Belly Bob Posted March 8, 2017 Report Share Posted March 8, 2017 But let's drop the topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted March 8, 2017 Report Share Posted March 8, 2017 4 minutes ago, Belly Bob said: That's what physical actually say. And what's more, that's what they have to say. They're not stupid. Their view is that the mind is the brain. It's a logical implication of their view that the event of seeing blue is identical to a physical event in the brain. So it's a logical implication of their view that to see that physical event IS to see blue. it is not the logical implication in fact, that implication is bizarre sorry, it just makes zero sense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted April 22, 2018 Report Share Posted April 22, 2018 Bump: for NOR. What's the obvious thing I refuse to admit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted April 22, 2018 Report Share Posted April 22, 2018 It's really very simple. Premise 1. If the mind were identical to the brain, then you could see someone's mind by seeing his brain. Premise 2. It's not the case that you can see someone's mind by seeing his brain. Conclusion: Therefore, it's not the case that the mind is identical to the brain. You yourself agree with 2. And you know that there is nothing suspect about the argument's form: if the premises are both true, then so is the conclusion. So the only issue is with Premise 1. But Premise 1 is obviously true. If A and B are identical, then it's not logically possible to see A without seeing B. If Sean Combs really is one and the same person as Puff Daddy, then you can't see the one without seeing the other. If you could, that would be sufficient to show that Sean Combs isn't Puff Daddy, that they are in fact two different people. Now, what's the obvious thing that I refuse to admit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gospeeder Posted April 23, 2018 Report Share Posted April 23, 2018 On 2/24/2017 at 2:43 PM, AztecPadre said: Ok I in no way agree with you on this but thats neither here nor there. But how can something just always be? You said what is there has always been there. How? AP - Many would argue that mathematics is the one true God. C squared equals A squared plus B squared... always was, is now and always will be... along with dozens of other theorems that now are increasingly ruling our lives. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 On 4/23/2018 at 12:10 AM, Gospeeder said: AP - Many would argue that mathematics is the one true God. C squared equals A squared plus B squared... always was, is now and always will be... along with dozens of other theorems that now are increasingly ruling our lives. I've never seen an argument that mathematics is the one true God. But of course I agree with you that the theorems of Euclidean geometry were always already true and that they will always be true, even after we are all gone. With respect to the class of objects that do exist but mightn't have -- the objects of mathematics do not belong to that class, but you and I do; (or, if you prefer, the class of propositions that are true but mightn't have been) -- you might ask whether the theorems of mathematics can explain why they exist when they mightn't have (or why they're true when the mightn't have been). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.