The primary direct argument for physicalism is the correlation between brain states and mental states. To take a few examples:
It has become possible in recent years to use magnetic and positron scanning devices to observe what is happening in different parts of the brain while people are doing various mental tasks. For example, brain scans have identified the regions of the brain involved in mental imagery and word interpretation. Additional evidence about brain functioning is gathered by observing the performance of people whose brains have been damaged in identifiable ways. A stroke, for example, in a part of the brain dedicated to language can produce deficits such as the inability to utter sentences.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognitive-science/
Let’s extend this inference to a couple of analogous cases:
1. Using a polygraph, we can tell when a person is probably lying based on certain *physiological* (rather than neurological) correlations.
By parity of argument, wouldn't this imply the identity of mental states with physiological states like blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin conductivity?
But if this inference is obviously absurd, then doesn't that undercut the parallel argument from brain scans, and so on?
2. Likewise, a good poker player can predict, in large part, what a bad poker player will do, or what hand he has, by being able to *read* the player's body language.
By parity of argument, wouldn't this imply the identity of mental states with body language? But if this inference is obviously absurd...
So it seems to me that the argument for physicalism from the correlation between brain states and mental states either proves too much or too little.
*sigh*
ReplyDeleteSophistically using the Fallacy of Equivocation and blatant straw-manning tactics are as efficacious as using the "Lady Hope" story to refute evolution.
- Neil
hey Neil, care to provide specifics? Or, do you just want to agree right now that your hallow and empty talk is about as effacacious as a babies ga gaing and goo gooing?
ReplyDeleteAgreed
ReplyDelete- Neil
(To all other readers, the above post was not made by me).
ReplyDeleteOK,
It appears that you are not versed with some basic concepts of introductory logic, I'll explain with a few concepts called "validity" and "soundness."
You see, an argument is “valid’ when the truth of the premises follows the truth of the conclusion.
An argument is “sound” when all the premises are true.
Furthermore, an argument can be “valid” but not “sound.”
A common example:
(P1) If it is raining (p), then the street is wet (q).
(P2) The street is wet (q).
(C) .: Therefore, it is raining (p).
As you can see, this argument is valid, but not “sound,” because it has a flaw in it that philosophers call a “fallacy;” in this case, the fallacy called “affirming the consequent.”
Arguments that are similar in structure but have different variables are not equally sound nor unsound. The truth or falsity of a premise in an argument are independent of structure.
There are some websites out there than can help you in the future with these new concepts:
http://logic.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/
and
http://www.oakland.edu/phil/cafe/Flash/validity.htm
also
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
Do a search on Google.com with a search string for “logic,” “introduction to logic,” and “basic logic.” There are some great websites (and book) out there that can give you a good start.
Have fun!
(In order that this, or my previous post may not be undercut by imposters (as seen in the above post), this will be my last post on this weblog topic. Any further posts henceforth with the name "Neil" are from people who would attempt to undercut what I've said previously. As it has already happened, I would not put it past some who frequent this blog... I can see it now: A future post with the message "You are right, everything I said was stupid. I am a dumb fool. - Neil." )
Best,
- (The real) Neil
Neil,
ReplyDeleteNot every argument takes the form of a deductive syllogism. And I didn't cast my argument in that form.
For that matter, you didn't cast your own objection in that form.
Care to try again?
Neil,
ReplyDeleteI asked for specifics and you just gave an intro to logic course, and then told us that Steve's arguments were fallacious, but I had asked for specifics, and you've not yet provided any.
Indeed, how is asking for you to provide specifics imply that I don't understand logic?
So, rather than back up your naked assertions, tou simply tried to take us down a rabbit trail. but we're not buying. perhaps because we can spot a falalcy when we see it (red herring). So, care to try again, Mr. Neil.
I see you haven't grown much your exchristian.net days.
C'mon guys, I just want to make a bunch of assertions. Don't ask me to back up my accusations.
ReplyDelete-(The Real) Neil
From the "real" Neil:
ReplyDelete[quote] Furthermore, an argument can be “valid” but not “sound.”
A common example:
(P1) If it is raining (p), then the street is wet (q).
(P2) The street is wet (q).
(C) .: Therefore, it is raining (p).
As you can see, this argument is valid, but not “sound,” because it has a flaw in it that philosophers call a “fallacy;” in this case, the fallacy called “affirming the consequent.”[/quote]
Maybe you should read your intro to logic texts a little more closely. The example you gave is that of an *invalid* argument. The fallacy is due to the form (validity) of the argument and therefore precludes its soundness, since both being valid and having true premises are a neccessary condition of an arguments soundness.
p==>q
q
:. p
is *invalid*