On 3/10/2015 4:35 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 March 2015 at 08:30, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
If I develop a theory of consciousness that consists of statements about
neurons and
chemicals and ion flux and it predicts when we will see a person behaving
in the way
we call conscious and when not; even predicting when they will appear sad
or happy
or angry. Is that not a falsifiable, material theory of consciousness?
Couldn't
its predictions be empirically wrong?
Yes of course they could. That isn't at issue, as far as I know.
And if they were wrong, wouldn't they be equally wrong whether or not
primary
materialism (whatever that means) were true.
Yes, that was my point.
Primary materialism is the theory that there is no deeper explanation for existence (or
consciousness, specifically, in this discussion) than the fact that matter exists. In
discussions on this list "primary materialism" is often abbreviated to just
"materialism", presumably to save time and wear and tear on the fingers / keyboards of
those involved.
I seems to me there's confusion between falsifying the theory that matter is primary and
falsifying a materialistic theory of consciousness. Here's the relevant excerpts of the
thread I was addressing:
======================
Menezes: This is, however, not true of the hypothesis that consciousness is an
epiphenomena of matter. That is a materialist theory, and it's also peepee (no
falsifiability, no explanatory power, no ability to predict anything).
Clark: >> it's irrelevant if matter is fundamental or not, either way it wouldn't change
the fact that a non-materialistic theory [of consciousness] is not falsifiable.
Menezes:> Nor is a materialistic theory falsifiable.
Clark: if no materialistic theory is falsifiable and no non-materialistic theory is
falsifiable then no theory is falsifiable and science does not exist.
LizR: Strictly speaking that isn't correct. All one can deduce is that science is agnostic
on whether materialism is correct or not, which leaves it plenty of scope to find other
stuff out.
(Bear in mind that materialism in this context is shorthand for primary
materialism.)
==========================
I agree with your point that science is agnostic about (fundamental) materialism; in fact
"matter" has been redefined and abstracted so much in theoretical physics that its
definition is almost reduced to circularity: Matter is whatever satisfies the equations
about matter.
But the original discussion between Telmo and John was about whether a materialist theory
of consciousness was possible. Telmo seemed to think no materialist theory was
falsifiable and John thought no theory of consciousness was falsifiable. And so they
agreed that no materialist theory of consciousness was falsifiable. I disagreed on both
counts and provided an example.
Brent
--
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/d/optout.
