On 24 February 2014 17:38, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
No, that's the point of the analogy, so you can see for yourself why the > question is not reasonable. The question posed over and over to me here has > been some variation of this same "But if the world didn't work the way that > it does, wouldn't you have to agree that you were wrong and the world was > right?" You've lost me. Surely such questions are more like "If the world turned out not to work the way in the way you predict, wouldn't you have to agree that you were wrong and the world was right?" IOW I thought I was asking a question capable of a definite answer in principle. I thought you had a definite view about whether any significant part of the brain could be functionally substituted without subjective consequences for the patient. In fact I assumed that your view was that this wouldn't be possible. Is that incorrect? On that assumption, I asked you to consider, hypothetically, my telling you that I had survived such a substitution without any loss or difference. If such an eventuality were to occur, wouldn't you at least consider that this anomaly put your theory in doubt? David -- 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.
