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.
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.