I think this is your argument, which kind of reads in a confusing way...:Brain function is clearly not more fundamental than brain. For brain function, you need a brain. The opposite is not true. — Kenosha Kid
Can you see what is wrong with this argument? — Yohan
source https://aphilosopher.drmcl.com/2008/01/04/argument-by-definition/An acceptable definition must be clear, plausible, and internally consistent. It must also either be in correspondence with our intuitions or be supported by arguments that show our intuitions are mistaken.
1. The mind is a brain function.
2. For a brain function you need a brain
3. However a brain doesn't require a brain function to exist. (not relevant)
4. Therefor the mind requires a brain. — Yohan
Nope, seems pretty solid. If you accept premises 1 and 2, 4 follows. 1 is, as I say, the neuroscientific definition of the mind. 2 is self-evident. — Kenosha Kid
If mind and brain are one and the same then how can you say that you need one to have the other? Is the mind an effect of the brain? If so, then the mind and brain are not the same thing.from a physicalist point if view, we do not have brain function *and* mind; they're the same thing. — Kenosha Kid
from a physicalist point if view, we do not have brain function *and* mind; they're the same thing.
— Kenosha Kid
If mind and brain are one and the same then how can you say that you need one to have the other? — Harry Hindu
You don't read people's posts, do you? — Harry Hindu
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.