Why we're immortal

[Sunflowers]

I, a mind - that is, a thinking thing - appear to be indivisible. And this seems to be the nature of minds. The idea of a half a mind appears, well, incoherent.

If something is indivisible, then it is simple. For any complex object has parts into which it could, in principle, be divided.

If an object is simple, then it is indestructible. After all, how could one destroy a simple thing, given there is nothing into which one can deconstruct it?

Thus, I, a mind, am indestructible. That is to say, I am immortal.

Of course, none of this goes for my physical body. Physical things, by their very nature, appear to be divisible and thus complex. But all this does is show that I am not my body.

[teo123]

Why would the idea of half a mind seem incoherent? People get mental illnesses that make them lose some but not all of their mental abilities all the time.

[Sunflowers]

Why would the idea of half a mind seem incoherent? People get mental illnesses that make them lose some but not all of their mental abilities all the time.

Have you ever attributed 'half' a mind to someone? It doesn't make sense.

And your example isn't an example of someone with a half a mind, but an example of someone with a troubled mind. That's clearly quite different. It's like offering an example of a messy house as evidence of the existence of half a house.

[teo123]

Why would the idea of half a mind seem incoherent? People get mental illnesses that make them lose some but not all of their mental abilities all the time.

Have you ever attributed 'half' a mind to someone? It doesn't make sense.

And your example isn't an example of someone with a half a mind, but an example of someone with a troubled mind. That's clearly quite different. It's like offering an example of a messy house as evidence of the existence of half a house.

If you somehow remove the FPU of a computer processor so that the CPU can continue working, is then that a messy processor or more like half a processor?

[Sunflowers]

If you somehow remove the FPU of a computer processor so that the CPU can continue working, is then that a messy processor or more like half a processor?

I don't know what those things are.

Have you ever attributed half a mind to someone? Does that even make sense as a question? No, and no (yes?)

All physical things can be divided. There is nothing nonsensical about the idea of half a car, or half a house, or half a mug.

Minds, however, can't be divided.

You, I suggest, are confusing the 'contents' of a mind with the mind itself. I can think half as much as I did yesterday. That doesn't mean I have half the mind I had yesterday.

[teo123]

Don't you think that computers can be said to have minds? I mean, they can speak and understand programming languages and (to a lesser extent) human languages, they can do math (some things in math better than humans and some things worse, but they can indeed do mathematics), they can recognize things in pictures (they are not as good as humans at that, but obviously they can do it)...
Computer minds are clearly mortal, so why wouldn't human minds be?

[brimstoneSalad]

@teo123 you're making a good argument, but another good analogy might be Turing completeness, is there such a thing as half of that? Lots of things, particularly when it comes to information systems, either are or aren't because they account for some kind of threshold where something becomes more than the sum of its parts.

E.g. taken a set of operations that form a Turing complete system, then dividing them in half so neither is, it's not the case that what one can do on its own and what the other can do on its own adds up to what they can do together, right?

It might take some work for you to explain computer science 101 to sunflowers, but I have a feeling he or she will just decide that computers are immortal too.

If that happens you may need to explain what complexity/simplicity actually mean. Remember our discussion on airplanes and pencils in the flat earth thread? A lot of theists and people with no background in the sciences just totally misunderstand the idea of complexity and simplicity. The whole misunderstanding of entropy is behind the claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Anyway, I'm sure teo is perfectly capable of debunking Sunflowers. Just dropping a little note for him in case it's helpful.

[Red]

I, a mind - that is, a thinking thing - appear to be indivisible. And this seems to be the nature of minds. The idea of a half a mind appears, well, incoherent.

This is the fallacy of personal incredulity; you don't understand it, therefore it can't possibly be true!
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

How are you defining these terms? What do you mean by 'mind' or 'half a mind'?

You're basing this all off the assumption that 'half a mind' is incoherent. Prove it. Do you have any evidence other than just what seems intuitive to you?

If something is indivisible, then it is simple. For any complex object has parts into which it could, in principle, be divided.

If an object is simple, then it is indestructible. After all, how could one destroy a simple thing, given there is nothing into which one can deconstruct it?

Reminds me of when creationists cite 'irreducible complexity' as an argument against evolution.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducib ... definition

It's not a real concept; it's just based on ignorance and a misunderstanding of the subject matter at hand.

Thus, I, a mind, am indestructible. That is to say, I am immortal.

Of course, none of this goes for my physical body. Physical things, by their very nature, appear to be divisible and thus complex. But all this does is show that I am not my body.

Isn't the existence of your mind contingent on the being of your physical body? Without your vital organs, your mind ceases to exist.

Teo actually had a good analogy with computers and such.

[Sunflowers]

Don't you think that computers can be said to have minds? I mean, they can speak and understand programming languages and (to a lesser extent) human languages, they can do math (some things in math better than humans and some things worse, but they can indeed do mathematics), they can recognize things in pictures (they are not as good as humans at that, but obviously they can do it)...
Computer minds are clearly mortal, so why wouldn't human minds be?

I don't know whether computers have minds. I doubt it, but it is beside the point. You can divide a computer. So what? How does that show that you can divide a mind?

I mean, this body - my body - definitely has a mind associated with it. My mind. The thing I'm thinking with right now. And yet you can divide my body. But that isn't evidence you can divide my mind.

If you cut my hand off I am not thereby slightly less me. My body has been diminished. I have not.

Now I've asked twice now: does it make any sense to attribute half a mind to somebody?

No, yes? The answer is 'no' isn't it?

So minds come whole or not at all. They don't come in parts. Thus, they are simple. And thus they are indestructible.

Not my argument, Descartes'.

[Sunflowers]

@teo123 you're making a good argument, but another good analogy might be Turing completeness, is there such a thing as half of that? Lots of things, particularly when it comes to information systems, either are or aren't because they account for some kind of threshold where something becomes more than the sum of its parts.

E.g. taken a set of operations that form a Turing complete system, then dividing them in half so neither is, it's not the case that what one can do on its own and what the other can do on its own adds up to what they can do together, right?

It might take some work for you to explain computer science 101 to sunflowers, but I have a feeling he or she will just decide that computers are immortal too.

If that happens you may need to explain what complexity/simplicity actually mean. Remember our discussion on airplanes and pencils in the flat earth thread? A lot of theists and people with no background in the sciences just totally misunderstand the idea of complexity and simplicity. The whole misunderstanding of entropy is behind the claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Anyway, I'm sure teo is perfectly capable of debunking Sunflowers. Just dropping a little note for him in case it's helpful.

Er, no, he's making a bad argument. He's just pointing to things that are divisible.

And why do you think I need anything explained to me? What are your qualifications in this area that you think you can just march in and decide, on the basis of no evidence, that I don't understand something?

Do you have a PhD in philosophy? Any peer review publications? Any qualifications in this area at all?

If not, get out from behind your imaginary podium and engage with the argument on its own terms.