bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,647
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
I never used the word 'surroundings', so whatever flaws my argument may have, that can't be one of them.Forget "sharing" a consciousness; I don't know where you got that from.
This argument is based on a flawed premise (two objects with arbitrarily similar properties are always and necessarily distinguishable from each other by their locations, if by nothing else); and even if it were not, the conclusion does not follow from your premises. Your argument is neither sound nor valid.
If there is no way to differentiate two objects, then they are both the same object, and you have one object - a contradiction. If two objects are not both the same object, then there is no reason to regard differences in consciousness between those objects as indicative that consciousness is non-physical.
This is a fallacy of composition. Something is not its surroundings.
I was referring to your "location" comment.
Then refer to it.