Q5 - Although consciousness seems to arise

[romanmuffin]

Having a tough time with this problem. I diagrammed it as:


Physical theory > explain only why physical systems have certain structures and how these systems perform.
---------------
Physical theory > ~ explain consciousness

So the gap is: explain only why physical systems have certain structures and how these systems perform > ~ explain consciousness. How does B state that assumption? Is it the contrapositive of the assumption? Is "more than explanation of physical structures and functions" in answer choice B the negation of "explain only why physical systems have certain structures and how these systems perform"?

Can someone work through the other answer choices?

[maryadkins]

How does B state that assumption? Is it the contrapositive of the assumption? Is "more than explanation of physical structures and functions" in answer choice B the negation of "explain only why physical systems have certain structures and how these systems perform"?

Yes! Good! (B) is saying:

Explain consciousness > more than an explanation of PS and PFs (i.e. is not a physical theory)

Bingo, contrapositive.

We are looking for a sufficient assumption, and this works.

(A) does not get us where we need to go--to a reason why consciousness is not explainable by physical theories.
(C) is irrelevant. We want to know if a physical theory can explain them, not whether or not it's happened yet.
(D) opposite! Our conclusion is that physical theories CANNOT explain consciousness.
(E) okay--but why can it not explain consciousness in those strictly physical terms?

[etph0neh0me93]

Hi, I'm still having trouble understanding why C is incorrect. If the physical structures and functions of consciousness are currently unknown, wouldn't physical theory be unable to explain it? Since physical theory relies on knowing the physical structures and physical functions of something.

[kkate]

I also chose C over B but here's my take on why it's B not C:

Conclusion: No strictly physical theory can explain consciousness.
Premise: "Physical theories can explain only why physical systems have certain physical structures and how these systems perform various physical functions."

(C) is wrong because it says "The physical structure and functions of consciousness are currently unknown". Notice that our conclusion is definitive - no single physical theory can explain consciousness. period. However, C gives a room for some leniency. Well, what if the physical structure and functions of consciousness are known 10 years later? Then it's possible for the theory to explain. We are looking for an assumption that will prevent the theory from explaining consciousness in all situations.

(B) does that. By saying that physical theory itself is insufficient to explain consciousness.


I think C would have been correct if it said "the physical structures and functions of consciousness will never be known". Correct me if I'm wrong!