> On 21 Mar 2018, at 00:27, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Telmo Menezes <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 1:03 AM, Bruce Kellett >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> > Now it may be that you want to reject Stathis's claim, and insist that >> > consciousness cannot be inferred from behaviour. But it seems to me that >> > that theory is as lacking in independent verification as the contrary. >> >> Again, no theory. I am just stating the simple fact that, since there >> is no known instrument so far that can detect consciousness in the 3p, >> then it is not possible to propose scientific theories about >> consciousness at the moment. Only conjectures. > > Explain the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific > conjecture. Science is not about proofs; theories are always only ever > conjectural, and subject to revision and/or rejection as further evidence is > gathered. You don't need an instrument that can give a clean yes/no answer to > the presence of consciousness to develop scientific theories about > consciousness. We can start with the observation that all normal healthy > humans are conscious, and that rocks and other inert objects are not > conscious and work from there to develop a science of consciousness, based on > evidence from the observation of behaviour. One might well consider that > there are different levels or types of consciousness accorded to humans, > animals, octopuses, and so on. But that would be a scientific finding, based > on observational evidence. > > So science is not as limited as you seem to want to make it —
I agreed with all what you say here, but then ... > science is not mathematics, after all. Well, what you say above applies also to mathematics, even if we might argue that every-elementary arithmetic is close to being undoubtable, but that is true only for an arithmetical realist, not for those who rejects the (A v ~A) principles. Most mathematicians and scientist do not doubt arithmetic, but many philosophers of mathematics do. But OK, this is tangent on the discussion. The important point is that science is not about proof (then it happens that proof is not about truth, as the premises might be unsound, even if consistent). Bruno > >> If you want my conjecture: I assume that all living things are >> conscious. If you show me an AI that behaves like a human being (or >> even a dog) I will assume it's conscious too. But none of this is >> science. >> >> I strongly suspect that consciousness is something that cannot, in >> fact, be studied by science -- because consciousness is what does >> science. It's like asking you to look inside your eyeballs. > > It is perfectly possible to look inside one's own eyeballs. Have you never > been to an optician? Just use a mirror with his instruments for inspecting > and recording the state of the retina. > > Bruce > > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
