• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Philip Goff's Circular Argument Against Materialism

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
I read an article about Philip Goff, who is a professor who has written a book with a different approach to understanding consciousness. I found this interview on YouTube and was intrigued that he claimed to have logically proven that a materialist approach to consciousness is false. However, I was disappointed to see that his argument was obviously circular and pointless. How could a professor of philosophy make such an obvious mistake? I don't think he's stupid, so I'm guessing he's a charlatan. Unless I am completely misunderstanding the argument.

It begins around 24:00 in the video. Basically, he begins by assuming that philosophical zombies (entities that have the exact same physical characteristics and behavior as humans, with the absence of consciousness) are logically possible. He says even though we know they don't exist in reality, they are not logically impossible like square circles. So, since philosophical zombies are not logically impossible, materialism is false, since the logical possibility of the existence of philosophical zombies would imply that consciousness is not in the physical brain.

Clearly, this is a circular argument. Assuming the truth of the first premise (philosophical zombies are not logically impossible) requires assuming that materialism is false from the outset, since if materialism is true, philosophical zombies are like square circles i.e. they are logically impossible. So, this guy is actually making an argument against materialism in which the premise can only be true if the conclusion is true. And people are worshiping him as a genius in the comments section. Sad and pathetic. Unless I am somehow misunderstanding his argument, but I don't think I am.

 

Invisibilis

Member
Consciousness is unconditional awareness (nothing else). It has nothing to do with logic or reason. To be aware of logic and reason is to be aware of mental constructs (conditionality). Consciousness can also be aware of what is not conditional, not logical nor reasonable _ hence unconditional.

The unconditional can be aware of what is conditional due to its wholeness of being unconditional.
But the conditional cannot be aware of what is unconditional due to its fragmentation of being conditional.

The mind can use everything in its conditional fragmentations (knowledge, reason, logic) to construct something seemingly unconditional and call it unconditional, but it is fully loaded with conditions.

So, the only way to be conscious of what is truly real is to be unconditional. Then one 'knows' the truth, but cannot explain it with reasoning or logic.
 
Top