Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA19409 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 2 Oct 2000 09:42:48 +0100 Message-Id: <200010020839.EAA29199@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 03:44:43 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: the conscious universe In-reply-to: <20001001204433.A1104@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <20001001192848.AAA26404@camailp.harvard.edu@[204.96.32.187]>; from wade_smith@harvard.edu on Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 03:28:52PM -0400 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Date sent: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 20:44:33 +0100
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: the conscious universe
From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 03:28:52PM -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote:
> > Hi Robin Faichney --
> >
> > >This is a
> > >"discovered conceptual truth" -- a matter for philosophy, not empiricial
> > >science.
> >
> > A 'discovered conceptual truth'.
> >
> > Oh, boy.
>
> Consider this: if P then Q; P; therefore Q.
>
> That is a conceptual truth. It is abstract, and therefore empirically
> untestable. It is not a _discovered_ conceptual truth, because it is
> obviously true at first glance. In more complex cases, where analysis is
> required, such truths are discovered. This is philosophy, Wade. If only
> you weren't so scornful of it, you might find it quite interesting.
> And some study of it would do wonders for the clarity of both your
> thought and your exposition.
>
> Meanwhile, the rest of your message is redundant.
>
> <snip>
>
Since my primary field is philosophy, I can speak upon this.
There is nothing logical, or in the least bit philosophical, about
Robin's unsupported, and indeed, evidentiarily insupportable,
assumption that the entire universe, and every atom in it, is
conscious. Such a contention is concrete, not abstract, yet is not
testable, and thus violates Popperian Falsifiability, as it is a
positive universal empirical statement, and no universal statement
may be empirically tested everywherewhen. In fact, Robin has not
the whisp of a suggestion how one might go about testing a lump
of granite for its purported consciousness. It is a purely
mysticoreligious assumption. Of course, absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence, but neither is it evidence of presence.
Since such an assertion could never be tested, it cannot be an
article of knowledge, philosophical or otherwise, and is correctly
labeled an article of faith/belief.
>
> --
> Robin Faichney
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 09:44:36 BST