Create TopicAndy Kay replied a year ago (Dec 11th 2022, 8:59:29 am)
I've just received an email informing me of ks-rahul's test post, which brought Richard's reply of nine years ago to my attention for the first time. Apologies for the delay in response, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't alerted at the time.
Richard wrote: "just because a state of affairs is logically possible doesn't tell you whether it is in fact the case."
Which was my point precisely.
It doesn't tell you that it isn't the case, so what evidence is being used to back up the claim that it isn't the case?
ks-rahul replied a year ago (Dec 11th 2022, 3:37:16 am)
Test POST
Andy Kay replied 10 years ago (Oct 14th 2013, 12:54:27 pm)
Richard,
When you say "it's not a matter of logic but of fact", I presume you're addressing the comment in my camp description that "if there are no logically consistent grounds for denying minds to animal cells then why not to plant cells?"
What I'm trying to say is that the claim that individual cells might be associated with minds does not conflict with any known evidence. What are you saying the facts are in this case?
Andy.
richwil replied 10 years ago (Oct 13th 2013, 12:55:12 pm)
Andy
It is not a matter of logic but of fact.
Logic only rules out impossibilities such as square circles, it doesn't tell you whether unicorns exist, or whether brains are the only known organisations of matter that support consciousness.
The same error is made by Chalmers: just because a state of affairs is logically possible doesn't tell you whether it is in fact the case.
cheers
Richard