3 ms·
No, you have to take that argument in context of his other arguments against physical explanations for consciousness. What he's saying is that the physical fact
by goatlover 2y ago
No, you have to take that argument in context of his other arguments against physical explanations for consciousness. What he's saying is that the physical facts do not adequately account for conscious experiences, which is why we can conceive of a universe physically identical lacking consciousness. Why he (and some other philosophers) think this is so is part of their larger arguments.
- Ukv 2y ago> which is why we can conceive of a universe physically identical lacking consciousness I can conceive of it about as well as I can conceive of an identical universe lacking the Internet. Both seem like fairly direct logical contradictions, slightly disguised by referring to concepts that we generally think about more abstractly rather than their physical composition.
- tsimionescu 2y agoIf you examine all of his arguments, they all end up in the same place. He assumes that consciousness is not necessary for human-like or even animal-like intelligence, and he works from there back to the same conclusion.