• Mark Nyquist
    774
    Anyone know what P and Q stand for?

    Q is the propositionBartricks
  • Mark Nyquist
    774
    Ok, the Wikipedia logic page..Both are propositions.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Personally, I like the method of working the problems of monism/dualism, information, brain states and a few other problems as one problem. Can your method do that?Mark Nyquist

    I don't know what you mean.

    'My method' is 'philosophy'. That is, using reason to figure out what's the case.

    Focus! The issue here is whether the mind is the brain, right? Well, do you have any evidence that it is?
  • Mark Nyquist
    774
    Both mind and brain are more basic elements than are needed. Show your logic for why mind is needed so I have an example. I'm thinking it's an imagined object.
  • Mark Nyquist
    774
    I'm looking at the Wikipedia page on logic and there is a problem with formal logic in that it abstracts away from content in a way that becomes overly burdensome in a complex environment
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Both mind and brain are more basic elements than are needed.Mark Nyquist

    What. Are. You. On. About?

    That's a conclusion: what are your premises?
  • Mark Nyquist
    774
    You brought up mind. You defend it. Pretty sure that's how it works.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    You brought up mind. You defend it. Pretty sure that's how it works.Mark Nyquist

    No, this thread is about the mind and whether it is the brain. And no, that's not how it works. Why are you sure about things that you know nothing about? You're not classically trained, remember?
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Wikipedia is not peer reviewed. It's written by well meaning nincompoops who only half understand what they're confidently pronouncing on.
  • Mark Nyquist
    774
    I was just looking at the page. I embellished the rest.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Show your logic for why mind is needed so I have an example. I'm thinking it's an imagined object.Mark Nyquist

    And what, pray, are you thinking that with, Murk?
  • Bartricks
    6k
    I was just looking at the page. I embellished the rest.Mark Nyquist

    You might want to look up 'embellished' next.
  • RogueAI
    2.8k
    You brought up mind. You defend it. Pretty sure that's how it works.Mark Nyquist

    The mind needs no defense. You can't be wrong about whether it exists or not. You can be wrong about whether your brain exists.
  • RogueAI
    2.8k
    Focus! The issue here is whether the mind is the brain, right? Well, do you have any evidence that it is?Bartricks

    The brain appears to exist outside the mind. Injuries to the brain appear to affect thinking.
  • RogueAI
    2.8k
    Can you defend that?Mark Nyquist

    What? That you can be wrong your brain exists? That's trivially easy to demonstrate. Do you think you can doubt whether your mind exists? That requires having a mind.
  • Mark Nyquist
    774
    Brain ---> Brain state --->BRAIN(mental content) ---> BRAIN(specific mental content) --->BRAIN(I have a mind).
    This model shows mind as an imagined thought.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Murk, what did you think those jumbled thoughts with?
  • Mark Nyquist
    774
    I just modeled it. My brain.
    Murk's brain( Murk's jumbled thoughts )
  • Bartricks
    6k
    I just modeled it. My brain.Mark Nyquist

    No, Murk. With your 'mind'. Baby steps. Minds think. Thoughts are 'mental states'. A mental state is, by definition, a 'state of mind'.

    So, you thought those silly things with your 'mind'. And you have then just assumed that your mind is your brain.

    Your mind exists more certainly than your brain. You could just be dreaming brains - every time you think you've seen a brain could have been a dream. You are not dreaming you're thinking when you're thinking, and so not dreaming that you've got a mind.

    Murk----->confused------>very
  • Mark Nyquist
    774
    Murk----->confused------>veryBartricks

    Yah, I should take a course in formal logic so I think straight like you.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    My left little toe, or so I think, because I am quite sure it is smarter than some people.tim wood

    :lol: Don't be to sure of that tim wood!
  • Bartricks
    6k
    So, you think I don't think straight, right? Your evidence for that, I take it, is that I don't think like you, yes?

    Shall we review your brilliant thoughts. From what I can tell, you think that the brain exists more certainly than your own mind. You have no argument for that, and it's obviously false. But that's what you think. And then you think that your brain - which exists more certainly than you, you think - causes your thoughts. Which is something that would only be possible if your mind exists, given that thoughts are states of mind. And then you think that this somehow shows your mind to be imaginary, even though imaginings require a mind to be having them (you think this because of dashes and arrows, from what I can tell). That's straight thinking, yes?
  • Mark Nyquist
    774

    Just giving back what I'm getting.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    No, I am giving you diamonds and you are giving me rabbit droppings.
  • Mark Nyquist
    774
    I didn't know, How horrible for you!
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Your mind exists more certainly than your brain. You could just be dreaming brainsBartricks

    Indeed! This is the essence of the problem for physicalism - matter & energy, that includes brains, could be an illusion.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    jumbled thoughtsBartricks

    Something is better than nothing. — Some Wiseguy
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Mark Nyquist No, I am giving you diamonds and you are giving me rabbit droppings.Bartricks

    I didn't know, How horrible for you!Mark Nyquist

    Not even rabbit droppings for me! :lol:
  • Bartricks
    6k
    I don't follow.

    Whether brains are physical objects or the mental activity of another mind (as, say, Berkeley would maintain) is left open by their existence being potentially illusory. That is, we could be dreaming brains exist and there are none in reality consistent with Berkelian idealism. As such, I don't see how physicalism per se is challenged by what I have said.

    My point was that one's mind exists with the utmost certainty, whereas one's brain does not. And thus it is the height of silliness to suppose the mind to be illusory and one's brain not.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.