-----Original Message-----
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rex Allen
Sent: Monday, 27 June 2011 12:34 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales
<cgha...@unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> 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.

So if there are predictions that can be made or useful concepts
formulated in T' that aren't possible in T, then sure, why not.  T'
all the way.

Though this still doesn't get you from instrumentalism to metaphysical
realism.  It's just trading up from one empirically adequate
calculational framework to another which is, in some sense, "better".


No appeal to any sort of 'ism' is required. No particular 'ism is relevant. 
They are useful post-hoc descriptors but otherwise useless ... FWIW I believe 
the label for this framework is 'dual aspect' or 'neutral' monism. I call it 
dual aspect science.

The point is that it's not a matter of exclusively T or T' ... both, together, 
form a consistent framework within which to capture a picture of the universe 
that  predicts/describes an observer  _and_ predicts/describes what that 
observer will scientifically describe using the observational faculty thus 
acquired. "Being scientific" or "doing science" involves populating either/both 
sets. Neither T nor T' need be unique. 

Set T and T' only have to be mutually consistent at all levels. That 
consistency can be held as offering more than either set on its own. There are 
empirical predictions made by T' that cannot be made by T and these are 
entirely confined to the implementation of an observer.

When you look at it this way... saying T' is "not science because it's not set 
T" is a deep fallacy (set T chauvinism?)  :-)  


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