Modal Argument: The Mind is Not the Brain

[Bucky Ball]

Whateverist, I can accept that you find my dualist perspective less than compelling when I have presented it in other threads. That does not prevent me from showing that claims about emergent properties are incoherent nonsense. Nor should it bar me from asking my materialist counterparts to explain and support the theories they put forward. Let’s assume that I am wrong. That does not make the materialist position correct.

Nor should materialism be considered the default position. Any strongly counter-intuitive philosophy that undermines the attributes that make us human requires close scrutiny. Especially since the arguments against dualism are not as strong as many here suppose, as presented in the paper title “Giving Dualism its Due” by William Lycan.

NDE’s exemplify mental activity in the absence of a functioning brain. Some of these have been very well documented. It seems the only reason for dismissing them is because they do not fit the current materialist paradigm. There is also the strange case of John Lorber. Lorber had a measured IQ of 126, yet CAT scans revealed that he had only 10% of normal brain volume. Sure he still had a brain, but not much of one.

Of course my thermostat example is absurd. That’s the point. Materialist theories devolve into just these sorts of absurd equivalencies…the kind that makes concepts like intentionality meaningless.

Apo, I thought I already addressed Leibnitz’s idea of pre-existing harmony. In it, the correspondence between mental events and brain states is accidental and not causative. It just so happens that they align, for whatever reason. That was his solution to the interaction problem, but not one that I share. As for what constitutes a mental property as opposed to a physical one, I agree with the position that their “aboutness”, or intentionality, and qualitative aspects differentiate them from purely physical processes.

---

BTW, that's not Special Pleading, unless you're actually trying to say that thermometers think.

Either thermostats can think in the same way as dogs OR dogs cannot think just as thermostats cannot. That isn't my dilemma, it's yours. You must take a stance.

And that is what is called a "non-sequitur".
So, dogs have minds, and thermometers have minds.
I see.
And that is relevant to a discussion of HUMAN brains, exactly how ?
Nice try at deflection.
Have you ever considered getting some help ?