bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,647
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
And my reply addresses both, to show that they are completely analogous.
Was I wrong to think that you were agreeing that they are analogous when you said "Okay, then if you are making a fair analogy, you would have to say that we stay conscious, like the red ball stays red, after the body is destroyed."?
When the ball is destroyed, it is no longer red.
But you didn't say that the ball would be destroyed in your original analogy. And I am trying to tell you that I didn't either. I meant the human body, not the ball.
You may have an argument to present; but if so, there is no way for me to tell what it is from what you have posted.
Perhaps you could try to present a coherent statement of what it is you are trying to convey here? What did you mean about the human body and not the ball; and how are the two non-analogous?
As far as I can see, we have a human body, with a property - consciousness. That property ceases to exist if the human body is destroyed. To conclude that "therefore the property of consciousness is non-physical" from this would be perverse.
By direct analogy, we can take a simpler system - a ball, with a property - redness. That property also ceases to exist if the physical entity responsible for its existence is destroyed. To conclude that "therefore the property of redness is non-physical" from this would be perverse.
Your argument is not valid, sound nor coherent. If you have something, now would be the time to present it, because so far, you've got nothing.