One's mind and one's brain are not identical

Begging The Question I don't see how the argument begs the question. I could ask you to conceive that the mind is separate from the brain in one possible world, but I am completely fine with asking you to conceive that they are the exact same in another possible world. If one asked you to conceive of both (a world where they are distinct, and a world where they were identical) then its hard to see how I am begging the question in favor of one over the other. Now, Con states: "In your defense of P2 you mention this, 'Imagine you woke up tomorrow in a beetles body,' this argument assumes from the onset that the mind is something separate from the body. " - Con However, this is like saying that asking one to imagine themselves as a banker already assumes that that person is a banker! Surely, that is absurd. If I ask you to imagine, or conceive without contradiction that you are a banker, that in no way presupposes that you are a banker. Similarly, just because I ask one to conceive of your mind being separate from your brain, that in no way presupposes that your mind is separate from your brain. We can conceive of the mind being the exact same as the brain as well so I don't see how this is begging the question. My opponent also states: "If physicalism is true, and the subjective experience of the "self" is merely an illusion then applying this argument to try and conceive of it being separate betrays the objective understanding in favor of the subjective and incorrect understanding. " - Con Even if physicalism is true in the actual world, that wouldn't mean it was true in other possible worlds. Something physically impossible can still be metaphysically possible. Since my claim is that something is metaphysically possible (not necessarily physically possible), my argument still goes through. Science Vs Philosophy The arguments aren't dependent upon an author to be true, they are just dependent on an author to know them to be true. Something is possible, or impossible regardless of anybody who is there to deduce that. My opponent also says: "[I]f the mind is something that developed as an evolutionary bi product of the anatomically modern humans, then that would inform that there isn't really any meaningful distinction between the brain and mind. " - Con At best this shows that the mind is dependent on the brain, this doesn't mean they are the same thing (the mind could be something that emerges from the brain). Also, if one reviews the chart I provided in the first round, they will see that even something physically impossible can still be the case in some possible world. Lastly, my opponent says: "I motion that we should prefer scientific inquiry on the subject of the mind over arguments built on modal fictions. " - Con The problem is that the two aren't mutually exclusive. Something can be physically impossible (scientifically impossible) but still be metaphysically possible. For example, an object going faster than the speed of light is physically impossible, but it is still metaphysically possible. Thus, physical limitations do not harm my argument here. Conclusion I thank my opponent for his new arguments. However, they seem to fail just like the last batch.