1. x)(x is a human animal & x is sitting in your chair)
2. (x)((x is a human animal & x is sitting in your chair) x is thinking)
3. (x)((x is thinking & x is sitting in your chair) x = you)
4. (x)(x is a human animal & x = you)
and again illustrated by the post following
It's the person associated with the human animal who is doing the thinking.
— Clearbury
Not necessarily. — noAxioms
magine there is a weightless box into which a 90 kg person has been placed.
— Clearbury
OK, to apply that directly to the OP:
(P1) Presently resting on the floor is a box.
(P2) The box masses 90kg
(P3) You are the contents of the box.
(C) Therefore, the box is you.
That doesn't seem to be begging anywhere, yet the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, — noAxioms
The only possibilities in philosophy seem to be reductionism or emergentism. — Ludwig V
My point was that even if it is accepted that the human animal is doing the thinking, the conclusion that animalism is true does not follow. Yes, the premise begs the animal doing the thinking (as any premise begs whatever it is positing), but it does not beg animalism.The point is that this claim 'it is the person asociated with the human animal who is doing the thinking' is not question begging, whereas 'it is thet human animal that is doing the thinking' is. — Clearbury
Olson provides the logical form so you can check its validity.
1. x)(x is a human animal & x is sitting in your chair)
2. (x)((x is a human animal & x is sitting in your chair) x is thinking)
3. (x)((x is thinking & x is sitting in your chair) x = you)
4. (x)(x is a human animal & x = you) — NOS4A2
We are undeniably animals in bodily nature having the biological functions, desires and system.Are each of us numerically identical to an animal? — NOS4A2
It is unpopular because the minute we accept that we are animals, dualism, ego/spirit, anamnesis, eternal truths, heaven, hell, and immortality all vanish into the illusions that they are — ENOAH
The large majority of philosophers do not subscribe to the idea of most if not all of the concepts you mention, so this can't be the source of their reasoning at all. — Outlander
These things by the aforementioned descriptors are but illusions too. Yet they drive men to madness, war, and on the opposite end provide comfort, purpose, and belonging. These things are regarded as substantial entities in and of themself, regardless if they be "facades" of biological workings or mere social constructs, — Outlander
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.