Ender

• Premise 1: I can conceive of my body being sliced up, placed in plastic bags and scattered allover campus.
• Premise 2: I cannot conceive my mind being sliced up.
• Premise 3: If my mind was a part of my body, then i should be able to conceive my mind being sliced up.*
• Conclusion: Ergo, my mind is not a part of my body.

What fallacy is the dualist committing here?

* if (x)(y)((x=y) => (a)(ax iff ay))

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Ender the Theothanatologist ]</p>

Brian63

argumentum confuseth opponent into submission

Brian

Jonsey3333

I'm not sure of the exact fallcy name, but the fallacy is that there is the assumption that in order for some thing to be true, it must be concieved of.

I think this is an Ad Ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance). The burden of proof is on the rationalist to prove that their conception is necessary for truth.

-Mike

Wizardry

Straw Man

The materialist never claims that the mind is a part of the body. The materialist claims that the mind is a process occuring in the brain.

NialScorva

Am I the only one who get's tired of hearing the word "fallacy". This one looks fun, though:

The major fallacy is the bifurcation fallacy, the assumption that the components of the whole should have all the properties of the whole (divisibility, in this case). In addition, there's the argument for ignorance that plays a close second (premise 2: I can't *imagine*...). I'd also throw in a naturalistic fallacy that slightly overlaps both of these, but shows part of the problem with these assumptions. The mind *should* be divisible does not address the question of whether the mind *is* divisible. I've seen some dualistic arguments around here that are arguably affirmation of the consequence and circularity: the mind and body are seperate, which removes the bifurcation fallacy, which proves the mind and body are seperate. I'm certina you can eek more fallacies out if you were inclined.

NialScorva

Please explain. What conception are you refering to?

Ender

*Buzzer* Nope!

This argument suffers from the fallacy of <a href="http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jw2ex/opacity.html" target="_blank">referential opacity</a> or the ancient Masked man fallacy.

The truth about the given object- the mind- has nothing to do with how its addressed or we refer to it. We can switch how we address to the given object, such as the mind, the psyche, the soul, the spirit, the intellect, the will, the essence, the neant or the instinct, but their verbal environment restricts this kind of reference. The phrase "He has a ...." may be true with "mind" in the blank, but false when the "mind" is referred to "the owner of the consciousness."

The presence of a sign doesn’t mean that the real thing is there too. Umberto Eco spent a lot of time on this topic in his book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0253202175/qid=1015454806/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-4798679-9771254" target="_blank">Theory of Semiotics.</a>

Such sentences in that context are referentially opaque. From Xrefer: Bertrand Russell didn't think those expressions really referred to anything, and Aristotle, Frege thought they referred to something else, and Quine thought they "do" more than refer.

~WiGGiN~

((edited to add url)))

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Ender the Theothanatologist ]</p>

svensky

Could you please explain what exactly is the difference between these two things ?

To claim that they are different seems like an extreme splitting of hairs at best.

Jason

NialScorva

First off, just because you did not get the answer you wanted doesn't make the answers you provided incorrect. That would be a fallacy of opacity, assuming that your question necessarily addresses the same concept.



This is a great point.

Ender

The phrases "the mind is a part of the body" and "the mind is a process in the brain" both are statements that refer to the same thing couched in a slightly different context- that the mind as a part of the body is a byproduct of materialism that reduces the mind to brain function, i.e. "a process in the brain." I could argue that these statements are not altogether dissimilar, based on the interpretation that the phrase "process in the brain" is a function of the body and a part of it.

It may be "splitting hairs" to you but that's good old fashioned analytic philosophy at its finest.

~WiGGiN~