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.

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

I didn't commit that fallacy. I appealed to the fact that it makes no sense to attribute half a mind to someone. And I don't click on links, remember? If the door says 'push' stop pulling it.

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

A mind is that which can bear conscious states.

Half a mind would be half of one of those (duh). And the idea makes no sense. That is, it is rebarbative to reason.

To overcome my argument you would need to provide a clear case of a mind being divided, or some kind of debunking explanation of the rational intuitions that represent minds to be indivisible.

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?

It doesn't 'seem' intuitive to me, it 'is' intuitive to me, meaning that my rational intuitions represent it to be true. And yours do too, for you've never attributed half a mind to someone, have you?

Let's say you lend me a million dollars. And then I go and have half my brain removed. Now, do I still owe you a million or half a million?

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

Er, what's that got to do with anything? Nobody is interested in your memories.

Teo actually had a good analogy with computers and such.

Er, no he didn't. How does "computers can be divided" provide any evidence that minds can be divided? It's a shit example. A better example would be to point out that human bodies can be divided - you can take a brain out of a body and you can divide a brain.

That's a better example because there is no serious dispute over whether most human bodies have minds (whereas there's a huge question mark over whether computers do).

But it'd still be shit - just not as shit - because evidence that the body can be divided is not evidence that the mind can be until or unless you have some independent evidence that the mind is part of our physical body.

But this is just noise to you now isn't it?

[Red]

I didn't commit that fallacy. I appealed to the fact that it makes no sense to attribute half a mind to someone.

You didn't give any reason or evidence why you think it makes no sense, other than just saying it seems incoherent (hence, personal incredulity).

I don't see how this much different from a flat-earther saying "Hey the Earth doesn't look round from my position, therefore it must be flat!'

And I don't click on links, remember? If the door says 'push' stop pulling it.

I still don't understand why not. Why are you so stubborn about this? Should I just never post any links in an internet debate, even if it strongly supports my position? That sounds incredibly unproductive.

Come on, it will take you less than 40 seconds to read the link.

A mind is that which can bear conscious states.

Half a mind would be half of one of those (duh). And the idea makes no sense. That is, it is rebarbative to reason.

Would you agree that some animals have minds that are akin to what a half-human mind would be?

To overcome my argument you would need to provide a clear case of a mind being divided, or some kind of debunking explanation of the rational intuitions that represent minds to be indivisible.

It doesn't 'seem' intuitive to me, it 'is' intuitive to me,

Right, and that's the problem. Intuition is notoriously wrong all the time.

Scientists don't rely on their intuition to find things out. Nor do actual philosophers.

meaning that my rational intuitions represent it to be true.

That isn't at all how it works. Again, intuition is almost never reliable.

What gives you the right to say they are 'rational'?

And yours do too, for you've never attributed half a mind to someone, have you?

You wanna be first?

Let's say you lend me a million dollars. And then I go and have half my brain removed. Now, do I still owe you a million or half a million?

Now you're half a mind, aren't you?

What is your opinion on people who have had the middle of their brain sliced, leading them to having two minds instead of one?

Er, what's that got to do with anything? Nobody is interested in your memories.

I'm pointing out you're making the same fallacious reasoning creationists use.

Er, no he didn't. How does "computers can be divided" provide any evidence that minds can be divided? It's a shit example.

It's an analogy.

A better example would be to point out that human bodies can be divided - you can take a brain out of a body and you can divide a brain.

At that point your mind would cease to be.

That's a better example because there is no serious dispute over whether most human bodies have minds (whereas there's a huge question mark over whether computers do).

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I trust Teo's opinion on this matter more than you.

But it'd still be shit - just not as shit - because evidence that the body can be divided is not evidence that the mind can be until or unless you have some independent evidence that the mind is part of our physical body.

What does the mind being divided have anything to do with immortality. Please, dumb it down for me.

But this is just noise to you now isn't it?

Wow, you are one bottomless cesspool of arrogance aren't you? Ever consider the possibility that you aren't always right?

[Sunflowers]

Wow, you are one bottomless cesspool of arrogance aren't you? Ever consider the possibility that you aren't always right?

No, not arrogant. It's just I'm a philosopher and you're not. So I know what I'm talking about, and you don't. Simples.

The argument I have made, incidentally, was one made by another philosopher that you, no doubt, would consider guilty of fallacious reasoning if you encountered him here: Descartes.

Now, Descartes isn't an idiot. He's one of the greatest philosophers of all time. Yet you think an argument he made is crap, right? I wonder - I wonder - who's right? Is it crap - as Red things - or good, as Descartes thinks? Hmmmmmm.

You ask why indivisibility implies immorality.

Well, I explained why using reason. All I can do is do that again:

if something is indivisible, then it is simple. That is, it has no parts - it is made of nothing simpler than itself.

Something like that - something simple - can't be destroyed, for there is nothing into which it can be decomposed.

Thus, if our minds are indivisible then they are simple and if they are simple then they are indestructible.

Oo, look - a bit of string. Oooo, chase the string - where's it going next?

[teo123]

The argument I have made, incidentally, was one made by another philosopher that you, no doubt, would consider guilty of fallacious reasoning if you encountered him here: Descartes.

Where? Yes, Descartes said that it doesn't make sense to say that a soul becomes smaller if a part of a body is removed. But he didn't use it as an argument for the existence of a soul.
How is what you are saying different from saying "A hexagon can't be destroyed, because half a hexagon is not a hexagon, it is called quadrilateral."?

And I don't think any philosopher would talk about mind being non-physical had computers existed back in the day. Back in the day, it wasn't so absurd to say that we have no evidence of intelligence or sensation in the matter. Today, we are bombarded with such evidence.

[Greatest I am]

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

Yet no immortal being has ever shown itself.

Why you would go for a supernatural instead of natural concept is to put blinders over your eyes.

What is a consciousness if not a bunch of brainwaves made up of sub-atomic particles held together by our minds?

Nature says that all matter and energy are always flipping back and forth due to impacts in the sub atomic world.

In our natural world, nothing is eternal that we know of but space.

Regards
DL

[Sunflowers]

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

Yet no immortal being has ever shown itself.

Yes they have. You are one, as my (that is, Descartes') argument demonstrates.

How would you ever know that an immortal being exists apart from by rational demonstration? You can't see or smell or taste or touch immortality - if we're immortal it is by reason and reason alone that we will discover this fact about us. And Descartes has discovered it for us - whether you listen to reason or not is another matter, of course.

[Sunflowers]

The argument I have made, incidentally, was one made by another philosopher that you, no doubt, would consider guilty of fallacious reasoning if you encountered him here: Descartes.

Where? Yes, Descartes said that it doesn't make sense to say that a soul becomes smaller if a part of a body is removed. But he didn't use it as an argument for the existence of a soul.

In the Meditations. He did use it as an argument for the soul. Have you read the Mediations? He had three main arguments for the soul: the argument from doubt, the argument from conceivability, and the argument from divisibility. And it is the argument from divisibility that establishes the immortality of the soul.

How is what you are saying different from saying "A hexagon can't be destroyed, because half a hexagon is not a hexagon, it is called quadrilateral."?

Because something hexagonal can be divided. It won't qualify as hexagonal after the division, but it - the object - will still have been divided.

Your mind - the object - cannot be divided, as is manifest to your reason and the reason of virtually everyone (which is the only way we would discover that an object is indivisible). It is not that it can be divided but the halves will fail to qualify as minds. No, the mind itself - the object the word denotes - cannot be divided.

All extended things - that is, anything and everything that occupies some space - can be divided. Our minds cannot be. Therefore our minds are not extended objects. That establishes that our minds are souls. For a soul is an immaterial mind, and extension is the mark of the material.

And it also establishes the immorality of our souls for reasons already given, namely that indivisible objects must be simple objects and simple objects are indestructible.

[Greatest I am]

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

Yet no immortal being has ever shown itself.

Yes they have. You are one, as my (that is, Descartes') argument demonstrates.

How would you ever know that an immortal being exists apart from by rational demonstration? You can't see or smell or taste or touch immortality - if we're immortal it is by reason and reason alone that we will discover this fact about us. And Descartes has discovered it for us - whether you listen to reason or not is another matter, of course.

Your key word is reason.

I show mine by not accepting any premise that has no proof or evidence to show.

If I did, I would be as gullible as the brain dead literalist believers.

I am a Gnostic Christian, one of the good Christians, and I would not do that to myself.

Regards
DL

[Sunflowers]

Your key word is reason.

I show mine by not accepting any premise that has no proof or evidence to show.

If I did, I would be as gullible as the brain dead literalist believers.

I am a Gnostic Christian, one of the good Christians, and I would not do that to myself.

Regards
DL

Gibberish. You believe what you want then.

[Greatest I am]

Your key word is reason.

I show mine by not accepting any premise that has no proof or evidence to show.

If I did, I would be as gullible as the brain dead literalist believers.

I am a Gnostic Christian, one of the good Christians, and I would not do that to myself.

Regards
DL

Gibberish. You believe what you want then.

Is that not everyone's position?

I believe in reality.

Is it not worse when believers believe in talking serpents and donkeys, and that a genocidal prick of a god can be a good god?

Regards
DL