-1- wrote:Therefore our inability to experience the consciousness of others allows logically the claim to arise that we have no experiential evidence by which we can know that others are conscious.
Belindi wrote:But this is deductive logic in fact it's a tautology.
Technically speaking, you are wrong. One is an inability, the other is a claim. A tautology is complete equivalence. When there are differences, even minor ones, between the two statements, they are not tautologies.
The first part revolves around an inability to experience; the claim allows us to have knowledge otherwise, if only we knew how. (This is not spelled out; but the first part does not branch into this.)
No, I would not say this is a tautology. It looks like one to the untrained eye, I do admit that.
Belindi wrote:That is to say that modern science is empirical and probabilistic so that when correlations constantly occur between subjective mind events and physical brain events we assume that mind events and brain events are identical or at least are constantly associated with each other so they are as near as dammit identical.
You missed the mark. Again. If the mind event itself is in question, then similarities in experimental data can't establish a mind event examining two subjects the conscious mind of either is debated to exist. Your statement only has credence, and only to you, if your brain was manipulated the same way as the other guy's with electrodes poking into your brain on the operating table in a real event.
Let's say, that in probabilistic terms, you accept that your mind reactions are replicated in other subjects, so they have a conscious too. But that does not prove to me anything. It may convince you, but the experiment is an experiential one, and you are the one experiencing it, not me.
Probabilistic terms are great in science, because they make the predictions by science possible. But they are subject to complete rejection by philosophy without any penalty or restriction.
Belindi wrote:If -1- chooses to live her life according to what she can be 'logically' certain about she will very soon die.
I don't follow this... I see your bitter hope in your post, borne of belligerent ill will, but no logic.
1. How soon is "soon"? A week? A year? Twenty years? Sixty years? With that vague expression your prediction is valueless.
2. How does one choose to live one's life? I thought it's been settled there is no choice, as there is no free will.