----- Original Message ----- From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "BRIN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 1:12 PM Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives
> > But, the problem with this argument is that, if you define what real is, of > > course you can refute arguments you disagree with. > > I didn't define what real was. I just pointed out that in the real world > nobody refuted the argument. Why be pedantic? Arguing that something does not work in the real world presupposes that one can separate the places where the argument works (not the real world) and those where they don't (the real world). The only way I've seen "real world" used in a way that makes sense to me is in response to extreme idealism: phenomenon is not just a partial divorced from reality, but it has nothing to do with reality. In the real world, i.e. the world that the idealist lives in, she does act as though freeway traffic is real, she doesn't just step in front of the unreal car going 60 mph. But, in the "real world," people do act as though they believe in God. So, that test is passed. The question of the existence of things that there is no empirical evidence for has also been used. My arguments intend to show just how far such an argument cuts. > > > > > For example, if one wishes to argue that only things for which there is > > solid empirical evidence need to be considered real, one finds much in the > > trash heap; including many things believed in by empiricists. The classic > > one is self-awareness. If the mind can be reduced to the brain, > > 'Reduced to' isn't equivalent to 'is'. The mind may be supervening on the > brain, but that isn't the same as being the brain. So do you accept the mind as real, without any empirical evidence for its existence? > > and the brain works by biochemistry, then there is no reason to assume that > > humans are self aware. It adds nothing that cannot already be explained by > > biochemistry. > > It makes a big difference to the truth value of the phrase "I am self > aware". And empirically one could look at the patterns of activity in a > person's brain when they uttered that phrase to see if they were lying or > not. No, the self awareness contributes nothing to models of the behavior of humans, thus, by definition, there is no scientific evidence for self-awareness. I'll agree that the word conscious is part of the language that is used to describe brain states as well as self awareness. Thus, I'd be happy to grant it the same "reality" to consciousness as I grant to reduced mass. Let's look at two models. One uses calls conscious and unconscious, the other uses "state A", and state "B". Both assume a biochemical basis for all human behavior. The predictive value of each is identical. In this case, conscious and state A are equally useful descriptions. Indeed, state A would, in a real sense, be preferred because it doesn't carry implicit baggage that is not actually part of the scientific model. > > Yet, few atheists deny the existence of self consciousness, > > and argue long and hard that what isn't self consciousness really is. > > What has atheism got to do with consciousness? Atheism addresses the question of the existence >of god(s), and has nothing to do with the question of consciousness. Well, the proof seems to be: There is no empirical evidence for God It is foolish to consider something that there is no empirical evidence for as existing. Thus there is no God. I'm attacking statement number 2 with There is no empirical evidence for the existence of self consciousness It is very reasonable to consider self-consciousness as real. Thus, statement 2 given above is false. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
