Re: Definition of God

[Virgil]

In article <tuCdncp35pblRpHYnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
>
> > Can a physical brain maintain consciousness when in physical isolation
> > from it physical body?
>
> Why don't you stop trying to change the subject?

That Septic does not want it to be the subject when it is the subject is
Septic's problem.

No one other than Septic has said anything to the contrary.





> That's not the proposition
> being discussed here. The proposition being discussed here is the theist
> proposition that there might be consciousness without a brain

Not so! Everyone else is merely asking whether it is known that the
brain is enough to support consciousness by itself. The only
speculations as to what else might be required, if anything was, were
Septic's and mine.

Septic speculated that a soul might be required, and I speculated that a
body might be required.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:450d955d$0$24208$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:2LmdnTuE9cxNDZDYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
> >> Needs Logic Tutor wrote:
> >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> >> >> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
> >> >>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> >> >>>
> >> >>> <snip argument _ad hominem_ by "Gandalf Grey">
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a
> >> > "mind -
> >> >>> body problem,"
> >> >> Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree
> >> >
> >> > So you argue (fallaciously). Isn't it actually the case that there
> > really is
> >> > no such thing as a mind - body problem any more than there is a
> > digestion -
> >> > gut problem, that is just argument from ignorance from your side?
> >> >
> >> > Here is now Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad
> >> > ignorantiam_:
> >> >
> >> > "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
> >> > certain." -- Dan Wood
> >>
> >> Would you like references to some scientists and academics who think
> >> there is such a thing as a mind-body problem?
> >
> > So what if lots and lots of people believe there might be a mind - body
> > problem,
>
> Not just 'people.' Scientists

Scientists are people too. So what if lots and lots of people, even people
who are scientists, believe there might be a mind - body problem, does that
prove there is, or is that just a fallacious
appeal to popularity as well as a fallacious appeal to authority? Lots of
people think there might be a god, too; do you believe that proves that
there is?

Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a mind -
body problem any more than there is a digestion - gut problem, that is just
argument from ignorance from your side?

Here is how Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad
ignorantiam_:

"Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
certain." -- Dan Wood

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eekatb$1f9$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
> >> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> >>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> >>>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
> >>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <snip argument _ad hominem_ by "Gandalf Grey">
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a
> >>> "mind -
> >>>>> body problem,"
>
> >>>> Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree
>
> [separated for emphasis]
>
> >>> So you argue (fallaciously).
>
> [separated for emphasis]
>
> Isn't it actually the case that there
> > really is
> >>> no such thing as a mind - body problem any more than there is a
> > digestion -
> >>> gut problem, that is just argument from ignorance from your side?
> >>>
> >>> Here is now Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad
> >>> ignorantiam_:
> >>>
> >>> "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
> >>> certain." -- Dan Wood
> >> Would you like references to some scientists and academics who think
> >> there is such a thing as a mind-body problem?
> >
> > So what if lots and lots of people believe there might be a mind - body
> > problem,
>
> Such reference show you to be categorically mistaken when you say (see
> above) that "Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree" is
> "fallacious".

Argument from popularity and argument from authority is no longer logical
fallacy? I didn't get the memo on that revision to the principles of logic.

The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there might
be a mind - body problem, does that prove that there is, or is that just a
fallacious appeal to popularity? Lots of people think there might be a god,
too; does that prove that there is?

Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a mind -
body problem any more than there is a digestion - gut problem, that is just
argument from ignorance from your side?

Here is how Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad
ignorantiam_:

"Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
certain." -- Dan Wood

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:UMydnSbZFMMSj5PYnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:450d955d$0$24208$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:2LmdnTuE9cxNDZDYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>> >> Needs Logic Tutor wrote:
>> >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
>> >> >> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
>> >> >>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> <snip argument _ad hominem_ by "Gandalf Grey">
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a
>> >> > "mind -
>> >> >>> body problem,"
>> >> >> Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree
>> >> >
>> >> > So you argue (fallaciously). Isn't it actually the case that there
>> > really is
>> >> > no such thing as a mind - body problem any more than there is a
>> > digestion -
>> >> > gut problem, that is just argument from ignorance from your side?
>> >> >
>> >> > Here is now Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad
>> >> > ignorantiam_:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
>> >> > certain." -- Dan Wood
>> >>
>> >> Would you like references to some scientists and academics who think
>> >> there is such a thing as a mind-body problem?
>> >
>> > So what if lots and lots of people believe there might be a mind - body
>> > problem,
>>
>> Not just 'people.' Scientists
>
> Scientists are people too.

Actually, there's a big difference. Scientists know something more than the
usual person about their own subject. And if we don't listen to their
expertise, then we really have no way of measuring the validity of evidence
or of arguments. Although nothing should be accepted at face value, if we
fail to acknowledge the existence of experts and expertise, we really have
no way of validating points of view beyond public debate where often the
best debater wins rather than the person who has the best command of the
facts.

We live in a world that is rapidly becoming more complicated. The average
individual should be encouraged to learn all they can, but the average
individual cannot be expected to become an instant expert on every subject.
So there is a place for authority in the examination of subjects. The
fallacy of appealing to authority is based on the mistake of believing in
authority simply because it is authority. Scientific expertise is not like
that. Scientific consensus is arrived at by a debate between experts before
it ever reaches the public.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:tNudnXTjjcXOi5PYnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:eekatb$1f9$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
>> Needs a Logic Tutor wrote:
>> > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>> >> Needs a Logic Tutor wrote:
>> >>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
>> >>>> "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
>> >>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> <snip argument _ad hominem_ by "Gandalf Grey">
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a
>> >>> "mind -
>> >>>>> body problem,"
>>
>> >>>> Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree
>>
>> [separated for emphasis]
>>
>> >>> So you argue (fallaciously).
>>
>> [separated for emphasis]
>>
>> Isn't it actually the case that there
>> > really is
>> >>> no such thing as a mind - body problem any more than there is a
>> > digestion -
>> >>> gut problem, that is just argument from ignorance from your side?
>> >>>
>> >>> Here is now Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad
>> >>> ignorantiam_:
>> >>>
>> >>> "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
>> >>> certain." -- Dan Wood
>> >> Would you like references to some scientists and academics who think
>> >> there is such a thing as a mind-body problem?
>> >
>> > So what if lots and lots of people believe there might be a mind - body
>> > problem,
>>
>> Such reference show you to be categorically mistaken when you say (see
>> above) that "Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree" is
>> "fallacious".
>
> Argument from popularity and argument from authority is no longer logical
> fallacy?

I see you don't understand the fallacy of appeal to authority and the
Argument from popularity anymore than you understand the argument from
ignorance. The fallacy of Appeal to Authority is caused by assuming that
authority alone is proof. In the case of the argument from popularity,
the fallacy occurs when we argue that popularity alone creates truth.
Neither is the case here. If we are interested in a specialized subject, it
is quite reasonable to turn to authorities on that subject for information
which will still have to face the test of logic.

What you've been told is that people who know a whole hell of a lot more
than you do about this subject disagree with you. That's a simple fact, not
an appeal to authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

An appeal to authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing
the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority,
knowledge or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as
argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to
respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of
obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regards to logic,
because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the
source. The corresponding reverse case would be an ad hominem attack: to
imply that the claim is false because the asserter is objectionable.
On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the
assertion made by an authority is plausible: it is likely true, we just
don't know for sure, because authority alone is not a proof.

 

[Virgil]

In article <T_adnXanluQEQ5HYnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote >
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
> > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > >
> > >> ... one cannot reject any possibility
> > >> without proof of its impossibility.
> > >
> > > That is just like those theists of Galileo's time arguing _ad
> ignorantiam_
that the moon is in fact a perfect sphere.
>
> I don't buy that.

Septic buys all sorts of anti-theist pigs in pokes but refuses to buy
simple agnosticism.




> According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_

> Some scholars ... argued against
> Galileo that ...the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
> are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance.

Since that argument claims "is in fact", and not "might be", anything
about it applies only to "is in fact" arguments, and not at all to
merely "might be" arguments".

So Septic is caught lying again!

 

[Virgil]

In article <m-adnV7w8r43fJHYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> > > >
> > > > How long will any brain be able to maintain consciousness without such
> > > > things as the blood supply to keep the brain oxygenated and energized,
> > > > etc.?
> > >
> > > Wouldn't be a brain without that, would it, moron?
> >
> > Sure it would. Unless Septic is implying that there is something more
> > to a brain than its physical presence.
>
> What are you saying, that blood and oxygen are not physical?

I am saying that blood and oxygen and the various other parts of a body,
other than the brain itself, are not a parts of the brain itself.

 

[Virgil]

In article <xOmdnW1wNdfUeZHYnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > No one on "our side" has said anything about where
> > consciousness dwells
>
> You are a liar. "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one
> knows for certain." -- Dan Wood

Asking that question does not imply that Dan or anyone else knows where
consciousness lies.

But Septic making that false argument implies that Septic lies.

 

[Virgil]

In article <dK-dnalDFsw2dJHYnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > > The hypothesis is THE MOON
> > IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE
>
> Evidently you still do not understand the term, 'hypothesis'

I understand that Copi cites the astronomers as saying "THE MOON
IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE"

Does Septic deny that Copi cites the astronomers as saying "THE MOON
IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE"?

Does Septic claim that the astronomers did not mean to say "THE MOON
IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE"?

 

[Virgil]

In article <f6OdndssU8_MdpHYnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote

> > > I don't buy that.
> >
> > Then you're wrong. Textbook logic from at least a dozen sources is
> outlined
> > and discussed at length in the text "Arguments from Ignorance" and
> > your "might be" variation isn't accepted by ANY of them INCLUDING
> > Copi.
>
> Don't be stupid.


One would have to be incredibly stupid to match the stupidity of
Septic's argument.

> 'Hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture, old boy

Is that "might be" wording included in the statement of the hypothesis,
little one? As I recollect, Copi's version has the astronomers saying
cites the astronomers as saying "THE MOON IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE"

Does Septic deny that Copi's version has those astronomers saying cites
the astronomers as saying "THE MOON IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE"?

 

[Virgil]

In article <jOCdnUvpF6b6cZHYnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic, the compulsive liar" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote

> > >> For one thing, Copi never explains any such thing.
> > >
> > > You are mistaken.
> >
> > No he's not.
>
> You are mistaken.

No one who opposes Septic's lies is ever mistaken to oppose them.

Copi's astronomers claimed "THE MOON IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE".
They didn't claim it might be a perfect sphere, they claimed it was a
perfect sphere.
They said "THE MOON IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE".

 

[Virgil]

In article <QvWdnY6-Ct-pc5HYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:450b9c0e$0$24206$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> >
> > "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:R-WdnfTgRb57BpbYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> > >
> > > <snip argument _ad hominem_ by "Gandalf Grey">
> > >
> > > Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a
> "mind -
> > > body problem,"
> >
> > Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree
>
> So you argue. Isn't it actually the case that there really is
> no such thing as a mind - body problem

NO!
>
> Here is now Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised
statement of how things are.
>
> "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
> certain." -- Dan Wood

So Septic, in opposing that, is saying that he does know for certain.

 

[Virgil]

In article <Y6idnWk0RcBGEJDYnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
> Wood wrote:
> > > "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
> > > certain." -- Dan Wood
>
> > ... wherein lies any fallacy in
> > asking the question?
>
> Wood's argument is that consciousness might be able to survive death

Septic must be claiming to know that there is life after death, as there
is nothing in what Dan wrote to suggest it.

 

[Virgil]

In article <Y6idnWg0RcB4EJDYnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic the phony" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Grand Oaf" wrote
> > "Septic the phony" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote

> > > What's wrong with Copi's explanation
> >
> > Not a thing. The problem is you don't understand it.
>
> I understand that the term, 'hypothesis'

Then you should understand that the astronomers' hypothesis is
"THE MOON IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE."

 

[Virgil]

In article <2LmdnTuE9cxNDZDYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
> > Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> > >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
> > >>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> > >>>
> > >>> <snip argument _ad hominem_ by "Gandalf Grey">
> > >>>
> > >>> Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a
> > > "mind -
> > >>> body problem,"
> > >> Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree
> > >
> > > So you argue (fallaciously). Isn't it actually the case that there
> really is
> > > no such thing as a mind - body problem any more than there is a
> digestion -
> > > gut problem, that is just argument from ignorance from your side?
> > >
> > > Here is now Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad
> > > ignorantiam_:
> > >
> > > "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
> > > certain." -- Dan Wood
> >
> > Would you like references to some scientists and academics who think
> > there is such a thing as a mind-body problem?
>
> So what if lots and lots of people believe there might be a mind - body
> problem, do you believe that proves there is, or is that just a fallacious
> appeal to popularity?

If the mind-body problem is, as I suspect, that there is no agreement
among scientists, or much of anyone else for that matter, on how the
conscious mind is produced by a physical body, and Septic, that liar,
claims that there is no problem, perhaps he claims to know the exact
mechanism by which conscious mind is produced by the physical body.

But somehow I doubt Septic has that knowledge.

 

[Virgil]

In article <Sr2dnahoo7HzDpDYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
>
> > But there has to be a declaration of certainty in order to have an
> > argumentum ad ignorantiam.
>
> Not according to Copi's explanation.

Then how does Septic declare that "THE MOON IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE"
is somehow a declaration of uncertainty?

 

[Virgil]

In article <huidnYYVpaRnCpDYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> argues:
>
> > Hypothesis has NOTHING to do with the Argument from Ignorance
>
> How do you figure that?

An argumentum ad ignorantiam requires a claim of certainty, and a
justification based on the certainty of that claim not being disproven.
As the claim in the following
> <quote>
> FAMOUS in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
> criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
> mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
> Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that t HE MOON WAS A PERFECT
> SPHERE...

 

[Virgil]

In article <Hc6dnRfupq_cAJDYnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> trys to argue contrary to the
> facts:
>
> > Mr. Wood never said anything about where consciousness dwells.
>
> The facts in evidence in this case indicate that you are mistaken.
>
> "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one
> knows for certain." -- Dan Wood

That says nothing about where consciousness does dwell.
>
> Wood is arguing

Wood is not arguing at all, but Septic is, falsely, as usual.

Septic seems determined to set records for the number and stupidity of
false arguments in this NG.

And certainly if one excludes the self declared Xtians who post here, he
is well ahead of the pack.

 

[Virgil]

In article <FbudnTP3O4JFAJDYnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> argues _ad hominem_:
>
> > You are completely ignorant on the subject of argumentum ad ignorantiam
> > We know this because you can't discuss the subject on your own, being
> > reduced to pasting one author's out of context comment on the subject.
>
> Why is this simple explanation so
> difficult for you and Virgil and friends to grasp?

What we cannot grasp is why Septic is so determined to maintain his
foolish lies in the face of such strong evidence of his stupidity and
error.
>
> <quote>
> the moon was a perfect sphere

 

[Virgil]

In article <UMydnSbZFMMSj5PYnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:450d955d$0$24208$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> >
> > "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:2LmdnTuE9cxNDZDYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
> > >> Needs Logic Tutor wrote:
> > >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> > >> >> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
> > >> >>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> <snip argument _ad hominem_ by "Gandalf Grey">
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a
> > >> > "mind -
> > >> >>> body problem,"
> > >> >> Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree
> > >> >
> > >> > So you argue (fallaciously). Isn't it actually the case that there
> > > really is
> > >> > no such thing as a mind - body problem any more than there is a
> > > digestion -
> > >> > gut problem, that is just argument from ignorance from your side?
> > >> >
> > >> > Here is now Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad
> > >> > ignorantiam_:
> > >> >
> > >> > "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
> > >> > certain." -- Dan Wood
> > >>
> > >> Would you like references to some scientists and academics who think
> > >> there is such a thing as a mind-body problem?
> > >
> > > So what if lots and lots of people believe there might be a mind - body
> > > problem,
> >
> > Not just 'people.' Scientists
>
> Scientists are people too. So what if lots and lots of people, even people
> who are scientists, believe there might be a mind - body problem, does that
> prove there is

In a real sense, yes.