On 21 September 2013 05:48, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/20/2013 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Note also that Truth, by definition cannot be Popperian: it is not > falsifiable, of course. That's a common point with consciousness > "here-and-now", which is not falsifiable nor doubtable, yet true (except > for the zombies of course). OK? > > > I think that is too quick. First, what Popper meant by falsifiable was > that there be a test of a theory which we can conceive as having an outcome > contrary to its prediction. Of course he knew that if the theory were > correct the outcome couldn't falisify it. The point was that we could > only learn something if we didn't already know the answer. > > Second, that there is a conscious thought may be indubitable WHILE the > thought, "There is a conscious thought." is present. But it doesn't follow > that the content of a conscious thought is indubitable. The content might > be, "There is a flying pink elephant in my room." which is both dubitable > and almost certainly false. And if the thought is, "I had a conscious > thought." that too is dubitable. > > The contents of consciousness are doubtable, of course, there might be a malicious demon or the Matrix or my addled senses or fallible memory involved. What isn't doubtable is the fact that I am conscious of them - at the time that I am conscious of them - at least I can't see how that can be doubted. (This is hardly original of course - Decartes reached the same conclusion about 500 years ago).
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
