This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← The raw deal of determinism and reductionism

Steve Zara's Avatar Jump to comment 219 by Steve Zara

comment 218 by Schrodinger's Cat

Now you are backtracking. Your original argument was that the entire process from qualia to report has to be physically causal in order for there to be a report. You even described this as an 'epistemological loop'...so it even feeds back on itself. Your argument is thus that there aren't and cannot be any non-physical aspects of this causal chain.

No, I'm not backtracking. My belief is that there aren't any non-physical aspects of this causal chain.

What I'm doing is asking you, who believes that there is a non-physical aspect of this causal chain, to explain how it works.

What you are confusing is what I insist is true, and the argument I am using to show that this is true. Arguments can be based on hypotheticals you see. You can argue based on 'what ifs'.

So, having dealt with that diversion, are you going to answer the question of how non-interactive aspects of consciousness can result in epistemic transfer or not? Actually, I know the answer from considerable experience: It's 'not'. However, I believe it's now far clearer exactly why the position of non-interactive dualism fails.

As I said, if you can't say how what you believe to exist results in you saying that it exists, then you have utterly lost the argument, as you concede that your words are meaningless, as your words could just as well have come from zombie-you.

Sun, 22 Jul 2012 03:54:58 UTC | #949800