human head. However, since nothing has been subtracted from the horse, it remains a horse.
I also see that you've ignored quite a few of my arguments. Does that mean you concede those points or are you simply pretending - I mean, possibly conceiving - that they don't exist?
