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 255 by Steve Zara

Comment 253 by Zeuglodon

Note non-functional. Steve Zara's point is that (though I hope he can clarify this), if you think consciousness is non-functional, you say that it doesn't do anything. However, if it doesn't do anything, it can't cause anything because to do something is to cause something, by whichever means. It can't cause you to talk about it any more than a deistic god can cause you to have revelations while remaining outside the universe. You can only make a guess. And your guess is unjustified by the evidence provided within the universe. You couldn't talk about non-functional consciousness because you haven't identified a link between it existing and you talking about it.

Absolutely. That means that nothing that has ever been said, or written about non-functional consciousness can be because of it. None of the (most likely) millions of words about it can be because of it. Non-functionalists are in exactly the same position as Russell Teapotists, as those who insist that belief in God is acceptable because they say we can't prove that he doesn't exist.

Another way to look at the situation is to consider that any argument for believing in non-functionalism hits a singularity just like a hidden division by zero in mathematics. You end up with a point where a proof becomes undecidable. What you are trying to prove may be true, but your argument can't reach the proof.

The question is whether or not it is reasonable to believe that something is real when it is impossible to come up with evidence for it even in terms of your own thoughts.

I think not.

Sun, 22 Jul 2012 15:44:56 UTC | #949842