Although consciousness seems to arise

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Trigger Match11% picked this

   Physical theories can explain only physical

   This is providing a rule that would allow us to say that "X can't explain something". If it's not phys ? Physical theory phenomenon can't explain it We're trying to prove that physical theories can't explain consciousness, so this rule would output the right language. Does the trigger apply to 'consciousness'? Were we told that consciousness is not a physical phenomenon? No, actually the opposite. We were told that consciousness seems to arise from physical processes, meaning that it probably is a physical phenomenon. Since the trigger of this rule doesn't apply to 'consciousness', we can't use this rule to prove anything about 'consciousness'.

   11%
2. B

   Correct74% picked this

   An explanation of consciousness must encompass more than an explanation of physical

   Why this is right

   This defines what is required for an explanation of consciousness, so we would be able to use this to prove, "X doesn't meet a requirement. Thus, X does not explain consciousness." This rule looks like this: If it doesn't encompass then doesn't more than an explanation of ? explain physical structures + functions consciousness When it comes to physical theories, were we told whether they encompassed more than physical structures and functions? We were! They said that physical theories can explain only X, they encompass only X. They only explain physical systems and physical functions, so according to this rule, physical theories don't explain consciousness. Thus, we've proven our conclusion.

   Skill tested: Sufficient Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   74%
3. C

   Unrelated to Goal9% picked this

   The physical structures and functions of consciousness are

   Since this answer isn't providing a rule that outputs "can't explain X" or "doesn't explain X", it has no value to us. We won't be able to derive the conclusion "can't explain consciousness" if the correct answer doesn't provide us with a rule that outputs such language.

   9%
4. D

   Weakens3% picked this

   Consciousness arises from processes that are entirely explainable by

   This sounds more like physical theories can explain consciousness, which is the opposite of the conclusion.

   3%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   An explanation of physical structures and functions must be formulated in

   While this is providing a rule that talks about the requirements for explaining something (and so it can output language like "can't explain X"), this is only a rule about what's required for explaining physical structures and functions. We can say "If you're not formulated in strictly physical terms, then you can't explain physical structures and functions", but that's it. We wouldn't be able to use this rule and output, "Thus, you can't explain consciousness." (Not to mention, physical theories are presumably formulated in strictly physical terms, so it's not even like this rule would say something negative about physical theories)

   3%