Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site ariel.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!norm From: norm@ariel.UUCP (N.ANDREWS) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Re: Something Supernatural Message-ID: <987@ariel.UUCP> Date: Mon, 1-Jul-85 21:02:56 EDT Article-I.D.: ariel.987 Posted: Mon Jul 1 21:02:56 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 07:13:22 EDT References: <353@spar.UUCP> <27500085@ISM780B.UUCP> Organization: AT&T-ISL, Holmdel, NJ Lines: 20 The reason some people claim that "consciousness... is in principle not objectively verifiable" is because both the concepts "objectively" and "verifiable" are genetic descendants of the concept of "consciousness". It is because consciousness (and the concept of consciousness) is antecedent to the concepts of proof and verification, we cannot reasonably ask for proof that consciousness exists. To deny the existence of consciousness while upholding the concepts of proof and verifiability would be to steal the use of the concept while denying it! This fallacy, which I think has been ident- ified long ago, has been termed by Nathaniel Branden as The Fallacy of the Stolen Concept. Humorlessly, Norm Andrews AT&T Information Systems Mail Station HO1C325 Crawfords Corner Road Holmdel, New Jersey 07733 vax135!ariel!norm (201) 834-3685