-----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> wrote: > 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 consciousness? 1) science is based on observation. 2) scientific 'observation' is 100% implemented by the consciousness of scientists. 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 science. 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. Cheers Colin -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
