1

In Chalmers paper, "consciousness and its place in nature", he makes the following statement:

We can say that if W (world) considered as actual makes S (a statement) true, then W verifies S. And that if W considered as counterfactual makes S true, then W satisfies S.

Verification involves the epistemic evaluation of worlds, whereas satisfaction involves the counterfactual evaluation of worlds.

Here I'm unable to understand why Chalmers is using two different terms for this and what he is trying to communicate by doing so. I have searched for it, but I was not able to find an answer to my question.

Edit 1. A chalange I have here is to have verification without satisfaction, while for example chalmers claim that case of consciousness is an exception, in that it is can be both verified and satisfied. And I cannot see in what sense 1. verification means non satisfaction, and 2. In the case of consciousness you verification leads to satisfaction.

0
0

What follows from these quotes:

We can say that if W (world) considered as actual makes S (a statement) true, then W verifies S. And that if W considered as counterfactual makes S true, then W satisfies S.

Verification involves the epistemic evaluation of worlds, whereas satisfaction involves the counterfactual evaluation of worlds.

is that the author denotes the models of his statements as worlds and that if such model is considered "actual", its satisfaction (common logical term) of one of his statements he denotes as "verification"; as opposed to such model being considered "counterfactual", in which case its satisfaction of one of his statements he denotes as "satisfaction".

Now, the further statements:

  1. verification means non satisfaction, and 2. In the case of consciousness you verification leads to satisfaction.

could be interpreted as:

[A] Satisfiability of the "actual" model

[B] Satisfiability of the "counterfactual" model

1a. A ≠ B

1b. A → ¬B

  1. Philosophical bullshit.
1
  • Thank you very much! I can see that you are addressing the exact point I don't understand, with your answer. And also you have answered in a very clear form. However I'm a still confused about what the author calls two-dimensional argument. But I gather from your answer and other information I gathered, that I may need to read more about "counter-factuals" and probably the original paper from Kripke to be able to understand the reasoning you have nicely explained. Thank you very much! Feb 26 at 6:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.