RE: Consciousness Trilemma
May 28, 2017 at 11:27 am
(This post was last modified: May 28, 2017 at 11:28 am by Edwardo Piet.)
Yes. He denies what consciousness actually is and labels something else as "consciousness". He says that if it's insoluble then it doesn't exist in that sense. It is insoluble and it does exist in that sense.
For fuck's sake. Subjective experience is scientifically unfalsifaible and unverifiable. It doesn't have to be a soul because the whole point is that we can study the brain and we can study the correlations but we can't study a person's subjective experience because we will never know what it's like to be them. Qualia is unfalsifiable and unverifiable. It can only be experienced by the person experiencing it.
Consciousness doesn't have to be soul stuff or mysterious or magical or nonexistent or illusory for it to simply be undetectable by science because science studies third person facts and not first person experience.
Labelling third person facts as "consciousness" isn't going to change the fact that subjective experience itself is unverifiable.
For fuck's sake. Subjective experience is scientifically unfalsifaible and unverifiable. It doesn't have to be a soul because the whole point is that we can study the brain and we can study the correlations but we can't study a person's subjective experience because we will never know what it's like to be them. Qualia is unfalsifiable and unverifiable. It can only be experienced by the person experiencing it.
Consciousness doesn't have to be soul stuff or mysterious or magical or nonexistent or illusory for it to simply be undetectable by science because science studies third person facts and not first person experience.
Labelling third person facts as "consciousness" isn't going to change the fact that subjective experience itself is unverifiable.
