On 21 September 2013 12:15, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/20/2013 3:53 PM, LizR wrote: > > 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 > > > 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 [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.
