@SamHarrisOrg @craig_mcfarlane You're saying ~V -> ~C, ~C -> ~N, ergo N -> V. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent …
-
-
Replying to @antheologian
@antheologian@craig_mcfarlane I'm really saying No Consciousness -> No Values.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SamHarrisOrg
@SamHarrisOrg@craig_mcfarlane "values depend on consciousness" is not the same as "consciousness causes values".1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @antheologian
@antheologian@SamHarrisOrg@craig_mcfarlane "consciousness causes values" is not the same as "no consciousness -> no values"1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ScienceDogood
@blindkittykat
@SamHarrisOrg@craig_mcfarlane but "values depends on consciousness" is equivalent to it. And that's my exact point.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @antheologian
@antheologian here is your stumbling block: the quote "no C -> no V" you are wrong about what the arrow represents. Look at the context pls1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ScienceDogood
@blindkittykat No, you are wrong about what "no" means. "X depends on Y" means X cannot be true if Y isn't. That's no Y -> no X, or X -> Y.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @antheologian
@antheologian or u can change what you are guessing the arrow means, and Sams logic is fixed. And no still means no.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ScienceDogood
@blindkittykat If you say "no values implies no consciousness", then you are saying consciousness causes values.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @antheologian
@antheologian@SamHarrisOrg Sam is saying V requires C. If theres no C then it follows that theres theres no V. But there can be C w/o V.4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@blindkittykat @antheologian Yes. I would just add that the last case seems unlikely.
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.