RE: Modal Argument: The Mind is Not the Brain
October 22, 2013 at 1:37 pm
(This post was last modified: October 22, 2013 at 1:50 pm by MindForgedManacle.)
I'm aware that neuroscience didn't establish that, I didn't even mention such. Further, my use of 'coincedent' there was both appropriate and intentional: I don't assume my position is true a priori.
Now, here is where you fall into problems. What is an 'immaterial object'? You might as well be talking about ontological Platonism with regards to mathematics for all the sense that makes, i.e none.
Further, the following is, I think, a nice, quick refutation of substance dualism, and among the reasons there are few serious thinkers left who adhere to it and why:
You saying that substance dualism isn't fatally flawed reminds me of the theist YouTube user 'InspiringPhilosphy' who takes on all number of controversial and damaged positions as if they're nothing, with the worst being his adherence to the libertarian view of free will.
Now, here is where you fall into problems. What is an 'immaterial object'? You might as well be talking about ontological Platonism with regards to mathematics for all the sense that makes, i.e none.
Further, the following is, I think, a nice, quick refutation of substance dualism, and among the reasons there are few serious thinkers left who adhere to it and why:
You saying that substance dualism isn't fatally flawed reminds me of the theist YouTube user 'InspiringPhilosphy' who takes on all number of controversial and damaged positions as if they're nothing, with the worst being his adherence to the libertarian view of free will.
