On Thursday, February 6, 2014 3:59:45 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 5 February 2014 23:55, Craig Weinberg <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:57:43 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > >> > >> 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. > > > > > > That's like having to go back more than 2000 years to find a fallacious > > political justification for suppressing my argument rather than a reason > > that makes sense. > > My point is that an argument that is logically sound trumps any > aesthetic objections to its conclusion. >
That's because you identify with the logical aesthetic personally. If someone changes your brain chemistry, you could believe the opposite, or if you were tortured enough, you would love Big Brother. 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.
