Re: Criticism of philosophical materialism (and a comment on someone2)

In message <1178408143.695643.12760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, urthogie <urthogie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
On May 5, 3:20 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <1178390642.398232.158...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
urthogie <urtho...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes



>1. Brain activity without consciousness would observably follow the law
>of conservation.
>2. Brain activity with consciousness observably follows the law of
>conservation.

>How do you reconcile these two claims with the idea of a material
>consciousness? I would argue that you can't.

If I may proffer an analogy.

1. Atmospheric convection without precipitation would observably follow
the law of conservation (of energy).

2. Atmospheric convection with precipitation observably follows the law
of conservation (of energy).

I trust that you agree that precipitation is physical and that the two
claims are reconcilable with the idea of physical precipitation, and
further recognise that the atmospheric convection is not identical in
the two cases.
This doesn't work. Let's say we were looking at a situation where we
had atmospheric convection with precipitation. If we could just click
a button and delete that precipitation from the universe while it was
raining, the law of conservation would be violated. You can't say the
same thing of what would happen if we "deleted" consciousness as a
result (emergent) of brain acitivty, which is the whole point of my
challenge-- to ask for a given situation where removing something
physical does not result in a violation of the law of conservation.

That doesn't work. You are assuming your conclusion - that consciousness is a non-material add-on that can be deleted without a change to brain activity.

By analogy brain activity without consciousness and brain activity with
consciousness are not identical, and can both be consistent with the law
of conservation (of energy).

I recognise that analogy is neither evidence nor proof, but I think that
the above demonstrates that the syllogism

1. A without X follows the law of conservation of energy
2. A with X follows the law of conservation of energy
3. Therefore X is not material.

is not valid, from which it follows that your argument is at best
incomplete (you have to show what is different about brain activity and
consciousness). Note that it should be possible to produce other
analogies using less tangible referents.
--
alias Ernest Major

--
alias Ernest Major

.

Relevant Pages