On 5 February 2014 13:46, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 8:38:31 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >> >> On 5 February 2014 01:31, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> 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.
Again, that's like the Pythagoreans deciding to suppress the evidence for irrational numbers because they believed in a higher aesthetic cause. -- 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.
