The Brain=Mind Fallacy

[Whateverist]

Some people just cannot concede when they are mistaken. Others just can't tell. I'm not sure which is happening here.

[The Grand Nudger]

Dennet does use the term mind, as shorthand, but he actually makes a hell of a strong argument for it being a term used in error in just about every particular.

[Brian37]

Dennet does use the term mind, as shorthand, but he actually makes a hell of a strong argument for it being a term used in error in just about every particular.

I'd be interested in what he means by "used in error". In what article, or book does he say "mind" is used as a term in error?

I ask because it would seem to lend credence to my case. Even people want to accuse me of using it in error.

I still have the IDEA just scrap that woo word and stick with describing brain function, whatever someone wants to call it, as STRICTLY a material process in motion. Otherwise you give far to many laypersons woo bait.

I can only concede here that this may merely amount to an argument over semantics and that most atheists here can agree that there is no such thing as "something" being a non material "entity" that can be separated from the brain. I think anyone who accepts science and biology knows that when your brain dies, you die.

I know I am taking a beating here from many, but to me even if I am wrong about getting pedantic over one word, it still gives others who do like woo, pause to consider that this is the one life we get and there is nothing after this and ultimately that is my main goal in all of my debates.

So keep that in mind, even if some here think my argument is a steamy pile.

[Epimethean]

Dennet does use the term mind, as shorthand, but he actually makes a hell of a strong argument for it being a term used in error in just about every particular.

Indeed, but the fact that he addresses it entails his seeing a need to do so. He doesn't completely dismiss it but suggests it has a different value than conventionally suggested ("fame in the brain").

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profi...nnett-/602

---

Dennet does use the term mind, as shorthand, but he actually makes a hell of a strong argument for it being a term used in error in just about every particular.

I'd be interested in what he means by "used in error". In what article, or book does he say "mind" is used as a term in error?

I ask because it would seem to lend credence to my case. Even people want to accuse me of using it in error.

I still have the IDEA just scrap that woo word and stick with describing brain function, whatever someone wants to call it, as STRICTLY a material process in motion. Otherwise you give far to many laypersons woo bait.

I can only concede here that this may merely amount to an argument over semantics and that most atheists here can agree that there is no such thing as "something" being a non material "entity" that can be separated from the brain. I think anyone who accepts science and biology knows that when your brain dies, you die.

I know I am taking a beating here from many, but to me even if I am wrong about getting pedantic over one word, it still gives others who do like woo, pause to consider that this is the one life we get and there is nothing after this and ultimately that is my main goal in all of my debates.

So keep that in mind, even if some here think my argument is a steamy pile.

You are only "taking a beating" because you dished one out with such vitriol, Brian. There are certainly milder ways to hold an argument than those which you have employed here. I do not think that many who have upbraided you are exactly fans of woo, either. I think you are painting them as such to keep the fire in your bellows.

[Brian37]

Dennet does use the term mind, as shorthand, but he actually makes a hell of a strong argument for it being a term used in error in just about every particular.

Indeed, but the fact that he addresses it entails his seeing a need to do so. He doesn't completely dismiss it but suggests it has a different value than conventionally suggested ("fame in the brain").

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profi...nnett-/602

---

I'd be interested in what he means by "used in error". In what article, or book does he say "mind" is used as a term in error?

I ask because it would seem to lend credence to my case. Even people want to accuse me of using it in error.

I still have the IDEA just scrap that woo word and stick with describing brain function, whatever someone wants to call it, as STRICTLY a material process in motion. Otherwise you give far to many laypersons woo bait.

I can only concede here that this may merely amount to an argument over semantics and that most atheists here can agree that there is no such thing as "something" being a non material "entity" that can be separated from the brain. I think anyone who accepts science and biology knows that when your brain dies, you die.

I know I am taking a beating here from many, but to me even if I am wrong about getting pedantic over one word, it still gives others who do like woo, pause to consider that this is the one life we get and there is nothing after this and ultimately that is my main goal in all of my debates.

So keep that in mind, even if some here think my argument is a steamy pile.

You are only "taking a beating" because you dished one out with such vitriol, Brian. there are certainly milder ways to hold an argument than those which you have employed here. I do not think that many who have upbraided you are exactly fans of woo, either. I think you are painting them as such to keep the fire in your bellows.

Are we all going to wear diapers here, or can we put on adult pants?

What you call "vitriol" I call being blunt, otherwise your attempt at shutting me up with this comment I could take personally and run and cry like a baby, but I am not.

I'd advise you not to mistake passion for "vitriol". That is the bastion for people who don't like to be questioned and fear they may be wrong.

How is it I can admit I may be wrong and not run from a conflict, but you seem to want to do that yourself by falsely labeling something and assuming what is my brain.

Yet another example of the in ability of humans to separate themselves from the claims they make. Fear of conflict and assumption of hate is why our species is so divided.

There is a HUGE difference between hate of a person and hate of a claim. And since no one here is armed with real weapons it is silly to attempt to silence people because you get offended by word choice.

You don't have to use the same words I do, and if you don't like the boxing ring don't jump in.

[Epimethean]

LOL. The opening line of your response is very "passionate." Age quod agis, but don't expect to have as interested a set of interlocutors for your particular brand of rhetoric.

[Brian37]

LOL. The opening line of your response is very "passionate." Age quod agis, but don't expect to have as interested a set of interlocutors for your particular brand of rhetoric.

Now was that so difficult? You ridiculed my post, and guess what, you didn't die and I didn't die and both of us are still breathing. Welcome to adulthood.

Yep I am passionate, I make no bones about it. Call it what you will and call me what you want.

[Epimethean]

I can see irony is a lost cause here. Thanks for your patronage.

[Brian37]

I can see irony is a lost cause here. Thanks for your patronage.

And another comment of ridicule and you are still here and I am still here. If there is any irony being made, I think you, not me are the one making it.

You, "You need to stop ridiculing others while I ridicule you"

Nope, no irony there. No, thank you for proving my point.

"Don't pick on others just let me be a hypocrite and pick on you".

The difference is I don't give a shit if people pick on my claims because I know the difference between myself and the separate subject of what I claim.

My irony meter works, but I think yours needs to be fixed. I have a copy of the Yellow Pages, would you like to borrow it to find a mechanic?

[Epimethean]

It's OK, Brian. You just be you.