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