The mind is probably not entirely physical

I would like to begin with introducing the Oxford dictionary definition of the brain: "an organ of soft nervous tissue contained in the skull of vertebrates, functioning as the coordinating centre of sensation and intellectual and nervous activity; a person's mind". Much of pro's argument presented the mind and the brain as two separate entities. For the purpose of my argument I will treat them as the same thing: both because of the above definition and because scientific evidence points at their oneness. I will address each of pro's arguments below. Leibniz's law argument: "if two things are, in reality, the same thing, then whatever is true of one is true of the other and vice verse. " I would argue that this argument cannot be applied to the dilemma of the mind and the brain. My opponent uses the argument to prove that because certain things are not true of the mind and the brain then they cannot be the same thing. I would like to argue against the validity of this in this particular case because for that argument to be applicable then all brains must be the same, following Liebniz's law. Therefore: P1: If all brains are identical then there is nothing true of one, not true of the other. (Leibniz's law) P2: All brains are not identical- they vary in volume, genetics etc. P3: As all brains are not identical pro's argument is not logically valid. The conception argument: According to pro " if two things are identical, it is metaphysically impossible for them to exist without each other. " The examples provided to prove the point are is flawed. Arguing that it is impossible for "my pet rabbit" to exist while "Thumper" doesn't is logically unsound as it denies the potential existence of my pet rabbits Fred and George. Furthermore, the examples of metaphysical impossibility you provide are also false. It is perfectly possible for "the part to be greater than the whole"- imagine a circle made up of overlapping smaller circles- the surface area of the overlapping smaller circles is greater than the surface area of the "whole" circle proving that it is conceivable for the part to be greater than the whole. The zombie argument: You are making assumptions about the clone's consciousness that do not rely on scientific evidence. It is similar to this: P1: If I have awareness other people must also have awareness that is the same as mine P2: My neighbour John killed his dog, something I can never conceive P3: Therefore my neighbour John does not have awareness. There is no scientific evidence that the clone does not have consciousness and it is perfectly possible to conceive that it does. The argument from experience: Just as the smell of lasagna in not physically present in the brain it is also not physically present in the mind. When you touch a surface with your fingers that surface is not physically present inside your hand, the sensation is. As I argued above, no two brains are the same and therefore no two brains can experience the same things (be it lasagna smells or something else). There are plenty of studies out there on the way people experience things, be it smell, touch, sight etc and all of these register in the brain: it is the brain that produces images and controls our sense of smell. The reasons those differs from person to person is because no two brains are the same- it has nothing to do with the mind. The argument from free will This is the only logical leap in your argument so far that escapes me. Where do you come onto the assumption that if the mind is purely physical then we have no free will? As far as I have read there is no scientific evidence that free will is anything more than a combination of chemistry and biology conducted through the body by the brain and must therefore be purely physical. When people make decisions, certain centres of their brains light up pointing at where those decisions stem from. Conclusion: As I have demonstrated above, some of your arguments do not follow the rules of the various schools of philosophy you are relying on as a basis to your argument and therefore I have proven the logic itself wrong, rendering the argument invalid. In others you have made leaps based on philosophy as supposed to scientific fact. There is nothing inherently wrong in that, philosophy like science is another way we use to learn more about and make sense of the world. Where possible, I have introduced scientific arguments to combat that. Ultimately, this falls into the category of questions such as "Does the soul exist? "- there are plenty of schools in both philosophy and science that support it and plenty more that don't. I would like to take the opportunity to say that I've really enjoyed reading all your points- all of which are well made if somewhat pedantic.