Belief scale poll

[RandFan]

Now if there's anyone here still insisting that he or she has no beliefs,

Wake up!I have beliefs. I put stock into those that are reasonable based on any combination of experience, logic, reason, evidence, philosophical argument.

Good post, thanks.

[PixyMisa]

Sure, but part of the reason you think that is because deep down you really don't believe that the sort of things I talk about could be real. Can you even imagine how differently you would feel if what I'm saying is true and it actually happened to you?
No, because (a) you refuse to say what happened, and (b) I have some grasp of statistics an psychology, and know perfectly well that I am not infallible and that bizarre coincidences happen all the time.

Yes, it is interesting to live in doubt and have many questions. But for most skeptics, if they one day discovered that these phenomena were actually real then they would suddenly realise that the "interesting" scale can go up by another order of magnitude.
Sure.

All we ask is evidence.

An appropriate description might be "world-shattering." Imagine it - you spend twenty years believing that all this stuff is total bollocks then one day you discover that even though 90% of is bollocks, there is actually something real going on underneath which is the true root cause of these beliefs. Can you imagine it?
I can imagine that, sure. But I would only accept it after rigorous, replicated, peer-reviewed, appropriately-controlled scientific study.

[UndercoverElephant]

Wonderful, now you've made a positive claim. Prove it.

Consciousness requires brain activity. The opposite is not true. Hence your claim has been falsified repeatedly.

Eh? By "opposite" I take it you mean "brain activity requires consciousness". That would be heading towards idealism, which is indeed the opposite of materialism. I don't think it is true. I'm not an idealist.

"Consciousness requires brain activity" is a statement of the same logical form as "aeroplanes require wings" not "aeroplanes ARE wings".

[UndercoverElephant]

This assumes that idealism can be disproved. I can't be 100% certain of anything. However, I can be certain to a point that to withold provisional consent would be perverse, or to quote Stephen J. Gould.

It assumes a particular sort of idealism can be disproved, yes. I think that that particular sort of idealism can be disproved on the grounds that it appears to require the existence of a complex first cause which has to be ruled out by Occam's razor.

[PixyMisa]

Now if there's anyone here still insisting that he or she has no beliefs,

Wake up!
Beliefs? I have tentative positions pending better evidence.

Some of them less tentative than others, because there's mountain ranges of evidence sitting on them, making them somewhat hard to shift. ;)

If you want to call them beliefs, okay, but I think you're stretching the term there. I believe that 1+1=2. I believe that the Earth is (approximately) round. I believe that the sky is blue, that water is wet, that it tends to be lighter outdoors on a cloudless summer day than in a wet sack at the bottom of a coal mine on a moonless night in a hurricane.

[UndercoverElephant]

You are wrong. A single isolated event would not change science much. There is a possibility that you could spontaneous change into gold or walk through a solid wall.

I think if there was a certified, undeniable instance of a person spontaneously turning into gold that it would change the world forever.

[paximperium]

"Consciousness requires brain activity" is a statement of the same logical form as "aeroplanes require wings" not "aeroplanes ARE wings".
Yes it is. Science does not make statement it can't falsify or test. On the other hand, the opposition's claims are...what exactly?

[paximperium]

I think if there was a certified, undeniable instance of a person spontaneously turning into gold that it would change the world forever.
Amusing. You moved the goalpost from science to world.

[UndercoverElephant]

You have no understanding of skeptics.

I was a skeptic for 25 years. An outspoken, skeptical activist like yourself for much of it. I know exactly how skeptics think. I still have the circuits working in my own brain. :)

[UndercoverElephant]

Brain +something I can't define or even say it exist=Conciousness.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.


A non-scientist speaking as if you understand how science or scientist would behave? Amazing.


Errr...I have three science A-levels. For two years of my life, I studied nothing but science. I think that gives me a bit of a clue. That and twenty years of reading New Scientist magazine.

[RandFan]

It assumes a particular sort of idealism can be disproved, yes. I think that that particular sort of idealism can be disproved on the grounds that it appears to require the existence of a complex first cause which has to be ruled out by Occam's razor.Occam's razor isn't an absolute law. Occam's razor leads me to the same conclusion as you but it doesn't give me 100% certainty.

[paximperium]

I was a skeptic for 25 years. An outspoken, skeptical activist like yourself for much of it. I know exactly how skeptics think. I still have the circuits working in my own brain. :)
That is not much of an answer. It is similar to the many "I was an atheist but..." arguments.

I will take you on your word that you were a "skeptic", however I don't see the critical thinking skills that are assumed to come with being a skeptic.

[paximperium]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. It's a graphic representation of your Conciousness Hypothesis using parsimony or Ocham's strike through.


Errr...I have three science A-levels. For two years of my life, I studied nothing but science. I think that gives me a bit of a clue. That and twenty years of reading New Scientist magazine. Face palm.

[UndercoverElephant]

Beliefs? I have tentative positions...


http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

[Apathia]

I have beliefs. I put stock into those that are reasonable based on any combination of experience, logic, reason, evidence, philosophical argument.

Good post, thanks.

Yup! The sane thing to do.

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes it is. Science does not make statement it can't falsify or test. On the other hand, the opposition's claims are...what exactly?

The opposition is diverse. This particular opponent is claiming that consciousness can't even be given a usable scientific definition and, given the only definition we actually can give consciousness, we can say that brains appear to be necessary for consciousness but that they are insufficient on their own. I believe this claim can be supported as it is. You do not need to go into any great detail about what exactly the correct answer is to this condundrum. It's not that I don't want to go there. The problem is that explaining my own attempts to answer that question will require a great deal of effort in terms of reading and on the part of the people who want to know that answer. Given that there are people in this thread who do not appear to be able to follow the most basic sorts of philosophical argument, I really don't want to start getting deeply into Kant and Wittgenstein. The point I am trying to make is that the claim that there is no scientific evidence and that the materialist account is incorrect is a negative claim about that system which can be demonstrated purely by examing that system. It is NOT being supported by some sort of positive claim about another system being better, even if better systems do actually exist.

[Apathia]

Beliefs? I have tentative positions pending better evidence.

Some of them less tentative than others, because there's mountain ranges of evidence sitting on them, making them somewhat hard to shift. ;)

If you want to call them beliefs, okay, but I think you're stretching the term there. I believe that 1+1=2. I believe that the Earth is (approximately) round. I believe that the sky is blue, that water is wet, that it tends to be lighter outdoors on a cloudless summer day than in a wet sack at the bottom of a coal mine on a moonless night in a hurricane.

I was refering to philosophical/epistimological/metaphysical beliefs, as opposed to the empirical and mathematical observations you listed.
It is stretching the term a little give them the psychological weight of belief.

Example of a belief you and I probably share:
The predictive utility of mathematical models of natural behavior.
It's a belief that has paned out so much gold that we take it for granted, but it's not something we know.

[paximperium]

UE...so to summarize: "Consciousness requires brain function but is something more. Something more is a valid explanation because science has not been able to fully explain consciousness."

Is this correct?

[UndercoverElephant]

That is not much of an answer. It is similar to the many "I was an atheist but..." arguments.


Except this time it's true. Richard Dawkins was my childhood hero, along with David Attenborough. Seriously. I was forced to go to church until the age of about 11, when I point blank refused to go. Science remained the sole foundation of my belief system until I reached my early thirties.


I will take you on your word that you were a "skeptic", however I don't see the critical thinking skills that are assumed to come with being a skeptic.

Where are the mistakes?

[yy2bggggs]

This particular opponent is claiming that consciousness can't even be given a usable scientific definition and, given the only definition we actually can give consciousness, we can say that brains appear to be necessary for consciousness but that they are insufficient on their own. I believe this claim can be supported as it is.
I see no support; rather, I see only assertions...
The problem is that explaining my own attempts to answer that question will require a great deal of effort in terms of reading and on the part of the people who want to know that answer.
...excuses...
Given that there are people in this thread who do not appear to be able to follow the most basic sorts of philosophical argument,
...and poisoned wells.

[UndercoverElephant]

UE...so to summarize: "Consciousness requires brain function but is something more. Something more is a valid explanation because science has not been able to fully explain consciousness."

Is this correct?

Not quite. Science can't even define consciousness.

Let me give another example: "Science has not been able to fully explain gravity." We have various problems with our understanding of gravity and mass. There's the missing quantum theory of gravity, the elusive Higgs boson, dark matter (whatever that is) and the curious case of the space probes which are accelerating away from the solar system faster then current theories predicted they would. But even though there are all these missing bits of the explanation, we still know perfectly well what we are missing bits of the explanation about. We are missing bits of the explanation about the force(s) which cause massive objects to be attracted towards each other. The problem science has with consciousness is completely different to this, because this time we can't even get started. We can't even explain what this thing we cant "fully explain" even is. We can't define it in terms of material things without the word no longer refering to the "thing" we are supposed to be explaining. At this point many materialists just say "ah, so it's a semantic problem" and stop trying to understand. It's not merely a semantic problem. The reason there is a semantic problem in this case and not in the case of gravity or of any other thing which science has so far fully or partly explained is because this "thing" cannot even be said to exist in the same sense that the components of the physical world exist. So we have to start examining our usage of the word "existence". This problem is philosophical, not scientific. It is to do with the way we use language, how words get their meaning, how certain concepts we use are related to each other, what reality "is" and how we could possibly know any of this - all of it is philosophy. Science doesn't even get started. It has nothing to tell us about the answers to these questions.

[RandFan]

You DON'T know what I believe deep down inside. I sold everything I had and went on a two year mission because deep down I believed it was real. I know what it means to believe in god and spiritual experience so don't tell me what I believe and don't believe.

I absolutely believe it is possible.

If I woke tomorrow morning and saw winged fairies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy) flying all around my house and they conversed with me and we had tea and biscuits It would make me feel very different than what I'm feeling right now. If I ran next door and returned with my neighbor and the fairies were gone I'd still feel very different. I'd likely question the possibility that it was just a delusion and while the event was very significant to me, given that I could not prove that It had happened, I would have to be honest in my assessment that perhaps it didn't happen.

If my neighbor John came to me with a story that there were winged fairies in his house I would excitedly go with him to see them (my neighbor seems to me to be a very honest and sincere person). If the fairies weren't there I wouldn't bust his chops for it. I'd think he experienced something he thought was real and perhaps it was but IT WOULDN'T be reason for me to go on a quest the world over looking for fairies. UCE, could you comment on this post?

[RandFan]

Science can't even define consciousness.We can define it in a discriptive sense. There is no reason to assume that further understanding (defining) is an insoluble problem. It's very probable and even expected that there is a paradigm awaiting us to further inhance our understanding to a significant degree greater than we have now.

[UndercoverElephant]

I see no support; rather, I see only assertions...


Like what, for example?


...excuses...

...and poisoned wells.

It's very easy to make accusations like that if you don't bother to actually provide any examples of what you are talking about.

[paximperium]

Not quite. Science can't even define consciousness.
Can't define consciousness?
Definitions used as Consciousness:
Francis Crick:
There are many forms of consciousness, such as those associated with seeing, thinking, emotion, pain, and so on. Self-consciousness -- that is, the self-referential aspect of consciousness -- is probably a special case of consciousness.
http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html

VS Ramachandran:
What is consciousness? This really breaks down into two questions: The first is the nature of qualia—how does the awareness of sensations like bitter, or painful, or red arise from the activity of neurons? The second: How does the sense of self—the person who experiences qualia—arise?http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/on_my_mind_v.s._ramachandran/



So we have to start examining are usage of the word "existence". This problem is philosophical, not scientific. It is to do with the way we use language, how words get their meaning, how certain concepts we use are related to each other, what reality "is" and how we could possibly know any of this - all of it is philosophy. Science doesn't even get started. It has nothing to tell us about the answers to these questions. No. All of these are scientific questions that can be answered by it. What reality is, is part of physics; language is part of linguistics and neuroscience etc. etc. etc.

Beyond the realm of hypotheticals, semantics and logic, I have yet to see much relevance of philosophy in answering the "is" questions. It makes great claims and even occasionally get things right BUT science is what is used to confirm philosophical speculation. So, no. It is not "all philosophy."

[UndercoverElephant]

UCE, could you comment on this post?


You DON'T know what I believe deep down inside. I sold everything I had and went on a two year mission because deep down I believed it was real. I know what it means to believe in god and spiritual experience so don't tell me what I believe and don't believe.


OK. In which case you actually know first-hand about something I don't. I never went through the stage you went through because I rejected it when I was very young. I've never known what it was like to believe that sort of stuff without having experienced something as life-changing as the things I experienced in my early thirties. I've never known what it is like to be a religious believer who did not understand the point of view of a skeptical, scientifically-informed atheist at the same time.


I absolutely believe it is possible.


OK. I'm sure you understand I'm talking to numerous people here, many of whom are mobile human goalposts. Some of them don't believe it is possible.


If I woke tomorrow morning and saw winged fairies flying all around my house and they conversed with me and we had tea and biscuits It would make me feel very different than what I'm feeling right now.


I'm sure you would, although that's not really what I am talking about either. After a bit of dusting down, all of my scientific beliefs remain intact. No fairies.


If I ran next door and returned with my neighbor and the fairies were gone I'd still feel very different. I'd likely question the possibility that it was just a delusion and while the event was very significant to me, given that I could not prove that It had happened, I would have to be honest in my assessment that perhaps it didn't happen.


What if the past changed, and it stayed changed?

[UndercoverElephant]

We can define it in a discriptive sense.

Go on then...

[RandFan]

OK. In which case you actually know first-hand about something I don't. I never went through the stage you went through because I rejected it when I was very young. I've never known what it was like to believe that sort of stuff without having experienced something as life-changing as the things I experienced in my early thirties. I've never known what it is like to be a religious believer who did not understand the point of view of a skeptical, scientifically-informed atheist at the same time. I'm not sure of your point. Are you special pleading, simply trying to say your experiences were not the same or somthing else?

OK. I'm sure you understand I'm talking to numerous people here, many of whom are mobile human goalposts. Some of them don't believe it is possible.Perhaps but I've yet to see anyone make that claim. In all honesty it seems like a strawman on your part. Are you certain?

I'm sure you would, although that's not really what I am talking about either. After a bit of dusting down, all of my scientific beliefs remain intact. No fairies.I don't understand your response in light of my understanding of your claim. My hypo does not speak to scientific beliefs. I could have a full day of fun with flying fairies without any change to my scientific beliefs.

What if the past changed, and it stayed changed? Could that be verified as fact?

[UndercoverElephant]

Can't define consciousness?
Definitions used as Consciousness:

Francis Crick:

There are many forms of consciousness, such as those associated with seeing, thinking, emotion, pain, and so on. Self-consciousness -- that is, the self-referential aspect of consciousness -- is probably a special case of consciousness.


OK. According to this definition there are things called "seeing, thinking, emotion, pain..." and there are also other things which are associated with those things - the consciousness of seeing, thinking, emotion, pain...

Are you happy with that?



http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/on_my_mind_v.s._ramachandran/

What is consciousness? This really breaks down into two questions: The first is the nature of qualia—how does the awareness of sensations like bitter, or painful, or red arise from the activity of neurons? The second: How does the sense of self—the person who experiences qualia—arise?


So we have qualia, which "arise" from brain activity.

Happy with that?

Both these definitions directly contradict PixyMisa's attempt to claim that science supports the notion that "consciousness IS brain activity". Both define consciousness as something additional to brain activity.


No. All of these are scientific questions that can be answered by it.


So science can explain the relationship between brain activity and this other stuff which is additional to brain activity and "arises from" or "is associated with" that brain activity?

Really?

If so, then why are people getting so upset about me claiming that something more than brain activity is required as part of the explanation??? This "extra thing" is there in both the definitions you just gave me.



Beyond the realm of hypotheticals, semantics and logic, I have yet to see much relevance of philosophy in answering the "is" questions.


One whole branch of philosophy (ontology) is dedicated to answering them. It is the academic history of attempts to answer them. How can that not be relevant?


It makes great claims and even occasionally get things right BUT science is what is used to confirm philosophical speculation. So, no. It is not "all philosophy."

No, science is used to confirm scientific speculation.

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm not sure of your point. Are you special pleading, simply trying to say your experiences were not the same or somthing else?


I'm saying that what happened to me was directly linked to the path I took to get there and because you took a completely different path from a completely different starting point, you never could have been where I was. You were somewhere else that I've never been and you probably still are.


Perhaps but I've yet to see anyone make that claim. In all honesty it seems like a strawman on your part. Are you certain?


Quite certain.


I don't understand your response in light of my understanding of your claim. My hypo does not speak to scientific beliefs. I could have a full day of fun with flying fairies without any change to my scientific beliefs.


I couldn't. How did the fairies evolve?


Could that be verified as fact?

No. Imagine it in terms of a star-trek plotline. The Enterprise floats past a sub-space quantum whoojamiwotsit and you get propelled into a slightly different timeline. Most things stay the same but some things have changed - definately changed. That blonde woman who was swallowed by a pool of slime in the second series is alive in this timeline. How would you go about proving to your shipmates that you'd flipped timelines? You couldn't.

[RandFan]

Go on then...The brain is likely the most complex system in the known universe. The emergent property of consciousness is not a simple matter to define even descriptively. That it is not easy doesn't mean that it is not possible. Any simplistic description I could gave you would likely fail because simplistic models of complex systems are by nature incomplete.

I suspect you know this and that your question was actually rhetorical and I would not be so presumptious as to assume that you didn't have some working knowledge of the various models out there and the various defnitions of consciousness.

I don't care to argue via link and it's not my intention to do so know. However there are models and definitions for consciousness for those who sincerly want answer to the questions.

I recomend:

The Mystery of Consciousness (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394-1,00.html) by Steven Pinker.

Conversations on Consciousness: What the Best Minds Think about the Brain, Free Will, and What It Means to Be Human (http://www.amazon.com/Conversations-Consciousness-Minds-Think-about/dp/0195179587) (a book) by Susan Blackmore.

Also, what we don't understand, believe it or not, is insightfull and provides a means to define what it is we mean, in large part, by consciousness.

Talks Dan Dennett: Can we know our own minds? (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness.html)

[yy2bggggs]

Like what, for example?
Are we really playing this game? Like, oh:
"I believe this claim can be supported as it is."
It's very easy to make accusations like that if you don't bother to actually provide any examples of what you are talking about.
That's what the quote tags are for.

ETA:

Okay, so:
"The problem is that explaining my own attempts to answer that question will require a great deal of effort in terms of reading and on the part of the people who want to know that answer."
That, is your excuse. And this:

"Given that there are people in this thread who do not appear to be able to follow the most basic sorts of philosophical argument,"
...is poisoning the well.

No quote tags, in case you only read posts in edit boxes after clicking "Reply".

[RandFan]

I'm saying that what happened to me was directly linked to the path I took to get there and because you took a completely different path from a completely different starting point, you never could have been where I was. You were somewhere else that I've never been and you probably still are. I'm still at a loss as to the relevance of the discussion at hand but that's fine. So long as you don't claim that your different path has any significance then I won't assume you are special pleading.

Quite certain.Fine. I can accept that you believe that you are certain.

I couldn't. How did the fairies evolve?I have no idea. I'm not sure what our ignorance has to do with anything though. I'm also not certain of any scientific knowledge or theory of evolution that would preclude fairies.

No. Imagine it in terms of a star-trek plotline. The Enterprise floats past a sub-space quantum whoojamiwotsit and you get propelled into a slightly different timeline. Most things stay the same but some things have changed - definately changed. That blonde woman who was swallowed by a pool of slime in the second series is alive in this timeline. How would you go about proving to your shipmates that you'd flipped timelines? You couldn't.Then why put any credence into the notion, sense or belief that it even happened?

BTW: IIRC, In that episode only Guinan knew that the timeline was wrong. She had special powers. You?

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm still at a loss as to the relevance of the discussion at hand but that's fine. So long as you don't claim that your different path has any significance then I won't assume you are special pleading.


Well, it has significance in the context of what we are discussing here, since the thread is about path-dependent phenomena.



Fine. I can accept that you believe that you are certain.


Pixymisa doesn't leave much room for people to doubt what he believes or how certain he is about those beliefs.


I have no idea. I'm not sure what our ignorance has to do with anything though. I'm also not certain of any scientific knowledge or theory of evolution that would preclude fairies.


I am. Fairies are mammals with wings which aren't evolutionary adaptations of legs and magical powers.


Then why put any credence into the notion, sense or belief that it even happened?


Because you are quite certain you remember the blonde woman being eaten by the pool of slime. You are also quite certain you remember the entire subsequent three years during which she didn't exist. Now...you could say "I'd book myself in to see the psychiatrist", but is this really true? Are you really going to let the psychiatrist talk you into believing it didn't really happen?


BTW: IIRC, In that episode only Guinan knew that the timeline was wrong. She had special powers. You?

Franko was the closest thing I had to a Guinan.

[Limbo]

Franko was the closest thing I had to a Guinan.


Franko? Sorry did I miss something? Who is Franko? :confused:

[RandFan]

Well, it has significance in the context of what we are discussing here, since the thread is about path-dependent phenomena. But that goes to my point. Why should a "path" have any significance?

I am. Fairies are mammals with wings which aren't evolutionary adaptations of legs and magical powers. I'm sorry but evolution does not preclude either flying mammals or magical powers. Bats are mammals and they fly.

Because you are quite certain you remember the blonde woman being eaten by the pool of slime. You are also quite certain you remember the entire subsequent three years during which she didn't exist. Now...you could say "I'd book myself in to see the psychiatrist", but is this really true? Are you really going to let the psychiatrist talk you into believing it didn't really happen? I'm willing to accept that memories are fallible and given Occam's razor a delusion is far more likely.

Franko was the closest thing I had to a Guinan.Like you I had missed him but something tells me I'd not likely be so fond of the memories if he came back. ;)

Seriously though, I do like you UCE. I'm willing to show deference for your knowledge and I find you a decent person. I've just moved in an opposite direction from you in the intervening years.

BTW: What was your old argument? It was formal and numbered with the key premise being #5, IIRC?

[Apathia]

Back to Synchronicity and Karma for a moment:

Geoff, I see you're consistent in positing that consciousness arises from more than just the functioning of an individual brain. Some kind of network or field would give you the medium in which these events could be coordinated.

I don't agree that such a thing would be totally undetectable and outside the realm of scientific inquiry. We would simply look for information exchange that required a communication outside a neural interface.

Of course Parapsychology has been looking for that for years without solid results.
But an analogy from Theoretical Physics would be something like the purported existence of other branes in close proximity to ours. But having our perceptions pretty much locked into our own brane, how could we know another exists, uness the LHC is able to detect the evidence of what are called "Kaluza-Klein Particles."
In other words, if we could demonstrate evidence of what smacks of a network information exchange, that would be in the realm of the Scientific Method. Such a thing wouldn't then be supernatural.
I'm trying to say that the question of Synchronicity isn't altogether outside any scientific inquiry.

But of course there's no regularly appearing exchange of information in a network of minds (apart from conventional communication). If we were telepathic, we might have framed some kind of theory.

But you'd probably take it as Dean Radin does these days, that these events don't occur in any kind of observed regularity to which a structure could be fitted.

Or maybe you'd like to suggest interactions happen all the time but outside our range of awareness?

You're right that without a way to observe regularity and repeatability, science is left holding an empty bag.
At the same time, though, science can question if there ever was anything in the bag to begin with and examine bags for evidence of prior content.
So, I can't say the scientists have no say in the matter.

I agree that science can decide between Materialism, Idealism, Neutral Monism, Dualism, or whatever.
But if it’s a matter empirical, science can ask to see the phenomenon and hypothesize about it.

But can science see Karma and Synchronicity?
Your experiences of Synchronicity are purely anecdotal.
Heck, as far as some are concerned, consciousness is merely anecdotal.

Metaphysical Free Will?
That's more cut and dried.
It can't be determined by science.
(I suppose studies that show the nervous system initiates reactions prior to consciousness of intent makes a suggestion of circumstantial evidence.)

[UndercoverElephant]

Randfan,




I'm sorry but evolution does not preclude either flying mammals or magical powers. Bats are mammals and they fly.


That's why I mentioned the adaptation of legs. There are numerous cases of mammals evolving wings, but every time it happened those wings were adapted limbs. There's a good scientific reason for this. Evolution works by making alterations to existing structures and if you've already got the body-structure of a vertebrate then it's always going to be legs or arms or both that get turned into wings. The question of the evolution of wings in insects was disputed for a long time but recently it evidence has turned up which supports the idea that they evolved from temperature-control organs on the backs of organisms. This is a bit like elephant's ears or the blades of a stegosaurus being adapted into wings - a lot easier if you are an insect than a mammal.

Fairies are mammals with insect wings.


I'm willing to accept that memories are fallible and given Occam's razor a delusion is far more likely.


Are you sure? Or are you really saying "I don't actually believe such things could happen"?


But that goes to my point. Why should a "path" have any significance?


What was this thread originally about? It was about things like karma and synchronicity. Both of these phenomena, as described wherever you find descriptions of them, are direcly concerned with an individual person's spiritual path. A Christian might term this "an individual person's relationship with God/Jesus." A Hindu or Buddhist might talk about karma, the search for enlightenment and the ending of the cycle of existence/suffering.


Like you I had missed him but something tells me I'd not likely be so fond of the memories if he came back. ;)

Seriously though, I do like you UCE. I'm willing to show deference for your knowledge and I find you a decent person. I've just moved in an opposite direction from you in the intervening years.


I like you too, although your posts sometimes seem a bit multiple-personality to me. Maybe I'm oversensitive.


BTW: What was your old argument? It was formal and numbered with the key premise being #5, IIRC?

I can't remember. I make arguments up as I go along. Depends who I'm talking to.

[Limbo]

Of course Parapsychology has been looking for that for years without solid results.


Are you defining solidity in terms of experimental results, or in terms of acceptance of results by the establishment? If the former I would have to disagree.

[RandFan]

That's why I mentioned the adaptation of legs. There are numerous cases of mammals evolving wings, but every time it happened those wings were adapted limbs. There's a good scientific reason for this. Evolution works by making alterations to existing structures and if you've already got the body-structure of a vertebrate then it's always going to be legs or arms or both that get turned into wings. The question of the evolution of wings in insects was disputed for a long time but recently it evidence has turned up which supports the idea that they evolved from temperature-control organs on the backs of organisms. This is a bit like elephant's ears or the blades of a stegosaurus being adapted into wings - a lot easier if you are an insect than a mammal.

Fairies are mammals with insect wings.That's your definition not mine. I think your details are specific enough just to exclude the possibility when in fact a dimunitive flying sentient being is not absolutely precluded by science. Highly unlikely yes.

Are you sure? Yes.

Or are you really saying "I don't actually believe such things could happen"?No.

What was this thread originally about? It was about things like karma and synchronicity. Both of these phenomena, as described wherever you find descriptions of them, are direcly concerned with an individual person's spiritual path. A Christian might term this "an individual person's relationship with God/Jesus." A Hindu or Buddhist might talk about karma, the search for enlightenment and the ending of the cycle of existence/suffering. Ok. So long as you can understand that I'm not without having believed in things like mysticism and god then I'm happy with that.

[UndercoverElephant]

Back to Synchronicity and Karma for a moment:

Geoff, I see you're consistent in positing that consciousness arises from more than just the functioning of an individual brain. Some kind of network or field would give you the medium in which these events could be coordinated.


I'd describe it in terms of a neutral monist metaphysical system rather than something supposed to be scientific, but this probably really is just a semantic problem. I know what you mean, yes. But I'd rather avoid quarky's "field of consciousness".


I don't agree that such a thing would be totally undetectable and outside the realm of scientific inquiry. We would simply look for information exchange that required a communication outside a neural interface.

Of course Parapsychology has been looking for that for years without solid results.
But an analogy from Theoretical Physics would be something like the purported existence of other branes in close proximity to ours. But having our perceptions pretty much locked into our own brane, how could we know another exists, uness the LHC is able to detect the evidence of what are called "Kaluza-Klein Particles."

In other words, if we could demonstrate evidence of what smacks of a network information exchange, that would be in the realm of the Scientific Method. Such a thing wouldn't then be supernatural.

I'm trying to say that the question of Synchronicity isn't altogether outside any scientific inquiry.

But of course there's no regularly appearing exchange of information in a network of minds (apart from conventional communication). If we were telepathic, we might have framed some kind of theory.

But you'd probably take it as Dean Radin does these days, that these events don't occur in any kind of observed regularity to which a structure could be fitted.

Or maybe you'd like to suggest interactions happen all the time but outside our range of awareness?


I think they do indeed happen all the time outside our range of awareness. I don't completely agree with Radin. I think there is some sort of structure. These things do not happen for no reason, and the only reason they could happen for, if it isn't a physical reason, is because of something to do with this "structure".

[Apathia]

Are you defining solidity in terms of experimental results, or in terms of acceptance of results by the establishment? If the former I would have to disagree.

Of course you can point out a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the establishment.
But remember they are Human Beings, the most of which are ready to investigate high strangeness with enthusiasm.

But they've been burned by results that did not pan out with regularity and repeatability.
That's what science likes, you know. It wants to set up the same circumstances and get predicted results.
The paranormal is stubbornly uncooparative if it's anything.

It's like hunting the snark.
But you better beware the Boojum.

I would ceratinly welcome any solid evidence.
I like the paranormal and use it in the stories I write.
(Bad luck and woo-woo make good stories.)
But till we get something that nails it beyond meta-mishmashing,
It stays in the stories.

[UndercoverElephant]

Ok. So long as you can understand that I'm not without having believed in things like mysticism and god then I'm happy with that.

I understand that, yes.

[Limbo]

But they've been burned by results that did not pan out with regularity and repeatability.


Do you have a particular instance in mind?

I would certainly welcome any solid evidence.


I guess the term solid is arbitrary. I think there is plenty of solid evidence. I don't know if you're much of a reader but I recommend these books:

The Trickster and the Paranormal
Extraordinary Knowing
An Introduction to Parapsychology
Outside the Gates of Science
Varieties of Anomalous Experience
Parapsychology and the Skeptics

I like the paranormal and use it in the stories I write.
(Bad luck and woo-woo make good stories.)
But till we get something that nails it beyond meta-mishmashing,
It stays in the stories.


Anything published?

[Apathia]

I'd describe it in terms of a neutral monist metaphysical system rather than something supposed to be scientific, but this probably really is just a semantic problem. I know what you mean, yes. But I'd rather avoid quarky's "field of consciousness".

I find the consciousness field ideas good enough fodder for stories involving the supernatural, or the "Hypernatural" as one of my characters puts it.
"Field," is another one of those appropriated terms. like "quantum" these days. Or the "Force." They're ultimately anthropocentric, analogical, and metaphorical if used to speak metaphysically. It's like Phillip Pullman's outrageous use of "Dark Matter" in his Golden Compass trilogy.

The bottom line with science is empirical. Is there any documented behavior? is there any regimen to it?
Synchronicity, as described by Jung, just falls on you like a loose piano.
Or like Dan Brown writes this stuff.
Have you ever discerned a plot?
You're right, it would propel things to the next level of hopelessness if you related your experiences here in detail.



I think they do indeed happen all the time outside our range of awareness. I don't completely agree with Radin. I think there is some sort of structure. These things do not happen for no reason, and the only reason they could happen for, if it isn't a physical reason, is because of something to do with this "structure".

I just went to Radin's site to mine a quote. But it seems he's still into the there must be some kind of field idea. But I did read him some time ago admitting his results were marginal and unsatisfying to science at large (though enough to satisfy his belief).

I'm sure you're acquainted with the various and contradictory esoteric systems.
The Kabbalah, The Five Elements, The Chakras, all prescientific attempts to structure experiences.
Examining the Chinese Five Element System, I realized it had more to do with emotional interactions than natural processes.
It's facinating to analyze literature with the four or five elements in mind.
They show up in meaningful connections authors were not conscious they were making.
They provide an unconsciuos framework.

Could we study biographies for events falling into esoteric patterns?

I suspect the writer is already subtly editorializing.
No biographist just lets hir subject schlep through a life.

[UndercoverElephant]

Have you ever discerned a plot?


No.


You're right, it would propel things to the next level of hopelessness if you related your experiences here in detail.


Yes.


I just went to Radin's site to mine a quote. But it seems he's still into the there must be some kind of field idea. But I did read him some time ago admitting his results were marginal and unsatisfying to science at large (though enough to satisfy his belief).

I'm sure you're acquainted with the various and contradictory esoteric systems.
The Kabbalah, The Five Elements, The Chakras, all prescientific attempts to structure experiences.
Examining the Chinese Five Element System, I realized it had more to do with emotional interactions than natural processes.
It's facinating to analyze literature with the four or five elements in mind.
They show up in meaningful connections authors were not conscious they were making.
They provide an unconsciuos framework.


They are languages. Belief systems are languages.


Could we study biographies for events falling into esoteric patterns?


Maybe.

[Apathia]

Do you have a particular instance in mind?

Just the whole history of the subject, that has sent many a researcher on a snark hunt from which some have returned still believing, others dissapointed to skepticism, and a few lost to the Boiojum, but none with the quality of evidence any better that for cold fusion. And we really want cold fusion!

I guess the term solid is arbitrary. I think there is plenty of solid evidence. I don't know if you're much of a reader but I recommend these books:

The Trickster and the Paranormal
Extraordinary Knowing
An Introduction to Parapsychology
Outside the Gates of Science
Varieties of Anomalous Experience
Parapsychology and the Skeptics

That first one gets right to the problem.
How can you came to any rational conclusion about the subject if the pixies are messing with you?
And they're not our Pixy. :)




Anything published?

I haven't even tried.
I write for the amusement of myself and a few friends.
I suppose I could getr published if I tried. Dan Brown did!

[Apathia]

They are languages. Belief systems are languages.

I'm reading Stephen Pinker's The Stuff of Thought right now.
Talk about metaphysics embeded in language!

[PixyMisa]

I was refering to philosophical/epistimological/metaphysical beliefs, as opposed to the empirical and mathematical observations you listed.
It is stretching the term a little give them the psychological weight of belief.

Example of a belief you and I probably share:
The predictive utility of mathematical models of natural behavior.
That, again, is a tentative position taken awaiting further evidence. It's the meta-experiment of science.

It's a belief that has paned out so much gold that we take it for granted, but it's not something we know.It's not something we can know; it's not something we need to know. It's not even something we need to believe, even to do science. But it's observably valid, so far.

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm reading Stephen Pinker's The Stuff of Thought right now.
Talk about metaphysics embeded in language!

Looks like my sort of book. Will go and get it tomorrow.

[PixyMisa]

The brain is likely the most complex system in the known universe.
Just need to pick one nit: The internet is already far more complex than the human brain.

[UndercoverElephant]

Just need to pick one nit: The internet is already far more complex than the human brain.

You are both wrong. The most complex system known is the whole universe.

[plumjam]

You are both wrong. The most complex system known is the whole universe.

I take it you're not too familiar with the British Railways pricing and ticketing system.

[Apathia]

It's the meta-experiment of science.

Doesn't seem we'll ever get the trails done.

It's not something we can know; it's not something we need to know. It's not even something we need to believe, even to do science. But it's observably valid, so far.

I see you're a little uncomfortable with the word, "believe."
I'm not keen on it in the religious sense, but I do own when I functionally believe an assumption.

The one in question was in crisis just a tad, when Stephen Hawking claimed information was lost forever in black holes. But now there are several different fudges out of that.
It may not be just a meta-experiment but a cooking lesson as well!

[PixyMisa]

I was a skeptic for 25 years. An outspoken, skeptical activist like yourself for much of it.
And then you stopped.

[PixyMisa]

Not quite. Science can't even define consciousness.
Self-referential information processing.

[PixyMisa]

OK. According to this definition there are things called "seeing, thinking, emotion, pain..." and there are also other things which are associated with those things - the consciousness of seeing, thinking, emotion, pain...

Are you happy with that?

So we have qualia, which "arise" from brain activity.

Happy with that?

Both these definitions directly contradict PixyMisa's attempt to claim that science supports the notion that "consciousness IS brain activity".
Wrong!

Both are completely consistent with my explanation (which is the accepted explanation throughout psychology and neuroscience).

Both define consciousness as something additional to brain activity.
Wrong!

Your score is: Zero.

So science can explain the relationship between brain activity and this other stuff which is additional to brain activity and "arises from" or "is associated with" that brain activity?
There is no other stuff. Neither of those definitions mentioned any other stuff. You added it to the definitions in your own mind.

If so, then why are people getting so upset about me claiming that something more than brain activity is required as part of the explanation??? This "extra thing" is there in both the definitions you just gave me.
No it isn't. Read them again.

[PixyMisa]

Doesn't seem we'll ever get the trails done.
Nope. :)

I see you're a little uncomfortable with the word, "believe."
I'm just noting that one word is covering a lot of ground here. From unshakeable certainty in the patently absurd, to the tentative acceptance of the incontrovertibly true. That leaves it open for false equivocation, as we've already seen.

The one in question was in crisis just a tad, when Stephen Hawking claimed information was lost forever in black holes. But now there are several different fudges out of that.
It may not be just a meta-experiment but a cooking lesson as well!
Yep. :)

It's valuable to note that science requires no beliefs, just methods. You can believe that metaphysical naturalism is false, even that induction is not a valid way of thinking about the Universe, and still apply the methods of science.

[PixyMisa]

You are both wrong. The most complex system known is the whole universe.
It is not a system in the same sense that the brain or the internet are systems.

[RandFan]

Just need to pick one nit: The internet is already far more complex than the human brain.:) Which is bigger, Lake Mead or Lake Powel? Depends on how you define "big". Yes, in a way it is.

[Apathia]

It's valuable to note that science requires no beliefs, just methods. You can believe that metaphysical naturalism is false, even that induction is not a valid way of thinking about the Universe, and still apply the methods of science.

Yes, Science has been done well in a variety of different cultures by people with diverse metaphysical beliefs.
Dualists have done well.
Materialists have done well.
Idealists have done well.
And so on.

Of course if you have zero confidence in induction ...
Maybe its just for the paycheck.

[paximperium]

OK. According to this definition there are things called "seeing, thinking, emotion, pain..." and there are also other things which are associated with those things - the consciousness of seeing, thinking, emotion, pain...
So we have qualia, which "arise" from brain activity.
Are you happy with that?Pssst, qualia does mean things called "seeing,thinking, emotion, pain etc.
Consciousness is 2 different things;
1)A "subjective" internal interpretation of external stimuli ie. qualia.
2)The "subjective" internal view of self.
So I'm "happy" with these definitions since we're slowly seeing that "subjective" in this case can be objectively studied...unless you'd like to try and give a more coherent definition instead of the roundabout version that Wittgenstein used.


Both these definitions directly contradict PixyMisa's attempt to claim that science supports the notion that "consciousness IS brain activity". Both define consciousness as something additional to brain activity. No. Consciousness is an emergent property of brain activity. The screen you see before you (ie. visual symbolism that you can understand) is not "computer activity", it is a the byproduct of computer processes and code.

So science can explain the relationship between brain activity and this other stuff which is additional to brain activity and "arises from" or "is associated with" that brain activity? To our current understanding of the human brain-YES.

If so, then why are people getting so upset about me claiming that something more than brain activity is required as part of the explanation??? This "extra thing" is there in both the definitions you just gave me. No. The "extra thing" is nothing more than a byproduct of brain processes just as your computer screen with all the nice picture is a byproduct of 1s and 0s creating pixels creating nice pretty pictures.

One whole branch of philosophy (ontology) is dedicated to answering them. It is the academic history of attempts to answer them. How can that not be relevant? It is only relevant so much so as interpreting a causal reality in the human scale. It completely breaks down in the quantum and cosmic scale. Ontology are abstract logic games that are useful in forming questions of reality, not at answering them.

No, science is used to confirm scientific speculation.Congrats. You understand a little bit more about science now. You build a speculative model called a hypothesis and you attempt to tear it down and if you can't, it is tentatively confirmed. It will be continuously attacked to see if it can stand up to the assault. If it holds, it is confirmed. You make it seem as if that is a bad thing.

[Jeff Corey]

"Consciousness isn't even partly brain activity. It isn't brain activity at all."
I would say that this has to be the product of no brain activity, but there must have been some brain activity for the motor cortex to send those impulses to whatever appendage was used to enter that statement. Thus we are presented with what Logicers call a pair o' ducks.

[PixyMisa]

Yes, Science has been done well in a variety of different cultures by people with diverse metaphysical beliefs.
Dualists have done well.
Materialists have done well.
Idealists have done well.
And so on.

Of course if you have zero confidence in induction ...
Maybe its just for the paycheck.
Or you could be trying to falsify it - and failing, of course.

[RandFan]

Consciousness isn't even partly brain activity. It isn't brain activity at all. You appear to believe that if you repeat the mantra "consciousness is brain activity" enough times, it will magically become true.


FACTS:

Consciousness has never been demonstrated to exist without brain activity.
Consciousness can be altered by altering brain activity (primarily through psychotropic drugs and injury).
Different conscious states can be be traced to activity in different parts of the brain.

[slingblade]

In terms of the missing thing from YOUR POV, yes, that's what is missing. You ask what else there is to consciousness but brain activity? The answer is ALL OF IT. Consciousness isn't even partly brain activity. It isn't brain activity at all. You appear to believe that if you repeat the mantra "consciousness is brain activity" enough times, it will magically become true.

You mean like this?

Electrodes implanted in the brains of people with epilepsy might have resolved an ancient question about consciousness.

Signals from the electrodes seem to show that consciousness arises from the coordinated activity of the entire brain. The signals also take us closer to finding an objective "consciousness signature" that could be used to probe the process in animals and people with brain damage without inserting electrodes.

Previously it wasn't clear whether a dedicated brain area, or "seat of consciousness", was responsible for guiding our subjective view of the world, or whether consciousness was the result of concerted activity across the whole brain.

bolding mine.


Oh, and the stupid names you keep calling Pixy Misa are REALLY ANNOYING ME, SO GROW UP AND KNOCK IT OFF.

[Malerin]

;)

[quote] But if it is - whyever do you think that experience is anything but brain activity?

Pain is a sensation. Brain activity is a bunch of neurons interacting. Again, the sensation may be causally dependent on brain-activity, but that does not mean it is brain activity. You're confusing causal and indentity relationships. A lightning bolt may cause a forest fire, but a lightning bolt is not a forest fire. If I tell you I'm in pain, you know what I'm talking about without any knowledge of brain activity- it's not a necessary condition for you to correctly understand what I mean. If experience is brain activity, how is it possible to correctly know what I'm talking about when I say I'm in pain if you have no knowledge at all of brain activity? Ergo, we must be talking about something other than brain activity. On the other hand, if you've never felt pain before, you won't know what I'm talking about.

Yes it does.

No it doesn't. I have no idea what your point is here because your answer is so short.

As I pointed out earlier, to say that consciousness is brain activity is to say that consciousness is caused by the brain.

Again, you're conflating causal and identity relationships. You're asserting two things here: (1) brain activity causes consiousness (2) brain activity is consciousness. Nobody has qualms with (1) (except me), but you merely assert (2) without any argumentation or evidence, and it doesn't even make sense. If (2) were true, you would have consciousness whenever any brain activity occurs. That's obviously not true.

To say that consciousness is caused by brain activity is to say that consciousness is caused by is caused by the brain - grammatically nonsensical.

Because you're conflating two strong claims.

"Is caused by" and "activity" are fully generalised indirect layers. Having two of them is meaningless.

Not at all. A fire is a kind of activity which is caused by lightning, for example. That is a meaningful sentence: there's some active process going on (fire) and it had a cause (lightning)

In practice? No.

Uh, yes. Brevity is the source of wit, not wisdom.

That's a restatement of Mary's Room.

Right. So the blind person learns all the biomechanics/neurochemistry involved in sight. They are then offered the chance to see for a little while. You're claiming that they'll think that's a trivial offer. I'm claiming they would
jump at the chance. I think your claim is obviously false. You can try to describe "red" to a blind person (blind from birth) till you're blue in the face. They will have no clue what the experience of seeing red is.

If it were possible to understand everything physical about the process of seeing, withing actually ever having seen, then yes, you would of necessity understand seeing just as completely as a person who can see.

How do you learn qualia from a book? Subjective experience ties some of you materialists in knots. It's very funny. You either deny it exists or are reduced to making claims about conscious toasters.

Nope. That's a bait-and-switch - or more formally, an unstated major premise a.k.a begging the question.

No it's not.

If seeing is a physical process, and you understand all there is to the physical process of seeing, that includes understanding the experience.

How do you learn experience without experiencing?

The Mary's Room argument only works if we assume that experience is non-physical. But if we assume that, the argument is redundant, because the point is to prove that experience is non-physical.

Mary's Room is an analogy to show that experience is not brain activity: you're learning is not complete, young Jedi, until you actually experience it.

It's a really lousy argument all round.

No it's not.

They're evidence of something.

Which we take for granted 99% of the time. If your spouse tells you she picked up some lettuce at the store, do you run to the fridge to verify their story? Or is the anecdotal account sufficient evidence for you to believe they actually went to the store?

But if I say that - oh, let's say - that I'm wearing a green shirt, and you are standing right in front of me and can see plain as day that I'm wearing a red shirt, my claim that I'm wearing a green shirt is not evidence that I'm wearing a green shirt. It's evidence that I'm confused, lying, joking, posing some silly Zen riddle, colour blind, or suffering from blunt head trauma

Which is just to say that evidence does not exist in a vacuum- it must be measured against other evidence. Reliable people have told me they've seen ghosts. I never have, so I have to weigh their claim against the lack of ghost-evidence in my own life. That does not automatically mean they're lying or crazy.

Trivially.

Non-trivial.

Yes, but none of that matters in the slightest, because there are brains.

Oh, I agree. But what are brains? Are they physical things that the mind arises from, or are they part of an elaborate illusion created by the mind?

No, but something similar: I'm going to hit you over the head with it.

Ah, and so when you feel something in a dream, that must mean there's a physical object you're feeling, right?

No. I'm not making a metaphysical point, merely an observation: Mysticism does not work.

Yes it does.

[RandFan]

Mysticism does not work.

Yes it does. Evidence?

[RandFan]

Again, you're conflating causal and identity relationships. You're asserting two things here: (1) brain activity causes consiousness (2) brain activity is consciousness. Nobody has qualms with (1) (except me), but you merely assert (2) without any argumentation or evidence, and it doesn't even make sense. If (2) were true, you would have consciousness whenever any brain activity occurs. That's obviously not true. 1 and 2 are a distinction with little significant difference. Wings, air pressure momentum, etc., might not be flight but flight is what wings, air pressure and momentum do.

Consciousness is what the brain does.


FACTS:

Consciousness has never been demonstrated to exist without brain activity.
Consciousness can be altered by altering brain activity (primarily through psychotropic drugs and injury).
Different conscious states can be be traced to activity in different parts of the brain.

[Malerin]

1 and 2 are a distinction with little significant difference. Wings, air pressure momentum, etc., might not be flight but flight is what wings, air pressure and momentum do.

Consciousness is what the brain does.


FACTS:

Consciousness has never been demonstrated to exist without brain activity.
Consciousness can be altered by altering brain activity (primarily through psychotropic drugs and injury).
Different conscious states can be be traced to activity in different parts of the brain.


That establishes a causal relationship, not an identity relationship.

Fact:

* A car cannot perform without a transmission
* A car's performance can be altered by altering the transmission (primarily through changing gears)
* Different performance states can be traced to acitvity in different parts of the transmission

Therefore, the performance of a car is a transmission? :confused:

[PixyMisa]

Pain is a sensation.
Correct.

Brain activity is a bunch of neurons interacting.Also correct.

Again, the sensation may be causally dependent on brain-activity, but that does not mean it is brain activity.The sensation? Or the experience of the sensation?

The sensation is a chain of events. The experience of the sensation is brain activity.

You're confusing causal and indentity relationships.No I'm not.

A lightning bolt may cause a forest fire, but a lightning bolt is not a forest fire.How is that supposed to be relevant?

If I tell you I'm in pain, you know what I'm talking about without any knowledge of brain activity- it's not a necessary condition for you to correctly understand what I mean.If I tell you my car broke down, you know what I'm talking about without any knowledge of variable valve timing - it's not a necessary condition for you to grasp the general meaning of what I said.

But you can understand better if you understand how cars work.

If experience is brain activity, how is it possible to correctly know what I'm talking about when I say I'm in pain if you have no knowledge at all of brain activity?You experience pain yourself - brain activity. You learn that this experience has a name, pain. You learn that other people also feel pain.

No knowledge of brain activity is required. None.

Ergo, we must be talking about something other than brain activity.Non-sequitur.

On the other hand, if you've never felt pain before, you won't know what I'm talking about.If I know what pain is - from an intellectual study - yes I will. I will not be able to match it up with personal experience, but that's merely because you stipulated that condition.

No it doesn't. I have no idea what your point is here because your answer is so short.No it's not, you just didn't bother to read it.

To simplify: Consciousness is an activity that takes place in the brain. That means it's brain activity. Saying that it's "caused by" brain activity is some sort of error - grammatical, semantic, category, something.

Again, you're conflating causal and identity relationships.Again, no I'm not.

You're asserting two things here: (1) brain activity causes consiousnessNo.

(2) brain activity is consciousness.No.

Both are wrong.

Nobody has qualms with (1) (except me), but you merely assert (2) without any argumentation or evidenceNo I don't. I never said anything like that.

and it doesn't even make sense. If (2) were true, you would have consciousness whenever any brain activity occurs. That's obviously not true.No, as I said, both are wrong.

Consciousness is brain activity. We can watch this happen. We can test it. We can measure it. We can modify it. We know - for example - that conscious awareness of a decision temporally follows the action that causally follows the decision.

Consciousness is brain activity. Cats are mammals. The converse need not be true.

Because you're conflating two strong claims.Nope. I'm making a third, different claim.

Not at all. A fire is a kind of activity which is caused by lightning, for example. That is a meaningful sentence: there's some active process going on (fire) and it had a cause (lightning)The analogy is not even remotely apt.

What you are saying is that fire is caused by combustion.

Uh, yes. Brevity is the source of wit, not wisdom.As I said, in practice, no. It's impossible to actually do this.

Right. So the blind person learns all the biomechanics/neurochemistry involved in sight.And psychology - after all, psychology is a physical science.

They are then offered the chance to see for a little while. You're claiming that they'll think that's a trivial offer.No I'm not.

I'm claiming they would jump at the chance.So?

I think your claim is obviously false.I don't really care what you think. I care what you can demonstrate to be true.

You can try to describe "red" to a blind person (blind from birth) till you're blue in the face.So?

They will have no clue what the experience of seeing red is.So?

None of this proves anything, except that the ANU is a rotten place to study philosophy.

I said, right up front, that this is impossible in practice. That's simply a limitation of our ability to impart and to learn information.

How do you learn qualia from a book?Okay, let's start from the beginning.

Qualia are defined as being what's left over when all the physical processes are explained. That's begging the question, yet again - there is no reason to think that anything is left over. There's no reason to think that qualia exist at all, or even that the concept is logically coherent.

Now, experiences, they exist. How do we learn experiences from a book? The same way we learn anything else: By associating it with things we already know.

Subjective experience ties some of you materialists in knots.Nope. It's very straightforward. Subjective experience is just a physical process, from the point of view of the process.

It's very funny.If you're easily amused, I suppose.

You either deny it exists or are reduced to making claims about conscious toasters.Qualia don't exist. Subjective experience certainly does.

And what's your problem with the notion that toasters can be conscious?

No it's not.Yes it is.

How do you learn experience without experiencing?I have already explained this to you.

In the original Mary's Room, Jackson posited that Mary knew everything there is to know about the physical process of seeing colour. Then he turned around and claimed that when Mary first saw colour, the experience would teach her something new.

But this is a very clear example of begging the question.

If we assume - just for the sake of argument, though we also know this to be true - that subjective experience is a physical process, then if as Jackson stipulates, Mary knows everything there is to know about the physical process of seeing colour, then that by definition includes what the experience feels like.

Mary's Room is an analogy to show that experience is not brain activity: you're learning is not complete, young Jedi, until you actually experience it.Yes, that's what it tries to do. It fails miserably, because it assumes its conclusion. This is considered a no-no among serious philosophers.

No it's not.Yes it is. It's every bit as vacuous as Searle's Chinese Room argument.

Which we take for granted 99% of the time.Doesn't mean that it's true.

If your spouse tells you she picked up some lettuce at the store, do you run to the fridge to verify their story?No. But if she said she picked up some phoenix fillets, I would certainly want to see them.

Also, I'd ask who she was and what she was doing in my house.

Or is the anecdotal account sufficient evidence for you to believe they actually went to the store?Stores exist, Malerin. Indeed, they are fairly common. Lettuces exist. And likewise.

Which is just to say that evidence does not exist in a vacuum- it must be measured against other evidence.Evidence does not exist without a reference. A claim for some hypothesis that has been proven false is not supporting evidence for that hypothesis - it's evidence that the claimant is confused or lying in some way.

Reliable people have told me they've seen ghosts.No. Those people are, ipso facto, unreliable.

I never have, so I have to weigh their claim against the lack of ghost-evidence in my own life. That does not automatically mean they're lying or crazy.It just means they are wrong.

Non-trivial.Non-trivial how?

Oh, I agree. But what are brains? Are they physical things that the mind arises from, or are they part of an elaborate illusion created by the mind?They are physical things that the mind arises from.

We know this because I can make your mind go away by clubbing you over the head - but I cannot make your head go away no matter what I do to your mind.

Ah, and so when you feel something in a dream, that must mean there's a physical object you're feeling, right?I am not able rightly to comprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

Yes it does.Sorry to be the first to inform you of this, then. No, it doesn't.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Pain is a sensation. Brain activity is a bunch of neurons interacting. Again, the sensation may be causally dependent on brain-activity, but that does not mean it is brain activity. You're confusing causal and indentity relationships. A lightning bolt may cause a forest fire, but a lightning bolt is not a forest fire.

Again using false analogies to attack an argument

Yes, clearly the Lighting Bolt/Fire example is a bad example. Fire is not Lighting Bolt. Fire is caused by Lighting Bolt. Fire is a burning mass of material

And now for an example that is a good analogy of the premise "Consciousness is Brain activity":

*Radio waves are Electromagnetic Waves



Conclusion:
I can always think of many ways in which some things cannot be defined. If I wanted to, I could compile them and make a list of "things that cannot be defined in a special way", because that's not what they are. I can also think of "things that share the similarity of being defined in a very similar or almost identical fashion", again because of their individual properties. So lets stop playing this game of trying to contradict a scientific fact with a False Analogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy). It's an old fallacy and it just doesn't work that way

[PixyMisa]

And now for an example that is a good analogy of the premise "Consciousness is Brain activity":

*Radio waves are Electromagnetic Waves
Exactly right.

And what Malerin and UndercoverElephant are claiming is that all we know is that radio waves are caused by electromagnetic waves - which does not even make sense.

[quixotecoyote]

That establishes a causal relationship, not an identity relationship.

Fact:

* A car cannot perform without a transmission
* A car's performance can be altered by altering the transmission (primarily through changing gears)
* Different performance states can be traced to acitvity in different parts of the transmission

Therefore, the performance of a car is a transmission? :confused:

Of course not, the performance of car is the activity of all it's mechanical systems and driver. To make this more fitting, you should have said "the activity of the transmission," but I'll roll with it as you put it.

We can say "what about the engine, radiator, alternator, wheels, tires, axles, suspension, etc.; all that matters too."

When it comes to consciousness, you have nothing else to point at besides the brain.

[Malerin]

Of course not, the performance of car is the activity of all it's mechanical systems and driver. To make this more fitting, you should have said "the activity of the transmission," but I'll roll with it as you put it.

We can say "what about the engine, radiator, alternator, wheels, tires, axles, suspension, etc.; all that matters too."

When it comes to consciousness, you have nothing else to point at besides the brain.

Again, you're talking causality. At best, you've established that the brain (or parts of the brain, to be more accurate) is a necessary condition for consciousness. No one's debating that point. It's the claim that brain activity is consciousness which is being challenged.

[RandFan]

* A car cannot perform without a transmission Define "perform"? A car can do a hell of a lot like provide heat and power without a transmission.

* A car's performance can be altered by altering the transmission (primarily through changing gears) But not the transmission only. A car's performance can also be altered by changing the states of the tires, engine, and many other parts of the car.

* Different performance states can be traced to acitvity in different parts of the transmission And OTHER parts of the car.

Therefore, the performance of a car is a transmission? I'm a former dualist and I made this silly argument 8 years ago. The fatal flaw with your analogy is that no other correlations exist with consciousness. There is no analog for all of the parts of engine and tires to the brain. There is the brain. There is only the brain. Occams razor rules out unkown forces and mechanisms.

No brain. No consciousness.

[RandFan]

Again, you're talking causality. At best, you've established that the brain (or parts of the brain, to be more accurate) is a necessary condition for consciousness. No one's debating that point. It's the claim that brain activity is consciousness which is being challenged. Gravity just might be tiny invisible angels pushing down on everything.

You have some serious problems with your criticsm.

You have zero explanations for what IS consciousness if not the brain.
You only assert that the brain is not consciousness.
When you have something beyond "the brain is not consciousness" without the need to posit unkown forces and or mechanisms get back to us. Until then the only explanation we have is the brain.

One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

[RandFan]

Of course not, the performance of car is the activity of all it's mechanical systems and driver. To make this more fitting, you should have said "the activity of the transmission," but I'll roll with it as you put it.

We can say "what about the engine, radiator, alternator, wheels, tires, axles, suspension, etc.; all that matters too."

When it comes to consciousness, you have nothing else to point at besides the brain.Beat me to it. :)

[RandFan]

Again, you're talking causality. At best, you've established that the brain (or parts of the brain, to be more accurate) is a necessary condition for consciousness. No one's debating that point. It's the claim that brain activity is consciousness which is being challenged.No.

If a car only required a transmission and nothing else then you would have an analogy. Then we could say that when the transmission doesn't work then the car doesn't perform like the brain and that would be correct. Of course it would work against you but that's the problem with your analogy.

As it is you have a false analogy.

[Malerin]

If I tell you my car broke down, you know what I'm talking about without any knowledge of variable valve timing - it's not a necessary condition for you to grasp the general meaning of what I said.

But knowledge of a car is. If you tell me your car broke down and I don't know what a car is, I won't be able to understand what happened (only that you're stranded for some reason). But when it comes to subjective experience, we can meaningfully understand each other without even knowing what a brain is, let alone brain activity. Brains and brain activity are entirely irrelevant to a discussion about conscious states- people can correctly communicate their conscious states to each other without any knowledge of brains or brain activity. If consciousness is solely brain activity, how is it possible to accurately and meaningfully communicate about conscious experience without having any knowledge of the brain at all?

The rest of what you wrote is just assertion.

[PixyMisa]

Again, you're talking causality. At best, you've established that the brain (or parts of the brain, to be more accurate) is a necessary condition for consciousness. No one's debating that point. It's the claim that brain activity is consciousness which is being challenged.
Yes. But you need to come up with a challenge and is based on evidence - or at the very least is logically coherent.

[RandFan]

If consciousness is solely brain activity, how is it possible to accurately and meaningfully communicate about conscious experience without having any knowledge of the brain at all? Because humans can think in the abstract. We experience something and we talk about what we experience. We intuitively understand theory of mind even if we don't know what theory of mind is. One of humankind's greatest feats is the ability to think symbolically. People didn't need to understand how a volcano works in order for them to discuss volcanoes. That's an absurd suggestion.

[Malerin]

No.

If a car only required a transmission and nothing else then you would have an analogy. Then we could say that when the transmission doesn't work then the car doesn't perform like the brain and that would be correct. Of course it would work against you but that's the problem with your analogy.

As it is you have a false analogy.

Are you claiming that a brain is a necessary and sufficient condition for consciousness?

[PixyMisa]

But knowledge of a car is. If you tell me your car broke down and I don't know what a car is, I won't be able to understand what happened (only that you're stranded for some reason).
Right.

But when it comes to subjective experience, we can meaningfully understand each other without even knowing what a brain is, let alone brain activity.
Yes, I already said that. It's completely irrelevant.

Brains and brain activity are entirely irrelevant to a discussion about conscious states- people can correctly communicate their conscious states to each other without any knowledge of brains or brain activity.
In exactly the same way that without knowing what a car is, you know that I am stranded. Like you just said.

If consciousness is solely brain activity, how is it possible to accurately and meaningfully communicate about conscious experience without having any knowledge of the brain at all?
But you do have knowledge of the brain - you know what it is doing. Because that's what the conscious experience is in the first place.

You're just begging the question again.

The rest of what you wrote is just assertion.
Sorry, no. I refuted every single one of your points.

[babbits]

I don't see an elephant.

[RandFan]

Are you claiming that a brain is a necessary and sufficient condition for consciousness?Yes, of course.

I would ask if you have other conditions but you and I both know that you don't.
I would ask if you have evidence that the brain is not all that is necessary and sufficient condition for consciousness but again we both know that you don't.
Dude, I'm a former passionate dualist and a long time fan of AI. I know the arguments and the state of the evidence.

Like I said, get back to us when you've got evidence for angels being the cause of gravity.

[Malerin]

Because humans can think in the abstract. We experience something and we talk about what we experience. We intuitively understand theory of mind even if we don't know what theory of mind is. One of humankind's greatest feats is the ability to think symbolically. People didn't need to understand how a volcano works in order for them to discuss volcanoes. That's an absurd suggestion.

That's not what I suggested. If two people think lightning is Zeus throwing bolts of light out of the clouds, they are not going to have an accurate and meaningful discussion of what lightning is. They will seem laughably ignorant by our standards. However, two people can have an accurate and meaningful discussion of what pain, love, and despair are without knowing anything at all about what the brain does. This should not be possible if pain, love, and despair are brain activities. They should sound as ignorant as two Romans talking about what lightning is. But they don't, and therein lies your problem.

[RandFan]

That's not what I suggested. If two people think lightning is Zeus throwing bolts of light out of the clouds, they are not going to have an accurate and meaningful discussion of what lightning is. They will seem laughably ignorant by our standards. However, two people can have an accurate and meaningful discussion of what pain, love, and despair are without knowing anything at all about what the brain does. This should not be possible if pain, love, and despair are brain activities. They should sound as ignorant as two Romans talking about what lightning is. But they don't, and therein lies your problem.Nonsense. They are only talking about what they experience. The question is how could they have any different discussion?

There isn't even an illusion of a problem.

[Malerin]

Yes, of course.

I would ask if you have other conditions but you and I both know that you don't.
I would ask if you have evidence that the brain is not all that is necessary and sufficient condition for consciousness but again we both know that you don't.
Dude, I'm a former passionate dualist and a long time fan of AI. I know the arguments and the state of the evidence.

Like I said, get back to us when you've got evidence for angels being the cause of gravity.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Human_brain_in_a_vat.jpg/250px-Human_brain_in_a_vat.jpg

Do you think that's conscious? You said a brain is a necessary and sufficient condition for consciousness. That's a brain, so there must be consciousness, right?

[RandFan]

Do you think that's conscious? You said a brain is a necessary and sufficient condition for consciousness. That's a brain, so there must be consciousness, right?It's got to be a working brain. We know emperically that the brain has to have electro-chemical activity and no brain in a vat to date has been shown to have activity.

Come on. I don't know whether to even take you seriously.

[paximperium]

It's got to be a working brain. We know emperically that the brain has to have electro-chemical activity and no brain in a vat to date has been shown to have activity.

Come on. I don't know whether to even take you serious.
It's standard Malerin. When he fails he starts down this path of strawmen and plain silliness.

[PixyMisa]

That's not what I suggested. If two people think lightning is Zeus throwing bolts of light out of the clouds, they are not going to have an accurate and meaningful discussion of what lightning is.
Quite correct, they're not.

They will seem laughably ignorant by our standards.
Poetic, maybe. Insightful, possibly. But ignorant, yes.

However, two people can have an accurate and meaningful discussion of what pain, love, and despair are without knowing anything at all about what the brain does.
Completely wrong. Any such discussion will seem as absurdly primitive to our modern scientific selves as the discussion of thunderbolts above.

Poetic, maybe. Insightful, possibly. Accurate? Not even remotely.

This should not be possible if pain, love, and despair are brain activities.
And you're right. In this context, it's not possible at all.

They should sound as ignorant as two Romans talking about what lightning is.
They do.

But they don't, and therein lies your problem.
But they do - to anyone who understands psychology and neuroscience even at the undergraduate level.

And therein lies the problem with your problem.

[RandFan]

It's standard Malerin. When he fails he starts down this path of strawmen and plain silliness.It's frustrating. Of course it goes without saying that I'm talking about working brains. When people start acting like that I start thinking I've got to define every word and concept and spell out everything remotely possible necessary to avoid such cheap shots and THEN I'm accused of patronizing.

So by brain I mean electrochemical (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&ei=85T-San-DJL0tQPCr9TJAQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=electrochemical&spell=1) activity, glucose, water, tissue, blood cells, protein, etc., etc.

Am I missing anything?

[paximperium]

It's frustrating. Of course it goes without saying that I'm talking about working brains. When people start acting like that I start thinking I've got to define every word and concept and spell out everything remotely possible necessary to avoid such cheap shots and THEN I'm accused of patronizing. I don't have to deal with it since I'm on his ignore list. I told him what I thought about him. He didn't like it.

[quixotecoyote]

Again, you're talking causality. At best, you've established that the brain (or parts of the brain, to be more accurate) is a necessary condition for consciousness. No one's debating that point. It's the claim that brain activity is consciousness which is being challenged.

I'm aware of what you're arguing. My point was that your analogy doesn't get you there, for the reasons I gave.

[leonAzul]

[QUOTE=PixyMisa;4677991]
Ah, and so when you feel something in a dream, that must mean there's a physical object you're feeling, right?


Of course not. Things experienced in dreams are only the result of brain activity.

[leonAzul]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Human_brain_in_a_vat.jpg/250px-Human_brain_in_a_vat.jpg

Do you think that's conscious? You said a brain is a necessary and sufficient condition for consciousness. That's a brain, so there must be consciousness, right?

That brain doesn't look very active to me. At least not the sort of activity one would expect of a conscious mind.

ETA

Oops, too hasty: I see you have already covered that, RandFan.

[Malerin]

It's got to be a working brain. We know emperically that the brain has to have electro-chemical activity and no brain in a vat to date has been shown to have activity.

Come on. I don't know whether to even take you seriously.

If you think about it, you'll realize it's not a trivial point. A "working brain" is quite different than just a brain. A "working brain" introduces many more necessary conditions for consciousness. Oxygen and nutrients are a necessary condition for a "working brain" (and therefore consciousness), but oxygen and nutrients are not consciousness. Taken together, oxygen, a sufficient number of neurons, blood supply, serotonin, etc. may cause consciousness (just as fuel, gears, spark plugs, pistons, etc. may cause acceleration), but that is a much different claim than claiming all those things are consciousness. Just as it would be a much different claim to state that fuel, gears, spark plugs, etc. are acceleration.

You wanted to attack my analogy of a car by claiming the brain itself is a necessary and sufficient condition for consciousness. It's not. So now the goal posts are moved, and a "working brain" is offered as a cause of consciousness. Do you think the goalposts will stay there? If consciousness is brain activity, as PM claims, then there better not ever be any brain activity going on in unconscious people. Uh oh. Looks like the claim might have to be refined again...

I think some of you can't help but conflate causality and identity. Maybe that's why it's called the Hard Problem of Consciouness. Here's a good quote from Huxley about it (from Wiki):

"how it is that any thing so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as the result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp."

[Malerin]

I don't have to deal with it since I'm on his ignore list. I told him what I thought about him. He didn't like it.

You're not on my ignore list. You just never say anything worth responding to (except for this, obviously). I don't think I have anyone on ignore, but I can't say for sure.

[paximperium]

If you think about it, you'll realize it's not a trivial point. A "working brain" is quite different than just a brain. A "working brain" introduces many more necessary conditions for consciousness. Oxygen and nutrients are a necessary condition for a "working brain" (and therefore consciousness), but oxygen and nutrients are not consciousness. Taken together, oxygen, a sufficient number of neurons, blood supply, serotonin, etc. may cause consciousness (just as fuel, gears, spark plugs, pistons, etc. may cause acceleration), but that is a much different claim than claiming all those things are consciousness. Just as it would be a much different claim to state that fuel, gears, spark plugs, etc. are acceleration. I see your problem. You're not able to see how the little bits make up the whole.
Well, the lego piece is obvious a duck since the giant duck model is obviously not made up of little lego pieces:rolleyes:

You wanted to attack my analogy of a car by claiming the brain itself is a necessary and sufficient condition for consciousness. So far all the research show you to be wrong.

It's not. Which continue to be your claim with no justification except "there must be something more".

So now the goal posts are moved, and a "working brain" is offered as a cause of consciousness. Actually now you're just playing ridiculous semantic games. When people referred to a brain in this entire thread, it meant working brain. I haven't decided if you're being purposefully dishonest or just silly.

Do you think the goalposts will stay there? If consciousness is brain activity, as PM claims, then there better not ever be any brain activity going on in unconscious people. Wow, talk about absurdly stupid. Let's be clear.

Consciousness require brain processes, brain processes(ie. Subconscious processing) does not require consciousness.

I think some of you can't help but conflate causality and identity. I think you can't help but make up useless and untestable definitions to protect your sacred cow. Well go ahead and define consciousness into non-existence like how you've done with your "god".


"how it is that any thing so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as the result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp."Well it looks like philosophers like Huxley can also use Argument from Incredulity as well. Bravo.

[tsig]

Yeah, groovy....



I've seen similar optical illusions.



I'm not sure I understand what point you are making. That the content of consciousness is critically dependent on neural, material things is not the issue. The issue is whether or not there is scientific evidence that consciousness IS a neural, material thing and/or whether or not a materialistic explanation will always leave something out.

Showing that consciousness is dependent on brain activity (which is not a solely scientific process but can be done) does not actually tell us what consciousness "is" or how it is connected to brain activity. A thing cannot be related or connected to itself. Either consciousness IS brain activity (no connection) or consciousness is dependent on (or connected/related to) brain activity, implying that the two are distinct. Which of course they are. It is a lot easier to answer the question "how do we distinguish between consciousness and brain activity?" than it is to answer the question "in what ways are consciousness and brain activity similar?" I must have explained this about five times now. Is there something lacking in the explanation or are people just forgetting it immediately after I post it?

Maybe you don't communicate as well as you think you do.

[PixyMisa]

If you think about it, you'll realize it's not a trivial point.
Nope, sorry, it is a trivial point.

A "working brain" is quite different than just a brain. A "working brain" introduces many more necessary conditions for consciousness. Oxygen and nutrients are a necessary condition for a "working brain" (and therefore consciousness), but oxygen and nutrients are not consciousness.So?

Taken together, oxygen, a sufficient number of neurons, blood supply, serotonin, etc. may cause consciousness (just as fuel, gears, spark plugs, pistons, etc. may cause acceleration), but that is a much different claim than claiming all those things are consciousness.No-one has ever claimed that brains are consciousness, Malerin. Go back to the start and read the thread again.

Just as it would be a much different claim to state that fuel, gears, spark plugs, etc. are acceleration.False analogy.

You wanted to attack my analogy of a car by claiming the brain itself is a necessary and sufficient condition for consciousness. It's not. So now the goal posts are moved, and a "working brain" is offered as a cause of consciousness. Do you think the goalposts will stay there? If consciousness is brain activity, as PM claims, then there better not ever be any brain activity going on in unconscious people. Uh oh. Looks like the claim might have to be refined again... Nope. Completely wrong, again.

People who are asleep - what you so carelessly refer to here as "unconscious" - are conscious. Their minds are still running, merely at a reduced level of arousal (the technical term that you want).

If they were not conscious at all, not aware of their surroundings, you would not be able to wake them up.

I think some of you can't help but conflate causality and identity. Maybe that's why it's called the Hard Problem of Consciouness.No. The so-called "Hard Problem of Consciousness" is a full-employment program for immaterialist philosophers. Most of them at ANU, it would seem.

Here's a good quote from Huxley about it (from Wiki):

"how it is that any thing so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as the result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp."Self-referential information processing. I can demonstrate consciousness on a fifty-cent microcontroller.

[paximperium]

Persistent Vegetative State where consciousness has been damaged with only bare autonomic function such as breathing, digesting etc. is an example of a "functioning" brain stem with no consciousness just subconscious function.

[SpeedOfSound]

But knowledge of a car is. If you tell me your car broke down and I don't know what a car is, I won't be able to understand what happened (only that you're stranded for some reason). But when it comes to subjective experience, we can meaningfully understand each other without even knowing what a brain is, let alone brain activity. Brains and brain activity are entirely irrelevant to a discussion about conscious states- people can correctly communicate their conscious states to each other without any knowledge of brains or brain activity. If consciousness is solely brain activity, how is it possible to accurately and meaningfully communicate about conscious experience without having any knowledge of the brain at all?

The rest of what you wrote is just assertion.


If you don't know what stranded is you will have trouble there too.

Are you suggesting that newborns can communicate their C-states to each other correctly?

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't see an elephant.

Here I am!

Although I've had enough of this thread for now. Those who are able to understand it are able to understand it, those who are not are not. I'm going for a long walk...

[SpeedOfSound]

You wanted to attack my analogy of a car by claiming the brain itself is a necessary and sufficient condition for consciousness. It's not. So now the goal posts are moved, and a "working brain" is offered as a cause of consciousness. Do you think the goalposts will stay there? If consciousness is brain activity, as PM claims, then there better not ever be any brain activity going on in unconscious people. Uh oh. Looks like the claim might have to be refined again...


The goal post will continue to float around until you define consciousness and list it's general properties without referring to specifics. You seem to be saying that you can communicate conscious states as if it was the conscious state that is passing to-and-fro.

Discussions about C being brain activity have a little problem. 'Consciousness is brain activity' is a kind-of sort-of statement about some science but what it is really saying is 'Consciousness is not some special opportunity for the spirit world to intervene in physical matters'.

Going down this 'cars are just wheels' or 'C is brain states' road is old and not very productive. Let's just cut to the chase here and talk about what you really want to talk about.

But first tell me what the hell we are talking about. Distill this C thing to it's properties for me.

[ArmillarySphere]

Looking at the evidence, we know that:
- People in a coma, unconsciousness and so forth do not remember the time passing while they were "gone"
- Sleeping generally disables consciousness, but no more than that stimuli can reactivate it. There's also varying degrees of short-time memories in the brain at the time you wake up.
- Physical trauma to the brain can disable consciousness temporarily or permanently
- Various brain damage can change the personality drastically, almost beyond recognition

Given these points, it seems to be the simplest conclusion that there is a direct link between the brain and the consciousness. The question becomes that of whether there is some external entity that can affect personalities aside from the brain matter. This will have to wait for when we know enough of neurobiology to predict someone's personality from an MRI scan, and be able to see if there is anything going on beside the material.

I like to think of consciousness as analogous to a kind of process in a computer. (This also leads to the prediction that sufficiently complex computers should be able to achieve consciousness). The process is "active" when you are conscious, and might be completely turned off or just in a passive state when you're not. Judging by the response to various trauma, I would *guess* that the process can actually shut down, and be restarted when the trauma has been healed.

Now, the brain is quite a bit different than computers - the distinction between short- and long-term memory is a lot fuzzier than between computer memory and storage on disk, though it exists there as well. Still, I'd take it that the "you" in consciousness is actually a product of the hardwiring laid down by our genetic heritage and experiences.

My conclusion is that my conscious self is a process being run by my brain, that it will store its state continually, and that that the only reason I wake up more or less the same person each day is routines laid down in hardware, plus accessing prior memories (the distinction is fuzzy) leading to similar responses.


For fun, think of multiple personalities. Now, these may be actual, independent processes, but are they real, or just a delusion of the brain? And if they're real, do they get restarted each day, or are they simply activated by certain stimuli? It seems to me that if they're real, there ought to be multiple sets of responses laid down in the brain, so sufficiently advanced analysis techniques should be able to map them out.

[PixyMisa]

For fun, think of multiple personalities. Now, these may be actual, independent processes, but are they real, or just a delusion of the brain? And if they're real, do they get restarted each day, or are they simply activated by certain stimuli? It seems to me that if they're real, there ought to be multiple sets of responses laid down in the brain, so sufficiently advanced analysis techniques should be able to map them out.
An interesting case here is split-brain patients (who have undergone a corpus callosotomy to try to mitigate severe epilepsy). In many ways they act as though they have two separate consciousnesses.

Just one of the many, many factors that tell us that consciousness is brain activity, and nothing more.

[SpeedOfSound]

An interesting case here is split-brain patients (who have undergone a corpus callosotomy to try to mitigate severe epilepsy). In many ways they act as though they have two separate consciousnesses.

Just one of the many, many factors that tell us that consciousness is brain activity, and nothing more.

I recently heard of one split brain subject who had a republican on one side and a democrat on another. Another had a christian/atheist split. I'll try and dig up a reference on that.

[SpeedOfSound]

A couple of things about being conscious.

1. We are always conscious of something. There is no just conscious.

2. The something we are conscious of has a persistence threshold of about 450 mSec. See Libet. Consciousness is not just a neuron firing but a group of neurons firing for a period of time. There are natural oscillations involving the thalamus and there is much evidence that these oscillations are necessary to be conscious of something.

3. C is about novelty. However there seems to be a C motor that runs during waking hours that will find something to do whether there is novelty or not. Nevertheless it appears that C is for and about novelty. These are situations in which brain patterns of old do not make a good fit with sensory or mental input. (I include mental because thinking appears to work very much like the other senses).

4. It appears after much searching that C is how our brain learns things. If it's not conscious it won't persist or make a change in the strength of neural connections. This is still controversial but little evidence, if any, has been found for unconscious learning.

5. Finally everything I have read and everything I experience leads me to believe that consciousness behaves exactly as one would expect it to if it were entirely made of meat. It is fleeting, fickle and nebulous. If it were some cosmic god or primal substance I would expect it to be more well-defined and well-behaved.

[leonAzul]

5. Finally everything I have read and everything I experience leads me to believe that consciousness behaves exactly as one would expect it to if it were entirely made of meat. It is fleeting, fickle and nebulous. If it were some cosmic god or primal substance I would expect it to be more well-defined and well-behaved.

Well said, and nominated.

[paximperium]

Let's just cut to the chase here and talk about what you really want to talk about. He won't. What he wants is to try to create doubt concerning materialism/monism/naturalism so that his pet belief in Dualism/Idealism would somehow automatically come true AND then somehow magically that this would prove god. He enjoys his "god of the gaps."

[UndercoverElephant]

He won't. What he wants is to try to create doubt concerning materialism/monism/naturalism so that his pet belief in Dualism/Idealism would somehow automatically come true AND then somehow magically that this would prove god. He enjoys his "god of the gaps."

Cross-posted from the other thread:


As a more general note, I have to say that I am growing bored of these two threads. I am simply having to repeat the same refutations and explanations too many times and tired of the materialists here continually moving the goalposts. How many times in one thread do you have to explain to the idiot materialists that "X is necessary for Y" does not logically imply "X is sufficient for Y"? How many times do you have to explain that "X causes Y" does not logically imply "X is Y" before the message finally penetrates into their iron-clad deluded brains? How many times must you demonstrate that it is logically possible for something to affect the universe without it being scientifically testable before they finally stop asserting that it isn't? How many times do you have to explain that just because a person is arguing something is possible, it does not mean that that thing can necessarily be demonstrated to be actual? How many times do you have to repeat that you aren't expecting anybody else to accept religious claims that theoretically couldn't be proved anyway before the idiot skeptics stop saying "prove it!", as if it was even remotely relevant? These are just a few examples, but there are many, many more. I refute one of these claims once, then another person pops up four posts later and makes the same fallacious claism, then two pages later the original person says it again. When that doesn't work, they simply resort to cheering along each other's posts, even if they don't agree with each other (anything's better than giving an inch to the elephant, isn't it? "We need to dig our heels in and refuse to back down! Long live dogmatic materialistic ********!")

Anyone who still thinks that there is "no problem" for science/materialism in explaining consciousness after reading these threads is, quite frankly, incapable of following a logical argument. The mentality is the same as that of believers of all sorts: when presented with conclusive evidence that something they beleive doesn't make sense, their "belief system preservation system" kicks in and the inconvenient evidence becomes invisible to them. They just "can't see it".

It's DEAD SIMPLE. You materialists cannot make your minds up whether you want to claim "Consciousness is brain activity" or "consciousness arises from brain activity". As soon as anyone actually commits themselves to one or the other then they should also immediately be able to understand the problem. The first claim simply redefines "consciousness" to mean something neural, thus side-stepping the problem without doing anything to solve it. The second claim is a defence of something which isn't compatible with materialism because it proposes the existence of a non-physical entity.

"But, but, but, but......" No buts. Still don't believe it? Try thinking about it instead of just knee-jerk defending your illogical existing belief systems.

Bye-bye "deep-thinking" materialist believers. The endless repetition of the same fallacious arguments finally bored me to the extent I could no longer be bothered to continue.

If anyone here thinks they are capable of taking me on one-on-one and having a discussion with me where they DON'T repeat fallacious arguments that have already been refuted about six times, please let me know.


The above quote from paximperium is yet another example of the same thing: " so that his pet belief in Dualism/Idealism would somehow automatically come true AND then somehow magically that this would prove god."

Makes no difference that I've explained about ten times that I'm a neutral monist who doesn't believe in anything resembling what most people call "God" (i.e. in the same camp as VS Ramachandran) because the materialist in question has got it into his head that everyone who disagrees with him is a God-obsessed dualist or idealist and no matter how many times I explain what I actually believe he continues to believe in the straw man he wants to knock down. He will leave this thread still quite convinced I'm a theist and a dualist. This has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've actually posted and everything to do with the effects of the aforementioned "belief system preservation system". After all, the only alternative to materialism is dualism/idealism, right? :rolleyes:

I am willing to continue this debate only if someone can come forward to take me on who is capable of following and understanding my argument (sorry Pixy, not you) and not just continually repeating things that have already been refuted or setting up idiotic strawmen which bear no resemblance to my actual arguments. I am looking for something more like a formal debate instead of the usual JREF bear-pit.

[paximperium]

I was talking about Malerin. I have no idea what you are.

PS: If no one can understand you, you may need to look at a mirror before blaming others.

[PixyMisa]

A couple of things about being conscious.

1. We are always conscious of something. There is no just conscious.
Absolutely right.

2. The something we are conscious of has a persistence threshold of about 450 mSec. See Libet. Consciousness is not just a neuron firing but a group of neurons firing for a period of time.
Yep. Though I'd use the term network rather than just group.

There are natural oscillations involving the thalamus and there is much evidence that these oscillations are necessary to be conscious of something.
I think you have that the wrong way round. Consciousness is a complex self-referential processing loop in a neural network. The oscillations you see are the effective clock cycle of this subset of the physical network. The oscillations themselves don't do anything, they're just evidence of the activity.

[UndercoverElephant]

I was talking about Malerin. I have no idea what you are.

PS: If no one can understand you, you may need to look at a mirror before blaming others.

I did not say nobody can understand me. There is a vast range of responses to my arguments, from people like PixyMisa or Darat at one end, who understand almost nothing about what I believe regardless of how many times I try to explain it, to people like Apathia and Plumjam at the other, who understand almost everything I am saying, even though they doesn't necessarily agree with it all.

It is a matter of people's attitudes to learning and their level of confidence in their own belief system (or their level of fear of any challenges to it). People who aren't worried/scared/angry about non-theistic religious systems or non-materialistic philosophical systems tend to have little or no difficulty understanding my basic arguments. But there are plenty of people who hang around boards like this one who have a violent allergic reaction to those things. In an extreme case, such as PixyMisa, they believe that such things are nothing less than a threat to civilisation. It's not so easy to think rationally if you feel like you are confronting a threat on that scale.

Some of the ideas I post about are difficult to understand. Anyone who has ever studied philosophy will be familiar with the experience of sitting in a lecture hall full of students trying to understand people like Kant or Wittgenstein, it being quite obvious that 90% of the people in the room are seriously struggling and the other 10% aren't quite sure that they are following it either. Philosophy is hard. Much harder than science. It forces you to continually attempt to understand new ideas which don't make any sense within the context of your existing belief system. There is always a temptation to try to re-interpret the ideas so they make some sort of sense within your existing belief system - i.e. without you changing what you already believe. People who succumb to that temptation do not pass their degrees. You cannot pass a philosophy degree still believing what you did at the start. It is impossible. If you are so afraid of new ideas that you can't even bring yourself to try to understand them properly then there's no point in you trying to do philosophy. You have to take the opposite attitude - you have to actively welcome somebody coming along and driving a coach and horses through your existing beliefs, because that is the way you learn.

[SpeedOfSound]

I think you have that the wrong way round. Consciousness is a complex self-referential processing loop in a neural network. The oscillations you see are the effective clock cycle of this subset of the physical network. The oscillations themselves don't do anything, they're just evidence of the activity.

Not sure what our disagreement would be on this. The oscillations are a natural result of the nature of the thalamic neurons. My suspicion is that this is the method of persistence to hold something conscious. Perhaps this is why this 40hz thing is still controversial?

I don't understand I guess.

[PixyMisa]

Not sure what our disagreement would be on this. The oscillations are a natural result of the nature of the thalamic neurons. My suspicion is that this is the method of persistence to hold something conscious. Perhaps this is why this 40hz thing is still controversial?

I don't understand I guess.
It's like detecting a 2GHz RF signal from your CPU, and then assuming that the 2GHz signal is how it is processing data. It's not. It's just that it's switching at 2GHz, and that activity generates an electromagnetic wave at the same frequency.

[PixyMisa]

I did not say nobody can understand me. There is a vast range of responses to my arguments, from people like PixyMisa or Darat at one end, who understand almost nothing about what I believe regardless of how many times I try to explain it, to people like Apathia and Plumjam at the other, who understand almost everything I am saying, even though they doesn't necessarily agree with it all.
We understand you just fine.

You're wrong.

[UndercoverElephant]

We understand you just fine.


Do you, PixyMisa?

Perhaps then you would like to summarise my basic argument in one paragraph.


You're wrong.

Well, let's see what you manage to come up with as an account of what I believe and why I believe it.

Fire away.

[paximperium]

I did not say nobody can understand me. There is a vast range of responses to my arguments, from people like PixyMisa or Darat at one end, who understand almost nothing about what I believe regardless of how many times I try to explain it, to people like Apathia and Plumjam at the other, who understand almost everything I am saying, even though they doesn't necessarily agree with it all. Well, I consider that a major hit against you. Pixy and Darat are intelligent and I really doubt they are "misunderstanding" you. What I see is you rationalizing disagreement into misunderstanding, a very common cognitive defence mechanism.

PS: I consider Plumjam one of the most dishonest posters in this entire thread, so I apologize in advance since my inherent distaste for him has now colored my opinion of you as well.

People who aren't worried/scared/angry about non-theistic religious systems or non-materialistic philosophical systems tend to have little or no difficulty understanding my basic arguments. That is nonsense and you know it. So far, I disagree with your arguments. However, if I don't understand it please clearly point it out or it is YOUR fault for your inability to parse your arguments properly.
In an extreme case, such as PixyMisa, they believe that such things are nothing less than a threat to civilisation. It's not so easy to think rationally if you feel like you are confronting a threat on that scale. I don't consider it much of a threat at all since I believe it is nothing more than semantics and well wishes. Even if it was true we get something new to study.

Some of the ideas I post about are difficult to understand. <snip>If you are so afraid of new ideas that you can't even bring yourself to try to understand them properly then there's no point in you trying to do philosophy. You have to take the opposite attitude - you have to actively welcome somebody coming along and driving a coach and horses through your existing beliefs, because that is the way you learn. That is not an excuse at all. Philosphy teachers and even some philosphers somehow are able to reduce their concepts and explain it to the reader. A failure to communicate your ideas are your fault alone.

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, I consider that a major hit against you. Pixy and Darat are intelligent and I really doubt they are "misunderstanding" you.


Being intelligent does not equate to being able to think critically about challenges to your own belief system. This has more to do with psychology and attitude than it does with raw intelligence.

Let's see what Pixy manages to come up with as an account of my arguments. I predict a straw man of monumental proportions - something which bears almost no resemblance to anything I've actually posted. I wouldn't even bother asking Darat to try to summarise his version of what I believe. No point. His history of interacting with me for the past eight years has consisted entirely of him making highly personal attacks on my character and claiming that they are relevant to the debate: "don't trust anything he says because he has a history of drug problems and mental illness." Well, yes, I like a bit of a drink and am partial to a bit of a smoke, and, (shock! horror!) I was depressed enough 20 years ago to end up spending some time on a psychiatric ward. Therefore my argument sucks!!!


What I see is you rationalizing disagreement into misunderstanding, a very common cognitive defence mechanism.


I have to continually repeat the same points over and over again.


I don't consider it much of a threat at all since I believe it is nothing more than semantics and well wishes. Even if it was true we get something new to study.


You already have something new to study. The problem is that it is philosophy and I suspect you want it to be science.


That is not an excuse at all. Philosphy teachers and even some philosphers somehow are able to reduce their concepts and explain it to the reader. A failure to communicate your ideas are your fault alone.

Communication is a two-way process. If it fails, you cannot always blame the failure on the source of the attempt to communicate. Sometimes the problem is at the other end.

[PixyMisa]

Do you, PixyMisa?

Perhaps then you would like to summarise my basic argument in one paragraph.
Your basic position is the adoption of logical fallacies as though they were chia pets.

Well, let's see what you manage to come up with as an account of what I believe and why I believe it.
I don't care what you believe. I care about what you can demonstrate.

You specifically state that you can't demonstrate what you believe - and yet you claim that your belief reflects the nature of the real world. That's the logical fallacy of special pleading, and it renders your argument invalid.

You also claim that because you had an experience, you are an infallible authority on the implications of that experience. That's the logical fallacy of argument from authority, and it renders your argument invalid.

You defend yourself from criticism by a combination of ad hominem attacks - a logical fallacy that renders your argument invalid, and strawmen - a logical fallacy that renders your argument invalid.

I can go on, if you like.

[UndercoverElephant]

Predicted by UE: a straw man of monumental proportions - something which bears almost no resemblance to anything I've actually posted.

Your basic position is the adoption of logical fallacies as though they were chia pets.

I don't care what you believe.


QED

Pixy isn't even capable of pretending he understands what I believe. He doesn't care.

[SpeedOfSound]

It's like detecting a 2GHz RF signal from your CPU, and then assuming that the 2GHz signal is how it is processing data. It's not. It's just that it's switching at 2GHz, and that activity generates an electromagnetic wave at the same frequency.

I wouldn't want to imply that about any processor. I must of worded carelessly.

You would agree that shutting that clock off would shut off your computer?

[PixyMisa]

I wouldn't want to imply that about any processor. I must of worded carelessly.

You would agree that shutting that clock off would shut off your computer?
In general? No. It could be an asynchronous CPU. Such chips really exist.

[yy2bggggs]

Wake me up when the well poisoning stops and an argument is posted.

[PixyMisa]

Predicted by UE: a straw man of monumental proportions - something which bears almost no resemblance to anything I've actually posted.
Would you care to address the flaws in your argument? Or even one of them?

Pixy isn't even capable of pretending he understands what I believe. He doesn't care.
Of course I don't care. That in no way implies I don't understand.

The point is that your beliefs in themselves are completely irrelevant. If you make a statement about the natural world - which you do - then we test that statement. Your beliefs at no point enter into the discussion.

If you make a statement about the natural world - which you do - and then claim that it cannot be tested - which you do - then that is special pleading, which is a logical fallacy, which invalidates your argument.

[Robin]

Well, let's see what you manage to come up with as an account of what I believe and why I believe it.

Fire away.
Can you summarise what you believe and why you believe it in one paragraph?

In fact I don't think I have really heard a positive statement of what you believe from you, it is alway "materialists this" and "materialists that".

[Darat]

...snip... I wouldn't even bother asking Darat to try to summarise his version of what I believe. No point. His history of interacting with me for the past eight years has consisted entirely of him making highly personal attacks on my character and claiming that they are relevant to the debate: "don't trust anything he says because he has a history of drug problems and mental illness."

...snip...

A total and utter lie.

I have spent hours and hours arguing against your very poor and very repetitive arguments over the years, remember your good old "1-1=0" nonsense?

The only time I bring up your drug problems and persistent delusions (that you posted about on this Forum) is when you try to hide the role those things played in your "conversion" and how they lead you to believe in your form of "synchronicty".

It is you that keeps bringing up your personal testimony as part of your arguments and yes when you do that and you try to hide or gloss over the fact that at the time of your "conversion" you had drug problems and experienced persistent delusions then I will bring that information to light since it is entirely appropriate if you want people to be able to honestly evaluate your personal testimony honesty. If you look in this thread you will see I made no mention of your drug and delusions until you attempted to paint yourself as an "uber rational/skeptic" prior to your conversion but forgot to mention the drug problems and delusions.

You really have a choice, if your personal testimony is to be part of your argument then, as I said earlier, if has to be "warts and all" or simply don't attempt to use your personal testimony as part of your arguments.

[SpeedOfSound]

Please answer the poll honestly.

Dawkins came about with a belief scale, but it was about his rather simplistic notion of God. I'm a 100% non-believer in that God and it is not what this poll is about. This poll is about the more mystical, eastern forms of religion. Perhaps I should just say I am refering to forms of spirituality which claim the existence of some form of causality not believed in by determinists - the belief that there is some truth at the core of religion even though the intelligent, anthropomorphised God of mainstream western theism does not exist.

Back to basics. I believe there is a large amount of truth and validity at the core of most religions. Fortunately, none of it has to do with anything supernatural or anything remotely resembling a human uber intelligence. There are literal belief systems that grew up around the core wisdom of some wise old men who perhaps had no better way to explain things. These systems are pure evil when they are confused with reality.

Evil, I say, because they cause real thinking men to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The baby being the psychological benefits of a spiritual way of life.

(Hey UE. Me say Spiritual != SuperNatural)

[chillzero]

Several posts removed. Do not swear in posts. Do not attack other members. Do not derail threads with bickering.

Please get this thread back on topic, or it will face further moderation.

[UndercoverElephant]

In fact I don't think I have really heard a positive statement of what you believe from you...

Thankyou. :)

[slingblade]

Thankyou. :)

Goodness, wasn't that clever?

[UndercoverElephant]

Goodness, wasn't that clever?

Do you have an opinion on Robert Anton Wilson?

[UndercoverElephant]

Would you care to address the flaws in your argument? Or even one of them?


Certainly. Which one would you like me to address? :)


The point is that your beliefs in themselves are completely irrelevant. If you make a statement about the natural world - which you do - then we test that statement. Your beliefs at no point enter into the discussion.


Why not?


If you make a statement about the natural world - which you do - and then claim that it cannot be tested - which you do - then that is special pleading, which is a logical fallacy, which invalidates your argument.

What does "special pleading" mean?

[PixyMisa]

Certainly. Which one would you like me to address?
To start with, how about the special pleading, specifically, making claims regarding the real world, and then asserting that those claims cannot be tested.

Why not?
Because you are making a statement regarding the real world. It doesn't matter what you believe, it doesn't even matter whether you believe that the statement in question is true.

You made a statement, we can test that statement.

As has been explained by a number of posters in these two threads, you don't need to believe that science works in order to do science. You just need to apply the method.

What does "special pleading" mean?
Hey, you tell me, Mister "I have a degree in philosophy and cognitive science and you don't" Elephant.

And while you're in Google, it wouldn't hurt to do a search on "argument from authority" as well.

[PixyMisa]

Do you have an opinion on Robert Anton Wilson?
The Illuminati! Trilogy was fun.

[Robin]

Do you have an opinion on Robert Anton Wilson?
You are no doubt referring to the statement where he says that he does not have any beliefs.

Except of course for the belief that he doesn't have any beliefs.

[UndercoverElephant]

To start with, how about the special pleading, specifically, making claims regarding the real world, and then asserting that those claims cannot be tested.


You still haven't explained why that is "special pleading". I don't think you know what the term means. You are just parroting what somebody else has said.

Its alright. Please don't bother replying to this post. I have better things than try to explain things to you which you have zero interest in understanding.

[paximperium]

You still haven't explained why that is "special pleading". I don't think you know what the term means. You are just parroting what somebody else has said.
You make claim-->You claim it cannot be tested-->You claim it is valid.

Science make claim-->You claim it cannot be tested--->You claim it is NOT valid.

How does that simplify things?

[PixyMisa]

You still haven't explained why that is "special pleading".
You assert that this thing of yours - let's call it K - has an effect on the real world.

You then assert that if we make any attempt to confirm this, it doesn't happen, because the cause is counter-temporal, or whatever term happens to spring to mind.

Here's a refresher course courtesy of Wikipedia:

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.
Anything that affects the real world can be examined scientifically. You assert that this K of yours can't be examined scientifically, because it's causally counter-temporal or whatever. The problem is, that doesn't matter in the slightest. Even if it's true, it just means that it overturns all existing scientific theories.

It is special pleading because you demand an exemption to the rules you insist that everyone else must follow.

I don't think you know what the term means. You are just parroting what somebody else has said.Someone else might also have noted this particular logical fallacy in your argument. But there are so many, it's difficult to keep track. Circular arguments, begging the question, false analogies, and of course the perennial favourites: strawmen, ad hominems, and poisoning the well.

Its alright. Please don't bother replying to this post. I have better things than try to explain things to you which you have zero interest in understanding.I understand it just fine. You are wrong.

[UndercoverElephant]

You make claim-->You claim it cannot be tested-->You claim it is valid.


Claim is not scientific claim. Claim is philosophical claim. Claim is "tested" by a process of analysis of concepts and logical arguments, not science.


How does that simplify things?

I am not trying to simplify things. I'm trying to stop certain people from over-simplifying certain things.

[UndercoverElephant]

You assert that this thing of yours - let's call it K - has an effect on the real world.

You then assert that if we make any attempt to confirm this, it doesn't happen, because the cause is counter-temporal, or whatever term happens to spring to mind.

Here's a refresher course courtesy of Wikipedia:


Anything that affects the real world can be examined scientifically. You assert that this K of yours can't be examined scientifically, because it's causally counter-temporal or whatever. The problem is, that doesn't matter in the slightest. Even if it's true, it just means that it overturns all existing scientific theories.

It is special pleading because you demand an exemption to the rules you insist that everyone else must follow.

Someone else might also have noted this particular logical fallacy in your argument. But there are so many, it's difficult to keep track. Circular arguments, begging the question, false analogies, and of course the perennial favourites: strawmen, ad hominems, and poisoning the well.

I understand it just fine. You are wrong.

Great. Long list of fallacies accused, none actually specified except one fallacious one.

You might just as well have just posted the words "you are wrong", PixyMisa. Your entire argument can be summed up in those three words. What you actually mean is "You don't believe what I believe, therefore you are wrong. So wrong that I don't even care what you believe and can't be bothered to try to understand it."

[paximperium]

Claim is not scientific claim. Claim is philosophical claim. Claim is "tested" by a process of analysis of concepts and logical arguments, not science.
Summary:
You make "philosphical" claim-->You claim it cannot be tested-->You claim it is valid.

Science make claim-->You claim it cannot be tested--->You claim it is NOT valid.

Still has the stench of Special Pleading. A "philosphical" claim is still a claim. It has no validity except for nice fuzzy feelings unless demonstrated to be true using...wait for it...science.

I am not trying to simplify things. I'm trying to stop certain people from over-simplifying certain things.
I see the complete opposite. I see someone attempting to find an exception to evidence for his beliefs.

[UndercoverElephant]

Summary:
You make "philosphical" claim-->You claim it cannot be tested-->You claim it is valid.

Science make claim-->You claim it cannot be tested--->You claim it is NOT valid.

Still has the stench of Special Pleading. A "philosphical" claim is still a claim. It has no validity except for nice fuzzy feelings unless demonstrated to be true using...wait for it...science.


Don't know what to say apart from that it is your lack of understanding of the relevant bits of philosophy which causes you to think that I am special pleading. I spend a great deal of time explaining to people why certain problems are philosophical and not scientific, but if they are psychologically comitted to believing the problems are scientific then they just dismiss the philosophy instead of trying to understand it. They don't understand the relevance of Kant and don't care that they don't understand Kant. If they actually understood Kant then they would understand why these problems are philosophical and not scientific. I can't force people to understand Kant. Kant is not easy to understand. You have to actually want to make the effort to understand him, or be forced to because otherwise you can't finish your philosophy degree...


I see the complete opposite. I see someone attempting to find an exception to evidence for his beliefs.

That is not surprising. You don't necessarily see what is actually there.

[paximperium]

Don't know what to say apart from that it is your lack of understanding of the relevant bits of philosophy which causes you to think that I am special pleading. Don't know what to say that you seem to believe that you don't have to justify any of your hand-waving.

I spend a great deal of time explaining to people why certain problems are philosophical and not scientific, but if they are psychologically comitted to believing the problems are scientific then they just dismiss the philosophy instead of trying to understand it. If you are, you are doing a terrible job. Making a claim that a problem is "philosphical" does not automatically make it so.

They don't understand the relevance of Kant and don't care that they don't understand Kant. You got that right.

If they actually understood Kant then they would understand why these problems are philosophical and not scientific. I can't force people to understand Kant. Kant is not easy to understand. If some people understood science then they would understand why these problems are based in reality and under the auspices of science and not magic.
You have to actually want to make the effort to understand him, or be forced to because otherwise you can't finish your philosophy degree...I have as much respect for "philosophy grads" as I do as a fry chef at McDonald's-you serve a purpose but don't expect people to automatically think you are of any worth.

[PixyMisa]

Great. Long list of fallacies accused, none actually specified except one fallacious one.
Please, rather than asserting that your argument is not a case of special pleading, show this. Tell us why the rules that apply to everyone else do not apply to you.

You might just as well have just posted the words "you are wrong", PixyMisa. Your entire argument can be summed up in those three words. What you actually mean is "You don't believe what I believe, therefore you are wrong.
Nope. That is not what I mean at all.

What I mean is: You base your claim on a correlation between events. You assert that this correlation is (a) an objective fact and (b) not an objective fact.

We have a small problem with that.

So wrong that I don't even care what you believe and can't be bothered to try to understand it."
No. I don't care what you believe. I understand what you say. It's wrong.

[PixyMisa]

Don't know what to say apart from that it is your lack of understanding of the relevant bits of philosophy which causes you to think that I am special pleading. I spend a great deal of time explaining to people why certain problems are philosophical and not scientific, but if they are psychologically comitted to believing the problems are scientific then they just dismiss the philosophy instead of trying to understand it.
Stop.

Are you or are you not making a statement about the real world?

[slingblade]

Do you have an opinion on Robert Anton Wilson?

Do you?







(I know he's suspended. I'll wait.)

[Robin]

I have as much respect for "philosophy grads" as I do as a fry chef at McDonald's-you serve a purpose but don't expect people to automatically think you are of any worth.
Don't knock fry chefs, it is harder than it looks.