The conscious mind only exists physically

Pro made so many mistakes in his last post that in my response I was 4000 characters over the limit and had to delete or shorten many of my objections, including my conclusion. Here is my abridged version. [1] Law of Identity (a) Quantum Physics The law of identity is scientifically wrong and baseless. Irrelevance The paradoxical behavior of things in the quantum world is irrelevant to whether or not the brain and mind are identical. That Pro has given a single instance of something defying the laws of logic does not mean that everything else can, or that the mind can. (c) Spooky Action I argue that con, in fact, needs to prove that there is some "spooky action", which is not explained by any chemical, or molecular processes that occur in the brain. Con supports the notion of magical thinking"that the mind and consciousness somehow exists separately from the brain and defy the laws of physics.Straw Man I do not support the notion of magical thinking that the mind exists separately from the brain. I believe it is intertwined with the brain. I support the notion of logical and empirical thinking that the mind is logically distinct from the brain, which I supported by arguing that there are at least two aspects that are true of the mind but not of the brain, first-person experience and free will. (e) Semantics Human semantics do not prove that the brain and mind are separate. I am my brain is more accurate.Baseless Pro has given no argument that the distinction I made is based on semantics, and he has to argue that "I am my brain" is accurate" and not merely assert it. [2] Free Will (a) No Evidence Con makes a claim that the mind cannot have free will when it [sic] made entirely of physical substances, but provides no evidence supporting this.Obvious Pro is right here, although I didn"t think it was necessary to provide evidence for this. It"s kind of obvious, but I"ll do so anyway now. Physical laws by definition constrain what can happen. They ensure that one event follows from another event. While not predicting what an outcome will be, laws determine what the outcome will be. Alternatively, a free action by definition is one whose outcome is determined or constrained. To say that I acted freely in some instance means that I could have done otherwise. There was no law forcing me to do what I did. Hence saying that an action was free and an action was determined are contraries. (b) Predictable Con believes purely in the classical laws of physics "that every cause has a predetermined outcome that is exactly predictable.Straw Man Tell you what. Since I am me and you are you, why don"t you let me tell you what I believe instead of you tell me what I believe, okay? Good. Now I don"t believe that if the laws of physics were universal, everything would be predictable. My argument was that if everything were physical, then free will would not exist, not that predictability would not exist. I agree that chaos would still exist if everything were physical. You have to address the argument that I was making, not some other made up claim. (c) Chance Probability and chance allow the human mind/brain to make new decisions (free will).Confusion Between Indeterminism and Free Will I already explained what was wrong with this view. Free will by definition includes rational reflection, not just the presence of forces or the lack of predictability. (2) (d) MRI Wrong, there is a device called an MRI machine, which makes active areas of the mind available to our sense of sight. False Wrong, MRI"s makes active the areas of the brain available to our sense of sight. That MRI"s show anything about the mind is what you have to prove, not assume. I have had an MRI procedure recently. It did not read my mind, only my brain. The thoughts going through my head at the time of the procedure remain private. (e) Faulty Logic It is also faulty logic to assume that because you can't perceive something, it somehow means that refutes something. I can't perceive an electron, but electrons are not refuted.Straw Man It is faulty logic to assume that a thing itself is refuted if you can"t perceive it, but that was not my argument. I never argued that something doesn"t exist because we can"t perceive it. I"m only talking about categories, in this case the categories of the physical and the mental. The fact that something is true of category of the mind but not true of the category of the brain proves that the two categories are not be equated. (f) Determine In fact, brain scans determine what decisions you will make 7 seconds before you make them.Irrelevance There is no evidence for this claim, and Pro has misinterpreted the evidence. I read the article. It asks participants to choose to hit a button with their right or left hand, but this study is highly contrived, because the "choice" to use one"s right or left hand does not involve any rational or reflective factors involved in a real choice. It is completely random. It does not involve consequences or the individual"s personality, two inherent attributes of agent causation. It"s an interesting study, but it has no application in the real world, or to what we deem to be genuine choices. It only relates to indeterminism (freedom) but not libertarianism (freedom of the will). (3)[3] Causation and Identity (b) Support Yes, thank you for supporting my claims, since I have proven that synergy is physical in the brain.Refute I did not support your claim. I mentioned your claim as a hypothetical of what you might say and subsequently refuted it. I never denied that synergy was physical. I denied that it was material. My argument was that since physical immaterial things can interact with physical material things, the non-physical, immaterial mind can interact with either. And synergy cannot be material because it is not a thing; it is an action between things. Actions or events are not made of matter, they can only be physical. My body is material, and the running of my body is physical, but the running of my body is not a material thing. (c) Computer The human mind is entirely physical because it can be simulated on a physical system such as a computer. Causation Does Not Entail Identity This is a repeat of Pro"s point before about the close link between the mind and the brain, but as I already explained, the fact that the brain can be simulated on a computer, a trivial and accepted fact, does not mean that the mind is physical. It means again that the mind interacts with the physical world, not that it is identical to the physical world. Pro has given strong evidence of intertwinement between mind and brain, but he has yet to give any evidence for identify of mind and brain. The life of a fictional character can be written about by real people on real paper, but that doesn"t imply that the character itself is real, does it? Total Available Evidence Now while it is true that the fact that two things interact strongly does not necessarily entail that they are the same thing, the question remains as to whether they are probably the same. I admit that looking at only the evidence of interaction, it would be reasonable to believe that the mind is physical, but that a piece of evidence E confirms X over Y does not entail that X is true, for we must consider total available evidence. E might confirm X over Y, but D and F might confirm Y over X. My evidence proves that it is logically impossible for the mind to be physical, while coupled with Pro's evidence proves that it the mind is deeply intertwined with the physical world. CONCLUSION Pro has misunderstood or misrepresented my arguments several times and has raised irrelevancies to my case. He continually falsely assumes that if A is involved in B, then B is A. This is called the nothing but fallacy, and asserting it over and over again does not make it valid. Sources are in comments