RE: Modal Argument: The Mind is Not the Brain
October 6, 2013 at 2:01 pm
(This post was last modified: October 6, 2013 at 2:55 pm by Bucky Ball.)
You cannot name ONE function that a mind does, that does not require a brain.
YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE EDUCATION QUESTION.
Your C1 does NOT follow from your P1 and P2.
You have asserted that it does, (apparently because you lack ANY science education). But you have in no way demonstrated it is actually possible. (Attempted) "proof by assertion" is utterly worthless, in rational discourse.
They are EXACTLY the same in every aspect.
You saying they aren't, is the same as my saying "the moon is made of green cheese".
Modal logic is crap. Relativity, Uncertainty, and the maths of Dirac, (matrices, tensor transformations), and others mathematicians, have proven than what appears to be "logical" to human brains is unreliable in the determination of what is, or is not, real. Human brains evolved to work in a limited bandwidth of what is real, and "logic" could only determine what might be real in a small "macro" bandwidth. The only reliable thing left is EVIDENCE. You have none. Logic, and least of all the shit logic of "modal logic", is a nice game philosophers fap with, but is not a valid way for determining reality.
Right.
How much "modal" supper are you going to eat this evening ?
Modal my ass.
Which is exactly why I asked the science education question, which he evades.
YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE EDUCATION QUESTION.
Your C1 does NOT follow from your P1 and P2.
You have asserted that it does, (apparently because you lack ANY science education). But you have in no way demonstrated it is actually possible. (Attempted) "proof by assertion" is utterly worthless, in rational discourse.
They are EXACTLY the same in every aspect.
You saying they aren't, is the same as my saying "the moon is made of green cheese".
Modal logic is crap. Relativity, Uncertainty, and the maths of Dirac, (matrices, tensor transformations), and others mathematicians, have proven than what appears to be "logical" to human brains is unreliable in the determination of what is, or is not, real. Human brains evolved to work in a limited bandwidth of what is real, and "logic" could only determine what might be real in a small "macro" bandwidth. The only reliable thing left is EVIDENCE. You have none. Logic, and least of all the shit logic of "modal logic", is a nice game philosophers fap with, but is not a valid way for determining reality.
(October 6, 2013 at 1:00 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(October 6, 2013 at 11:12 am)Rational AKD Wrote: yes, and thus glittery unicorns are conceivably possible. which means in a modal sense, they exist in at least one possible world. concerning minds, that's all that's needed to substantiate P1.
Well, hold on: This "possible world" in no way needs to be our world. I can conceive of a great many things that can't exist in the world we actually live in, so a thing can be "conceivably possible" without being actually possible. You can't go around defining real world possibilities into existence with the imagination.
Right.
How much "modal" supper are you going to eat this evening ?
Modal my ass.
(October 6, 2013 at 1:09 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Can you provide any evidence to back up p1? As there is a body of evidence in neuroscience that refutes that such as emotion based MRI experiments.
Which is exactly why I asked the science education question, which he evades.
Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. - Joseph Campbell 
Militant Atheist Commie Evolutionist
Militant Atheist Commie Evolutionist
