Posted: Mar 06, 2010 2:08 am
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
Perhaps I'm misreading, but aren't you mixing the cause and effect (in lack of better words at the moment)? I'm not feeling very capable to express myself clearly, I'm still a bit frozen from being out.. maybe I can clarify with an example: even if we couldn't figure out if vision is reducible, we'd still know that the eye is, right?