The Brain=Mind Fallacy

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yes, that is why you open up with the absolute bullshit assertion that that "Most of the atheists on this forum make a habit of dodging their burden of proof when it comes to defending the material basis for subjective experiences". I thought lying was a sin in your religion..Do you know how rude it is to lie?

If a person makes a statement in error without knowing, it is called a mistake, not a lie. Calling someone a liar is rude.

Your arguments here are so full of Fail it could take a lifetime to sort it alll out.

So you're not even going to try. Therefore you have no basis for asserting that I am wrong.

...your biggest problem is the underlying disingenuousness that drives you to post shit...

My motives are sincere. While you may believe that I am attempting to prove God or something, that belief would not be justified. A refutation of eliminative materialism would not disprove atheism. Many different philosophical positions other than materialism can be atheistic.

[Epimethean]

Chad, it still comes down to the fact that theists lack evidence of a creator or any superimposing divine creature, and the burden of proof lies squarely on them to show the math (that is a nod to your sense of humor). The topic of this thread has held some interest, but it was dealt with by Brian among others, and you haven't really managed to take it in any fresh direction by bandying semantics. What do you want to accomplish here, now?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Yes, that is why you open up with the absolute bullshit assertion that that "Most of the atheists on this forum make a habit of dodging their burden of proof when it comes to defending the material basis for subjective experiences". I thought lying was a sin in your religion..Do you know how rude it is to lie?

If a person makes a statement in error without knowing, it is called a mistake, not a lie. Calling someone a liar is rude.

Oh, that is real cute -- you troll an assertion of inflammatory bullshit, and when you are callef on it you trt to bullshit your way out of it by calling it a "mistake ". Sorry, you aren't dealing with dumbass xtards here, and you aren't fooling anyone with you lies upon lies.

Your arguments here are so full of Fail it could take a lifetime to sort it alll out.

So you're not even going to try. Therefore you have no basis for asserting that I am wrong.

I didn't say any of that. Your wishful thinking is not surprising at all. Your assertion has been handily refuted over and over from the start in this thread, and I can adf that you have fallaciously reified mental processes into this "mind thing", which is just as fallaciousvl as your soul. idea.

!

...your biggest problem is the underlying disingenuousness that drives you to post shit...

My motives are sincere. While you may believe that I am attempting to prove God or something, that belief would not be justified. A refutation of eliminative materialism would not disprove atheism. Many different philosophical positions other than materialism can be atheistic.

You have already demonstrated that your motives are far from sincere. And it is fundamentally disingenuous to even speak of "proving" atheism. And yes, whatever you do here is part of your overall effort to troll your mythical god figure. You ain't fooling anyone.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...it was dealt with by Brian among others, and you haven't really managed to take it in any fresh direction by bandying semantics.

You and apparently many others find Brian37's description satisfying. Some other members and I do not. That doesn’t make us stupid nor make us more profound. We’re just unconvinced and want to batt the idea around a bit more.And you shouldn’t dismiss semantics so lightly, when the goal is to make sure people are understanding each other correctly.

...What do you want to accomplish here, now?

Well, right now, I’m exploring the limits of emergence theory with those members who are willing to engage me in that enterprise.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

When he speaks of "semantics" he is referring to your disingenuous semantic prestidigitation. Intellectually dishonest shell games do not make folks understand each other better Nice try, Mr. Snake Oil Salesman.

[Brian37]

Chad's motives are simple.

"You don't know everything about the brain so my woo will fill in the gap by default"

Just like every other claimant of every other superstition and conspiracy theory.

If he had anything he'd be in a lab or at a patient office. Instead he is not trying to prove, but convince. Marketing only proves you can market. But that did not make the sun a god and that was a successful placebo for 3,000 years.

[Epimethean]

"You and apparently many others find Brian37's description satisfying. Some other members and I do not. That doesn’t make us stupid nor make us more profound. We’re just unconvinced and want to batt the idea around a bit more.And you shouldn’t dismiss semantics so lightly, when the goal is to make sure people are understanding each other correctly."


There seems to be a pattern of which members find the responses satisfactory, Chad. Do you think you're tilting at windmills a bit, on an aitheist site? If you want to go all Wittgensteinian, have at it, but that was not the purported goal of this thread.

[Brian37]

[b]"You and apparently many others find Brian37's description satisfying. Some other members and I do not. That doesn’t make us stupid nor make us more profound. We’re just unconvinced and want to batt the idea around a bit more.And you shouldn’t dismiss semantics so lightly, when the goal is to make sure people are understanding each other correctly."

Fine, if you can get a patient or win a Nobel prize, crow probably tastes like chicken and I will gladly eat it with some barbecue sauce.

[Angrboda]

You know, Brian, for someone who claims that eschewing the word philosophy leads to less dogmatic thinking, your views on philosophy and the use of the word are incredibly dogmatic. I can only conclude from this that either you are wrong (by reductio ad absurdum), or you don't practice what you preach.

[Brian37]

You know, Brian, for someone who claims that eschewing the word philosophy leads to less dogmatic thinking, your views on philosophy and the use of the word are incredibly dogmatic. I can only conclude from this that either you are wrong (by reductio ad absurdum), or you don't practice what you preach.

No I am hardly dogmatic.

Everyone has claims, even me. An if shit were shinola I would be an investor.

But when it comes to evidence the bad approach is to assume it is true. The better approach is to test. I dream as much as the next person. But I don't call my claims anything but ideas until they have had their ass kicked and confirmed.