# Debate 1 ## Proposition > "bivalves are sentient because they have a brain." ## Argument 1. "The definition of brain needs to apply to all species... Not being such, it is speciesist intentionally. 2. If the definition of a brain doesn't apply to sponges, then your definition of brain is speciesist on your own lights. ### ImDemonWolf's Definition of a Brain | **Definiendum** | **Definiens** | |:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------- | | **B** | something (x) is a brain | | **M** | something (x) is a convoluted mass of nervous substance | | **S** | something (x) is is encased within a skull | | **c** | cerebral ganglia inside of a bivalve |
P1) Something is a brain if, and only if, something is a convoluted mass of nervous substance and is encased within a skull.
(∀x(Bx↔Mx∧Sx))
P2)
The cerebral ganglia inside of a bivalve is convoluted masses of nervous substance.
(Mc)
P3)
The cerebral ganglia inside of a bivalve is not encased within a skull.
(¬Sc)
C)
Therefore, the cerebral ganglia inside of a bivalve is not a brain.
(∴¬Bc)

[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Bx~4Mx~1Sx)),(Mc),(~3Sc)|=(~3Bc)) ## Analysis 1. If your definition of a brain is so broad that it captures structures like cerebral ganglia, I don't see how you're not committed to the proposition that my body contains multiple brains. Do you sign off on that? ## Receipts ![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230726122259.png]] ![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230726125553.png]] ![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230726125638.png]] ![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230726125705.png]] --- # Hashtags #debate #debate_opponents