On 21 September 2013 12:15, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>  On 9/20/2013 3:53 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 21 September 2013 05:48, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> 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
>
>
> Right.  The only indubitable thought you can have is, "There's a
> thought".  You can't doubt any other thought, like, "I see red.", because
> doubting is a thought and you can't think two different conscious thoughts
> at the same time.  You can't think "I see red." AND "There is doubt this a
> thought." at the same time.  You can have the thought, "There is doubt that
> this is a thought.", and your thought would be false.
>

Yes, sorry, I expressed that a little colloquially. I wasn't intending to
assume the existence of an "I" - merely of consciousness. I think (!) one
could be wrong about having a thought (maybe someone else had the thought
and it only appears to be "mine" - or maybe there is only one cosmic
consciousness time-sharing between brains, etc) - but one (or whatever)
couldn't be wrong about being conscious of the thought at the time at which
one (or whatever) was conscious of the thought.

  - 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).

 Descarte assumed that there was an "I" having the thought and assumed it
> proved the existence of "I".
>

Yes, sure, I wasn't saying I accept everything Descartes said (stuff about
the pineal gland, I seem to recall, is probably dubious).

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to