So, you haven't challenged premise 1 — Bartricks

I am helping premise 1. Nature has been shown to be discrete, by Quantum Mechanics, as in the smallest entities that can't be divided any more. Infinite divisibility is out.

This is a reply to your 3. You're now talking about the CONCLUSION of my argument (well, I say 'my' argument - it is actually Descartes'). The conclusion is entailed by the premises, so until you've provided grounds for a reasonable doubt about the premises it does demonstrate that the mind is immaterial.

Question begging.

I don't understand what you mean. Why are you talking about qualia? — Bartricks

I supported that the objects of consciousness, as qualia, are indeed unified.

Which premise of my argument mentioned qualia?
You need to challenge a premise of my argument. I'm talking about THE MIND

For instance, have you ever attributed half a mind to a person? What would that even mean? — Bartricks

To relieve severe epilepsy, the corpus callous is severed, effectively producing two consciousness, although there is still the brain stem area common to the two minds. While it is a good relief, sometimes the two minds work against each other in a bad way.

I said the MIND is indivisible. This is something our reason represents to be the case. — Bartricks

Yes, so it appears, but not all that happens gets into consciousness.

OK, about the brain: we can poke at the brain and then the experience appears in the mind, then repeat it, and then the same.

Again, question begging - you're assuming that the mind is the brain AGAIN.

Let's imagine that Ralph has severe epilepsy. I've lent Ralph $1000. But now Ralph needs his brain to be cut in half. So they cut it in half and, because they're hungry, they take one half out and eat it, leaving him with a functioning half.
Ok, so what - does this half-Ralph now owe me $500? No, obviously not. He owes me $1000. Because Ralph hasn't been divided, only his brain has.
Or perhaps the division extinguished Ralph altogether, in which case the resulting person owes me nothing.
Those are obviously the options though, aren't they - the post-surgery person either owes me nothing, or $1000. They don't owe me $500, because they're not - and can't possibly be - a 'half-Ralph'.

Descartes — Bartricks

I'd say he put the cart before the horse.

Yes, I know that. Now, which premise of MY argument are you challenging and how?

Which premise of my argument mentioned qualia? — Bartricks

That's an agreed on name for the contents of the mind.

Say what you like, it's showing it that's difficult.

Tell me, do you think Descartes was a) one of the greatest thinkers of all time, or b) a twit?

I know. Which premise are you disputing?

Maybe stop assuming I don't know stuff and just address the argument.

Note, if your answer to my question is 'b' then that is also the answer to what you are.

Ok, so what - does this half-Ralph now owe me $500? — Bartricks

He owes a lot more than that if he has no insurance.

At first, another Ralph with one hemisphere of the brain taken out, has a disabled mind and body, but, eventually, we hope, as usual, that the remaining hemisphere takes over the missing functions.

Does he owe me $500? You seem to have trouble focussing.

a) one of the greatest thinkers of all time — Bartricks

He did great by what was known at the time.

Does he owe me $500? — Bartricks

No, full price, if that memory is still intact, otherwise…

Note, if your answer to my question is 'b' then that is also the answer to what you are. — Bartricks

My good friend and interesting discusser and fast typer, you got it wrong, but you had to, so you are forgiven. No hard feelings.

You've never read him, have you?

Which premise are you disputing? — Bartricks

I'm helping your argument by expanding on it so maybe it can get into better form but still remain true to itself. The jury is still out, not just me, on non-physical notions. In a more final court, the judge may respond, "Immaterial!"

What's his memory got to do with it?

The post surgery person either owes you $1000 or nothing, yes? Because either it is Ralph, or it is a totally new person. It isn't 'half-Ralph'. We may not know for sure whether it is Ralph or not-Ralph, but we know that it isn't 'half-Ralph'. We know that it is absurd to think he owes you $500. We know that it is absurd to reduce your debts by having bits lopped off your brain.

Why do those things sound absurd? Because our reason represents our minds to be indivisible, that's why.

You've never read him, have you? — Bartricks

Sorry, wrong again; I could even read his latin. I won't hold it against you.

I'll phone up my bank, shall I, and tell them I just removed 10% of my brain, so now I owe them 10% less and we'll see how plausible they find my second premise. My guess - very plausible indeed.

You sooo haven't read him.

What help does my (Descartes') argument need, do you think? Seems to be doing just fine as it is, so far as I can tell. I mean, you've been unable to raise a reasonable doubt about either premise.

You sooo haven't read him. — Bartricks

Res extensa and res cogitans as his way of saying it.

I mean, you've been unable to raise a reasonable doubt about either premise. — Bartricks

Generally, I'm helping. although in that attempt some reasonable doubt came in.

Maybe read him in English next time, that way you might understand him a little better.

Now which premise in his oh so dated argument are you disputing?