PT37.S2.Q05 - although consciousness seems to arise from physical processes

Comments

• OlamHafuch Alum Member

  June 2017 2326 karma

  The stimulus says that physical theories can only explain two things: (a) why physical systems have physical structures; and (b) why physical systems perform various physical structures. It then concludes that a strictly physical theory cannot explain consciousness. Well, that follows logically only if an explanation of consciousness needs more than (a) and (b); if (a) and (b) were sufficient to explain consciousness, then why wouldn't a strictly physical theory be sufficient to explain consciousness? Hence, AC (B), which adds a premise that more than (a) and (b) is necessary to explain consciousness allows the conclusion to follow logically.
  AC (A), by contrast, does not allow the conclusion to follow logically. Had the stimulus posited that consciousness was not a physical process, then yes, a premise that states that physical theories can explain only physical processes would allow you to logically conclude that consciousness cannot be explained with a physical theory. But the stimulus does not do that; if anything, it seems to suggest that consciousness is a physical process, so adding a premise that physical theories work only for physical processes is not going to help you conclude that a physical theory cannot explain consciousness. __