Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA20133 (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 11:45:03 +0100 Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 11:39:13 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: the conscious universe Message-ID: <20001002113913.A1380@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <20001001192848.AAA26404@camailp.harvard.edu@[204.96.32.187]>; <20001001204433.A1104@reborntechnology.co.uk> <200010020839.EAA29199@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200010020839.EAA29199@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 03:44:43AM -0500 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 03:44:43AM -0500, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> Since my primary field is philosophy, I can speak upon this.
Given Wade's opinion of philosophy and philosophers, he might not be too
impressed by your statements. Unless they happen to support his own,
of course.
> 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.
Where's your evidence for "concrete consciousness"? :-)
> In fact, Robin has not
> the whisp of a suggestion how one might go about testing a lump
> of granite for its purported consciousness.
You seem to be confusing empirical testability with logical and/or
philosophical validity. Which, in a philosopher, is rather surprising.
> 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.
I've said, several times, that consciousness is subjective, and its
location a matter of opinion, not one of fact. Do you consider all
matters of opinion to be "mysticoreligious"?
-- 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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 11:46:42 BST