I've never claimed that it's anything but a presupposition. What I've claimed is that your assertion that the mind does not survive the death of the brain is also a presupposition supported by just as little evidence.
Why are you so intent on harping on about this irrelevant red herring? I've stated numerous times already that I'm not claiming previous human species don't have everlasting minds. I'm not making any sort of claim about them what so ever, because it's completely irrelevant. Maybe they have everlasting minds, maybe they don't. It doesn't make any difference at all.
You also know of no evidence of the mind ceasing to exist with the death of the brain.
I've never claimed I have any scientific evidence for the mind surviving the brain. I'm just pointing out the complete lack of evidence for your own claims. Your claim that the mind is so strongly connected to the brain that it ceases to exist with the death of the brain that is.
My argument is that a simple analysis of a mind we can pretty clearly see it doesn't fit the criteria necessary to qualify as a physical entity/object. It's made of neither energy, nor matter, but of something else, that's not possible for our senses, or any measuring devices to pick up. It's not simply a question of not being able to measure or study the mind at this stage. The only way for science to currently explain the mind is to try and reduce it to a set of complex interactions between the neurons in our brains, leading to some sort of "illusion"*, which is effectively saying that the mind doesn't exist at all, which is not an explanation at all, but an "explaining away" of the mind.
*which is quite ironical, given that you need a mind to be able to experience illusions in the first place.
Why are you so intent on harping on about this irrelevant red herring? I've stated numerous times already that I'm not claiming previous human species don't have everlasting minds. I'm not making any sort of claim about them what so ever, because it's completely irrelevant. Maybe they have everlasting minds, maybe they don't. It doesn't make any difference at all.
You also know of no evidence of the mind ceasing to exist with the death of the brain.
I've never claimed I have any scientific evidence for the mind surviving the brain. I'm just pointing out the complete lack of evidence for your own claims. Your claim that the mind is so strongly connected to the brain that it ceases to exist with the death of the brain that is.
My argument is that a simple analysis of a mind we can pretty clearly see it doesn't fit the criteria necessary to qualify as a physical entity/object. It's made of neither energy, nor matter, but of something else, that's not possible for our senses, or any measuring devices to pick up. It's not simply a question of not being able to measure or study the mind at this stage. The only way for science to currently explain the mind is to try and reduce it to a set of complex interactions between the neurons in our brains, leading to some sort of "illusion"*, which is effectively saying that the mind doesn't exist at all, which is not an explanation at all, but an "explaining away" of the mind.
*which is quite ironical, given that you need a mind to be able to experience illusions in the first place.
Comment