Dr Steve Novella and The (Pseudo?)Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

OK, but I will remind you, the next time you try to trump an argument by just demanding a proof!

For crying out loud, man! I didn't demand a proof, Ian wrote one. Is the goal to make sure that no one critiques it? What the hell is the point of posting it?

You do realize that if there are no logical proofs for certain metaphysical positions, then metaphysics is entirely vapid? Without proofs, it's just a question of empirical evidence, in which case we don't need metaphysics cuz we got science.

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

You do realize that if there are no logical proofs for certain metaphysical positions, then metaphysics is entirely vapid? Without proofs, it's just a question of empirical evidence, in which case we don't need metaphysics cuz we got science.

~~ Paul

No! All sciences go through a pre-proof phase, and you can't skip that bit. People had to learn a lot (and speculate) about electricity and magnetism before Maxwell could write down his equations. I am not saying consciousness and Ψ are forever beyond rigorous reasoning - just that we have not reached that point yet. If the physicalist approach is wrong - which I think it is - it is necessary to back up and use a bit of intuition.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

No! All sciences go through a pre-proof phase, and you can't skip that bit. People had to learn a lot (and speculate) about electricity and magnetism before Maxwell could write down his equations. I am not saying consciousness and ? are forever beyond rigorous reasoning - just that we have not reached that point yet. If the physicalist approach is wrong - which I think it is - it is necessary to back up and use a bit of intuition.

What does metaphysics have to do with electricity and magnetism? I suppose we can keep a few metaphysicists around just for their intuition. Is it somehow more fruitful than scientists' intuition?

How the heck are we going to locate this mysterious consciousness if the physicalist approach is wrong? Is there a science of idealism or dualism that I don't know about? Are you sure you aren't mixing up ontology with scientific epistemology?

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I didn't ask you to describe it in detail, I just asked you to define it. In particular, is "consciousness in and of itself" a different thing from all the references to plain "consciousness" elsewhere in the proof?

When I say consciousness in and of itself, I mean consciousness per se.

I'm merely stressing that I'm actually referring to consciousness -- not a physical process. For some reason many people seem to think that I'm referring to physical processses in the brain when I use the word consciousness. I'm not.

I can't make head or tail of the rest of your post. If you're having any problems with my proof then please be clear as to what your issue is.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I agree. Does Ian agree?

~~ Paul

No I do not agree that it's possible that consciousness is wholly inefficacious. If it's possible you have to show how my proof fails. So far you have failed to do so.

It seems to me that the only way to escape my proof is if you maintain that consciousness does not exist.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ian

When I say consciousness in and of itself, I mean consciousness per se.

Do you mean consciousness as an ontologically distinct entity, or are you simply refering to consciousness in general, regardless of its ontological status?

Originally Posted by Ian

I can't make head or tail of the rest of your post. If you're having any problems with my proof then please be clear as to what your issue is.

I've explained my problem 10 different ways.

P1. In all possible metaphysical worlds, it is logically impossible to believe I am conscious without being conscious. This is because it is impossible to believe anything at all without being conscious.

P3. All physical events evolve according to physical laws.

P4. Consciousness is distinct from the underlying physical activity.

C1. According to science it is not consciousness in and of itself which is responsible for the complete certainty of our own consciousness.

For P4, under what circumstances is consciousness distinct from underlying physical activity?

What does C1 mean? What causes the complete certainty that we are conscious? How did you derive the fact that we are completely certain?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ian

No I do not agree that it's possible that consciousness is wholly inefficacious.

That's not what I was agreeing with.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

That's not what I was agreeing with.

~~ Paul

You agree with David that no proof will ever be possible in any aspect of philosophy whatsoever.

I am maintaining that I have proved that necessarily consciousness cannot be entirely causally inefficacious.

So why exactly are you asking whether I agree when you know the answer to that question already . . .

[David Bailey]

Ian,

You need to remember that when maths/science type people talk about proofs, they are unbelievably picky about what counts. For example, before Fermat's Last Theorem was proved, they had demonstrated that the 'n' in
x^n+y^n=z^n (n>2 all variables integer) could not be less than some huge number in the billions. This did not count as a proof - even though for all practical purposes they already knew the answer.

That pickiness is good, but unfortunately it means that verbal arguments are very hard to prove because people endlessly pick over the definitions. In my view, in consciousness theory, physicalists forget that just because they can forestall a proof by being ultra-cautious, they would do well to see the writing on the wall. They are making the same sort of mistake as if a mathematician in the 1980's (i.e. before the theorem was proved) had begun a whole branch of research that absolutely depended on the assumption that Fermat's Last Theorem was false!

David

[Interesting Ian]

I've had a comment left on my blog regarding the free will essay:

Anonymous said...

Ian has indeed presented this proof many times. Each time with a different conclusion tacked on to the end. Perhaps that is why nobody understands it.

I should point out that major scientists and philosophers of science have explicitly rejected the assumption that everything follows physical laws for at least 170 years now.

Robin

They have rejected no such thing!