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

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

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

I mean precisely what I say, no more no less. The ontological status of consciousness has nothing to do with consciousness per se.

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.

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

It is always distinct. Consciousness is never identical to any physical process.

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

Why don't you actually read my original proof. I swear to you that I'm unable to express myself any more clearer than I already have in my blog. I have no idea why you don't believe me. Skeptics never ever understand anything I say. So there's absolutely no purpose served in discussing anything about metaphysics with them.

As I keep telling you for the millionth billionth time, if you still fail to understand, then there is nothing more I can say or do. That goes for your skeptic friends over at the jref too.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ian

I mean precisely what I say, no more no less. The ontological status of consciousness has nothing to do with consciousness per se.

Does "consciousness in and of itself" allow for consciousness to be a process?

It is always distinct. Consciousness is never identical to any physical process.

So P4 should be:

P4. In a physical world, consciousness is distinct from the underlying physical activity.

Why don't you actually read my original proof. I swear to you that I'm unable to express myself any more clearer than I already have in my blog. I have no idea why you don't believe me. Skeptics never ever understand anything I say. So there's absolutely no purpose served in discussing anything about metaphysics with them.

Ah, so you don't actually like the wording of C1:

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

As I keep telling you for the millionth billionth time, if you still fail to understand, then there is nothing more I can say or do. That goes for your skeptic friends over at the jref too.

All right, you've convinced me. To hell with it.

~~ Paul