Posted: Mar 05, 2010 10:33 pm
pl0bs wrote:The proof:
(in below statements, C stands for "consciousness")
________________________________________________
P1: The only things reductionism reduces, are our own misconceptions.
P2: Misconceptions require C.
C: To say that C is reducible, is to say that C is a misconception that requires C.
________________________________________________
As you see, the conclusion doesnt get rid of C. The statement "C is reducible" can be compared with the statement "C is dreamable". Even if C is dreamable, there is still a C that is dreaming it. That is why C is not reducible to non-C things.
This is the definition of consciousness that im using
Shouldn't you say "conception" rather than "misconception"?
If so, then "C is a conception that requires C" is tautologous. "C requires C." C could be anything. You have merely asserted that consciousness is not reducible.
It does not follow that C is not reducible from what you have written alone.