A generous reader has doubled the stakes: The prize for the winning essay is now $2K ($20K if it sways me):http://bit.ly/17rasV6
@antheologian @craig_mcfarlane I'm really saying No Consciousness -> No Values.
-
-
@SamHarrisOrg@craig_mcfarlane "values depend on consciousness" is not the same as "consciousness causes values". -
@antheologian@SamHarrisOrg@craig_mcfarlane "consciousness causes values" is not the same as "no consciousness -> no values" -
@blindkittykat
@SamHarrisOrg@craig_mcfarlane but "values depends on consciousness" is equivalent to it. And that's my exact point. -
@antheologian@craig_mcfarlane There could be consciousness without values--if all conscious states were equivalent. -
@SamHarrisOrg@craig_mcfarlane It's possible. However, that's a different argument than "values depend on consciousness". -
@antheologian@SamHarrisOrg@craig_mcfarlane This is to not understand what values are. To be a value, something must value it. -
@Ameriman1984@antheologian@craig_mcfarlane No it's not. I'm not saying that C guarantees values. I'm saying values require C. -
@SamHarrisOrg@Ameriman1984@craig_mcfarlane You'd do better logically speaking if you embrace the biconditional "values iff consciousness". - 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@SamHarrisOrg@antheologian This isn't the contentious point. The contentious point is values = science. -
@craig_mcfarlane@SamHarrisOrg@antheologian How do you define "science"? Not as natural law+reason?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.