Falsifiability

[TBDude65]

With a premise I can verify my body. Under that premise I can verify it is integrated. Without that premise I can't see how it could be verified.

There is 0 direct evidence that the mind is the body. (IE: Correlation /= Causation). It's not even an intuition that your mind and body are identical, you have to be told that because your actual uninterrupted intuition is that you will persist the loss of your body (IE your body is doubtable). Additionally the law of identity states that A and B are identical if everything true of A is also true of B. There are things true of my mind that are not true of my brain. Therefore they are not identical. Finally if you believe that your mind is simply your brain, why should I believe that a chemical reaction in your brain is relevant to true facts about reality? Why is the statement "because your body and mind are not separate things" any more meaningful in regards to reality than a tree growing a branch.

Here is something to consider. If you are not your brain...what happens to you when your body dies?

What premise do you need to measure your body as a mass?

 

[Sanoy]

What premise do you need to measure your body as a mass?

A premise from which the synthetic follows from the analytic.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is getting too deep, and I'm outta here.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yeah, but "deep" and "profound" are not always synonymous.

 

[Speedwell]

Yeah, but "deep" and "profound" are not always synonymous.

I think "deep" is the correct word in this case.

 

[VirOptimus]

I'm using the matrix because it's easier to go through and understand the thought experiment.

The conflict over the reality of the alien is entirely analytic, because the alien is in the world in question. You could step back and say the alien is the 'mad scientist' with his hands on your brain in the thought experiment, but if you did you cannot use the same analytical reasoning that describes the world in question. You would have to use a priori reasoning, as opposed to a posterori reasoning.

You are just arguing a variant of last thursday-ism. It has no value.

 

[Kylie]

Useless as far as not being able to use any of the information supplied to build a better mousetrap?

Useless as far as not being able to be used to solve problems.

Can you tell me a medical treatment that was developed using religious beliefs?

 

[TBDude65]

A premise from which the synthetic follows from the analytic.

This is too vague. What is it that would require you to know what mass is in such a way that you could objectively determine if you possess mass?

 

[Sanoy]

This is too vague. What is it that would require you to know what mass is in such a way that you could objectively determine if you possess mass?

In other words, I would have to be able to rationally conclude that what I am experiencing is reality. I don't know how to do that without a premise. I feel I have made my position clear on this question.

 

[TBDude65]

I'd have to be able to rationally conclude that what I am experiencing is reality. I don't know how to do that without a premise.

What is it that causes you to doubt the reality of mass and matter without some sort of underlying premise that shows that the brain/mind inside your body is simply part of your body? Someone thought up a thought experiment (that has proven useful for numerous thought experiments) to separate body and mind so as to purely consider thought over physical action/response, and this instantly makes it necessarily true that mind is separate from body? Or, is it a good concept for specific thought experiments, but after constant study via biology and psychology, it has been shown that we are more than just our brains/minds. For example, your mind is an emergent property of your brain, no?

 

[Sanoy]

What is it that causes you to doubt the reality of mass and matter without some sort of underlying premise that shows that the brain/mind inside your body is simply part of your body? Someone thought up a thought experiment (that has proven useful for numerous thought experiments) to separate body and mind so as to purely consider thought over physical action/response, and this instantly makes it necessarily true that mind is separate from body? Or, is it a good concept for specific thought experiments, but after constant study via biology and psychology, it has been shown that we are more than just our brains/minds. For example, your mind is an emergent property of your brain, no?

I have answered this question before, my answer hasn't changed. It's not that I have reason to doubt, it's that I have no reason to rationally hold that it is without a premise.

Does this mean you have abandoned your view that your body and mind are not separate things?

 

[TBDude65]

I have answered this question before, my answer hasn't changed. It's not that I have reason to doubt, it's that I have no reason to rationally hold that it is without a premise.

Does this mean you have abandoned your view that your body and mind are not separate things?

Again, I don't understand what the "premise" is you are requiring. What premise is it that you need to connect what to what?

And no, as I continue to argue, body and mind are one (as so many others have noted)

 

[Sanoy]

Again, I don't understand what the "premise" is you are requiring. What premise is it that you need to connect what to what?

And no, as I continue to argue, body and mind are one (as so many others have noted)

A premise to go from analytic facts about our mass to synthetic facts.

You haven't argued that our mind and brain is identical, you have merely stated your belief that it is. You have already stated that physics and chemistry do not describe synthetic facts, that is facts about reality, so your claim that mind and brain are identical isn't even a claim about reality. Since you hold to a materialist view we don't need to discuss emergence.

 

[TBDude65]

A premise to go from analytic facts about our mass to synthetic facts.

You haven't argued that our mind and brain is identical, you have merely stated your belief that it is. You have already stated that physics and chemistry do not describe synthetic facts, that is facts about reality, so your claim that mind and brain are identical isn't even a claim about reality. Since you hold to a materialist view we don't need to discuss emergence.

You've continued in your circle. As asked numerous times previously, what evidence is required to demonstrate the observations made by you (and numerous other people) as to whether or not you do in fact, exist? It is clearly something that is demonstrable to show that something exists, as we do that all the time. What prevents you from verifying your existence?

 

[Sanoy]

You've continued in your circle. As asked numerous times previously, what evidence is required to demonstrate the observations made by you (and numerous other people) as to whether or not you do in fact, exist? It is clearly something that is demonstrable to show that something exists, as we do that all the time. What prevents you from verifying your existence?

The only circle here is that you keep asking the same questions.

You have never asked me what evidence I have that I exist. That I exist is indubitable for myself.

 

[TBDude65]

The only circle here is that you keep asking the same questions.

You have never asked me what evidence I have that I exist. That I exist is indubitable for myself.

I have asked for evidence to show me you exist, but you continue to assert that you can't provide any without some sort of assisting "premise."

 

[Sanoy]

I have asked for evidence to show me you exist, but you continue to assert that you can't provide any without some sort of assisting "premise."

No you have continually asked if I could verify the existence of my body, or mass. I told you I know of no way without a premise from which the synthetic follows from the analytic. So here we are, back at the same question, and the same answer which I have continually been clear on.

 

[TBDude65]

No you have continually asked if I could verify the existence of my body, or mass. I told you I know of no way without a premise from which the synthetic follows from the analytic. So here we are, back at the same question, and the same answer which I have continually been clear on.

Because you've yet to define "you" in a way that sufficiently shows a distinction between what you divide of your existence between body and mind

 

[Sanoy]

Because you've yet to define "you" in a way that sufficiently shows a distinction between what you divide of your existence between body and mind

I have already stated why my mind cannot be my body. Seems we are back to another repeated question.

 

[Speedwell]

I have already stated why my mind cannot be my body. Seems we are back to another repeated question.

Do you believe that your mind can exist without your body?