Another (6):

1. If an object is sensible, it is divisible
2. My mind is not divisible
3. Therefore, my mind is not a sensible object — Bartricks

AH, I see; so if you are not sensible, you are indivisible? But silly people tend to fall about, so that does not seem quite right.

1. In order to be harmed at a time t1, one must exist at that time.
2. The destruction of our sensible bodies harms us at the time at which it occurs
3. Therefore, we exist at the same time as our sensible bodies cease to exist
4. If we exist at the same time as our sensible bodies cease to exist, then we are not our sensible bodies
5. Therefore, we are not our sensible bodies. — Bartricks

We exist at the same time as our sensible bodies? SO if we are silly we cease to exist? And if we are not our sensible bodies, are we then our silly bodies?

1. No existing object has infinite parts
2. if any sensible object exists, it will have infinite parts (for it will be infinitely divisible)
3. Therefore, no sensible object exists
4. My mind exists
5. Therefore, my mind is not a sensible object — Bartricks

SO... if an object has only a finite number of parts, it is not sensible... and hence silly?

Beep.

Another (9):

1. My reason represents it to be possible for my mind to exist apart from any sensible thing
2. If my mind was a sensible thing, then it would not be possible for it to exist apart from any sensible thing
3. Therefore, my reason is representing my mind not to be a sensible object — Bartricks

It pleases me that you can exist apart from being sensible - seems to me that you have shown how being silly is very important.

Another (10):

1. Sensible objects exist as bundles of sensations
2. Sensations cannot exist absent a mind that is bearing the sensations in question
3. Therefore, sensible objects exist as the sensational activity of minds
4. Minds are not sensible activity, but objects engaging in that activity
5. Therefore, minds are not sensible objects. — Bartricks

SO... let me see if I have this: Silly objects don't hang about in bundles; absent minded bears are sensational. therefor silly objects are not sensational. Minds are not sensible and hence silly.

Hence... objects are bears?

There you go. 10 arguments for the immateriality of the mind. — Bartricks

Ah, so mind doesn't matter. Just as well, if all minds are silly.

Must be that... what was it? The Freddy Kruger effect?

But the funny thing is, when I decide to raise my hand, the damn thing goes up.

If mind is utterly different from matter, how can this be?

You didn't know that you can turn any inductive argument into a deductively valid one until approx. 5 minutes ago, after you hurriedly looked it up on the internet, yes? — Bartricks

Sorry it took so long to reply; I had to go on the internet and hurriedly look this up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKQOk5UlQSc — InPitzotl

I don't click on links, but good luck with your continuing youtube education programme. Everyone knows that professional philosophers spend most of their days making youtube videos. — Bartricks

I just had to pause with this one.

Okay, if you don't click on the video, maybe I'll quote you some relevant snippets.

Watson: Good Lord! That's... remarkable... and completely wrong!
Sherlock: [pause].... what?
Watson: Everything you said was wrong.
Sherlock: You're saying that I'm... that, I was... was wrong?
Watson: Nothing you said was correct.
Sherlock: Everything I said was correct.
Watson: No, this is my dad's phone. — Pete Holmes (link to his official channel)

Bartricks, you're biased. You've started to fantasize about what is on my side of the keyboard. You took it a step further and started to fantasize about the video. Then you started refuting the video... one that you claimed you didn't watch, but I can absolutely assure you that you didn't watch, because that alleged professional philosopher you were trying to attack in that video? He doesn't exist. He's your fantasy.

But that's not the reality. The reality is, you have 10 bad arguments in this thread, and all you're doing is rationalizing them. This thread isn't about properly reasoning about the nature of the mind:

Lay it out for all to see, and then I'll take you to the cleaners. — Bartricks

...it's about your fantasies of taking the opposition to the cleaners. Your fantasies are getting in the way of your making good arguments.

Your fantasies about me are as accurate as Sherlock's fantasies about Watson. Your response to the video is kind of self mocking. I am choosing to let you in on the joke, because at this point it's just cruel.

1. Brain events cause mental events
2. Therefore brain events are mental events — Bartricks

I'm curious. What is the inductive argument that "deductive" argument is a rephrasing of? And who made it?

Bartricks! Is this another fantasy?

After all, only one needs to work. Imagine that there is only a 1/6 chance that any given one of those arguments is sound. Okay - do the maths. What's the chance that at least one of them is sound? I'm no mathmetician, but I believe it is 84%. That makes the proposition far more reasonably believed than not, and may even be enough to put it beyond a reasonable doubt. And like I say, that's if each one is far more likely unsound than sound. But I do not think that is actually the case. I think each one is about 50% likely to be sound. What are the odds that at least one is sound? 99.9%. Now that really is beyond a reasonable doubt. — Bartricks

I do agree that you're no mathematician.

If I have 5,000 pieces of evidence that if any are true would prove the existence of Bigfoot, I cannot assign a probability value of truth to each item and from that declare Bigfoot exists based upon the overwhelming amount of questionable evidence. What we'd be looking for in our box of Bigfoot evidence is a single photo, a single DNA sample, or a single piece of evidence that withstands scrutiny and proves his existence. In fact, what I I should do is take each piece of evidence and closely examine it one at a time, and if I notice by the 3,000th piece that each has failed under close scrutiny, I can reasonably conclude that I likely have a box of useless pieces of evidence and that Bigfoot doesn't exist.

The point being that no amount of bad evidence that Bigfoot exists or that the recent election was rigged can be elevated into statistical proof of the opposite: that a truckload of bad evidence = solid proof.