You ignore clear distinctions for unknown reasons.
Not “unknown” nor “clear” as has been abundantly established.
A brain is distinct from the many activities that occur in a brain.
Perfect example. You are—again—making a category error. “Brain” is not a monolithic object; it is actually a term we use for a collection of organs that we arbitrarily apply to just those sections that are in our skulls. So do us a favor and post a picture of a brain.
A violin is distinct from vibrating air.
Again, what is the point of this stupid, unnecessarily pedantic semantics bullshit? Stroking the strings (aka, causing activity) results in air vibrations that excite the inner ear that in turn are translated as particular sounds blah blah blah.
Every step of “music” (aka “subjective mind”) is entirely dependent upon the sequence of all of those processes (aka, “activity”). Violin generates music; brain generates mind.
Why are you desperately trying to unnecessarily complicate that properly basic condition?
Brain activities are distinct from a subset of the activities doing a specific thing
Category error. Brain activities are brain activities. “Specific thing” is redundant and tautological. ALL “activities” do “specific things.”
Once again, there is NO NEED to try to force the concept of a “sub-set,” particularly since you are clearly doing so in order to equivocate.
“Brain activity generates mind” is perfectly sufficient and properly basic.
The activity that creates the subjective mind (the objective mind)
*cough* equivocation! *cough*
is distinct from the product of that activity
Word games. I can just as easily state that playing Mozart’s Violin Concerto No. 3 on a Stradivarius is “distinct” from the same symphony played on a Stentor. While I am technically correct in regard to certain elements of that statement, I am equally technically incorrect in regard to certain other elements of that statement. It’s all hidden within the semantics.
The same thing happens here:
The subjective mind experiences pain. The brain does not experience pain.
I can just as easily state the opposite and due to the ambiguity of the terms it remains equally true:
The brain experiences pain. The subjective mind does not experience pain.
All you can do is gainsay it.
The activity of the brain does not experience pain.
But the brain does and then interprets that experience into signals—aka, “generates activity”—that in turn becomes part of the activity that generates the subjective mind.
There is literally nothing you can type that I can’t perfectly match precisely because the entirety of your fallacy is predicated on semantic games and category errors.
The only question remaining—as always—is why are you so desperately trying to pretend that “mind” is an objectively existing object equivalent in ALL aspects to the way a brain is an objectively existing object?
Let’s assume your clearly unsound argument is nevertheless true and there exists some
thing as a distinct, “objective mind”? So....?
What is your next tenuous link?
