In article <37F5731A.8F9F2B5D at provide.net> Doug Klimesh,
dougklim at provide.net writes:
>You may argue against proof of psychic powers and the consciousness of
>plants or rocks, but remember that CONSCIOUSNESS CAN NOT BE PROVEN. You
>
Another red herring.
Scientists are explicitly NOT in the business of proving ANYTHING to be
true about the physical world. Proofs are mathematical procedures within
a certain axiomatic system. Whether the physical world is consistent with
such systems or not is unknown. But one simply does not prove things to
be true about the physical world. The only statements that can be
-proven- rigorously about the world are negatives (i.e., to disprove a
general statement by finding a single counterexample). Because of this
mathematical fact, the burden of proof falls mainly on those wishing to
make negative statements, like for example "consciousness cannot be
proven".
So, if you think "consciousness cannot be proven", then please, by all
means, prove that.
If you try to do this, you will quickly see that there is no existing
mathematical framework for making any kind of statement about
consciousness whatsoever. But that doesn't seem to deter you from
speaking as if you are an expert in such a framework. By using
mathematical-sounding language, are you trying to get us to believe that
your -opinion- carries more weight than it actually does? I, for one, am
not falling for it. If it's your -opinion- that consciousness can't be
proven or even studied, that's ok with me. But I have a different
opinion.
Cheers,
Matt Jones
