I like to argue that, since we do not know what consciousness is, we can not specify what it can not do. Therefore we can not state we can't do something now, nor in the future. Up to the absurd; the laws of physics might prevent an apple from falling down, but the mind might realize that highly unlikely counter example in some moment/future.
The line of argument strongly reminds me of the principle of explosion, where a contradiction is used to conclude
any falsity to be true. Analogous, I use an unknown, the consciousness, to derive:
consciousness might be able to do anything, by claiming:
- Since what
consciousnessis, currently is unknown, it currently is impossible to validly claim it has the property of: it can't do something. The critical bit in this logic claims: If you don't know what something is, you can't say it can't do something within this (current or future) universe.
consciousness might be able to do anythingis equal to the double negation:
can't conclude our consciousness can't do something.
Is the reasoning indeed invalid, and if yes, does this fallacy/concept/abuse of logic have a name?
- I am aware it is a provocative context, however I do NOT intend this to be a discussion about what consciousness is/isn't / can/cannot do.
- I intend this to be a discussion solely about the validity of the (conceptual) logic used in the argument.
- If there is a difference/issue between/in the translation from context and/to the essence of the logic argument as specified in the doubt, please point it out in a comment and answer based on the essence of the claimed logic in the doubt instead of the context.