On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 8:38:31 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 5 February 2014 01:31, Craig Weinberg <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > >> As per my answer to David: if you could show that a physical > >> phenomenon of a particular type necessarily leads to consciousness, > >> then anything further you have to say, such as remarks about how weird > >> it sounds, will not negate it. > > > > > > That's the same as saying "If I were proved right, then I couldn't have > been > > wrong." > > > > The fact though that we cannot show a physical phenomena which > necessarily > > leads to consciousness and there is no reason to suppose that one could > ever > > be shown (especially since 'showing' only happens within consciousness, > or > > else consciousness would be redundant). > > The proof is the argument I have cited several times. If it's valid, > any objections are then pointless, like the Pythagoreans complaining > that irrational numbers offend their sense of aesthetics. You have not > shown that the argument is invalid. >
The argument can't be shown to be invalid, because the problem with the argument is that there is a universe which exists outside of all argument, through which argument itself is defined. The argument may be able to silence objections, but that doesn't mean the argument is correct. Craig > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- 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.
