Anyone know what P and Q stand for?

Q is the proposition — Bartricks

Ok, the Wikipedia logic page..Both are propositions.

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?

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.

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

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?

You brought up mind. You defend it. Pretty sure that's how it works.

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?

Wikipedia is not peer reviewed. It's written by well meaning nincompoops who only half understand what they're confidently pronouncing on.

I was just looking at the page. I embellished the rest.

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?

I was just looking at the page. I embellished the rest. — Mark Nyquist

You might want to look up 'embellished' next.

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.

Can you defend that?

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.

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.

Brain ---> Brain state --->BRAIN(mental content) ---> BRAIN(specific mental content) --->BRAIN(I have a mind).
This model shows mind as an imagined thought.

Murk, what did you think those jumbled thoughts with?

I just modeled it. My brain.
Murk's brain( Murk's jumbled thoughts )

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

Murk----->confused------>very — Bartricks

Yah, I should take a course in formal logic so I think straight like you.

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!

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?

Just giving back what I'm getting.

No, I am giving you diamonds and you are giving me rabbit droppings.

I didn't know, How horrible for you!

Your mind exists more certainly than your brain. You could just be dreaming brains — Bartricks

Indeed! This is the essence of the problem for physicalism - matter & energy, that includes brains, could be an illusion.

jumbled thoughts — Bartricks

Something is better than nothing. — Some Wiseguy

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:

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.