-----Original Message-----

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rex Allen

Sent: Monday, 27 June 2011 5:59 AM

To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out


On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>

> On 24 Jun 2011, at 17:49, Rex Allen wrote:


>> Awareness and self-awareness aren't related to the question of 

>> consciousness.  They fall well within the realm of the easy problems.


> I have deduced this from some posts. You, and Dennett are begging the 

> question.


I don't follow you.  To which question are you referring?



> Why should science be based only on observation? What would that mean?


It means that the primary goal of science is to allow the prediction of
future observations in as convenient and useful a way as possible.

If science didn't do this, there would be no point in messing with it.


The core requirement for a scientific theory is that it must be
consistent with what we have observed in the past, what we currently
observe in the present, and what we will observe in the future.


Thus, science is based on observation.


However - coming up with stories that are consistent with observation
but which aren't useful for prediction isn't science, though it might
count as entertainment or religion.




Can I recalibrate this a little so that you can scientifically handle



1) science is based on observation.

2) scientific 'observation' is 100% implemented by the consciousness of

3) regularity (say Statements T) captured by (1) predicts the _contents_
of the consciousness of a scientific observer.

2a) Therefore the kind of science done by (1) can never account for the
existence/nature of the observer (circular)/tautologous.

4) Scientific EVIDENCE is more than just the _contents_ of consciousness
of scientists.

5) Scientific evidence of consciousness is the fact of an ability to do

6) The mere existence of consciousness (as witnessed in the outcomes T),
therefore, justifies systems of regularity that serve to predict the
existence and outward appearance of an observer.

7) The statements of regularity of (6)  (say T') are NOT the same
statements as (3).

8) statements T' are just as justified as T because they predict an
observer that sees the world according to T.


The problem we have is that we label T' as metaphysics before
considering what science _itself_ delivers as evidence over and above
the mere outcomes of scientific behaviour.








You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to