4 ms·

Showing that paradoxes are incoherent is a logical exercise, not a scientific one. If we use a truth-table to show "P and not P" is always false, that's logic.

by xamuel 8y ago

Showing that paradoxes are incoherent is a logical exercise, not a scientific one. If we use a truth-table to show "P and not P" is always false, that's logic. If we repeatedly drop a ball and observe that it falsifies "balls don't fall", that's science. Stop confusing the two. Dennett has not provided a laboratory experiment X such that if "simonh is the only conscious being in the universe" is true then X has one result, and yet when we run the experiment we see a different result.

simonh 8y ago
Hold on there just a cotton picking minute. You're the one that invoked philosophical zombies. So they're science when you invoke them, but only philosophy when I do? I would rather say that it seems likely science in the strict sense cannot either support or refute the existence of consciousness. It's essentially a philosophical question.
- xamuel 8y ago
  >I would rather say that it seems likely science in the strict sense cannot either support or refute the existence of consciousness Yes, that's the whole point of my first comment. Glad that we ended up agreeing!
- the_af 8y ago
  > I would rather say that it seems likely science in the strict sense cannot either support or refute the existence of consciousness. It's essentially a philosophical question. Agreed, but I'd make the following change: however, whatever consciousness is, science can safely assume most healthy humans have it, and can make educated guesses (and experiments) to explore whether insects have it.
  - simonh 8y ago
    Sure, I honestly don't have any problem defining consciousness in terms of the human experience of it. After all to my mind that's what it is - an experience. We can use scientific processes and techniques to analyse it for sure, to trim away misconceptions and more precisely understand it's parameters but we're never going to identify a 'consciousness particle', or special quantum entanglement whatsit that Roger Penrose seems to believe is responsible for it. I'd rather just embrace the fact that this is a philosophical question. Science can illuminate philosophy, just as philosophy can illuminate science.

by xamuel 8y ago

simonh 8y ago

Hold on there just a cotton picking minute. You're the one that invoked philosophical zombies. So they're science when you invoke them, but only philosophy when I do? I would rather say that it seems likely science in the strict sense cannot either support or refute the existence of consciousness. It's essentially a philosophical question.

xamuel 8y ago
>I would rather say that it seems likely science in the strict sense cannot either support or refute the existence of consciousness Yes, that's the whole point of my first comment. Glad that we ended up agreeing!
the_af 8y ago
> I would rather say that it seems likely science in the strict sense cannot either support or refute the existence of consciousness. It's essentially a philosophical question. Agreed, but I'd make the following change: however, whatever consciousness is, science can safely assume most healthy humans have it, and can make educated guesses (and experiments) to explore whether insects have it.
- simonh 8y ago
  Sure, I honestly don't have any problem defining consciousness in terms of the human experience of it. After all to my mind that's what it is - an experience. We can use scientific processes and techniques to analyse it for sure, to trim away misconceptions and more precisely understand it's parameters but we're never going to identify a 'consciousness particle', or special quantum entanglement whatsit that Roger Penrose seems to believe is responsible for it. I'd rather just embrace the fact that this is a philosophical question. Science can illuminate philosophy, just as philosophy can illuminate science.