Consciousness is a Biological Problem

@Kielicious,

KJ-
your input is invaluable on so many issues on the forum, but it is getting spread out across a lot of places and i am having a little difficulty keeping it all together. it would be really great if it were somehow put in a beginning to end format, or even dumped in one place in a bucket so i could arrange it somehow for reference.

you havent by any chance written papers son these subjects that you could copy me on? or if you have the title of any books i could read (unfortunately as a beginner and a layman, nothing too technical) and i could pick them up when i go to the states in february.

another possible solution would be to copy your relevant posts to a blog. going back to find them all would take time, but once that was done (and i would even be happy to help you on that if you like) then going forward, it would be a simple matter of cutting and pasting as you go along.

mera bhai, aap ek bari bari gyan ka kitab to hain!
(for non-hindi speakers, and i hope this is what i wrote, 'my brother, you really are one big book of knowledge!)
sal

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Thanks, salima--bahut shukriya. That sentence looks just fine to me, although I'm not used to the usage of 'to' (but that's surely because I do not live there). The only paper I have worked on as a co-author is about mental states and dietary habits. I am working on another study dealing with gender differences in language acquisition, but no paper yet. I'll see if I can put some together as a blog, salima.

In the meantime, the Society for Neuroscience does have a couple of publications which don't require membership to download or have; here are the links for you (and any who wish to learn more basics)

Brain Facts--2008 edition

Neuroscience Core Concepts

Please do carefully check these out, they are helpful. phir milenge, baheen (see you later, sister [for those who 'no sabe.'

0 Replies

@KaseiJin,

Kielicious wrote:

Glad to see that you notice the irony as well.

I'm afraid you missed the entire point. Why did I place 'assume' so prominently in those sentences? Because I'm an incompetent, or a hypocrite? No, because I am trying, and have been trying for pages, or many threads really, to get across to you the idea that I am not claiming that my statements are the truth; I am expressing a theory. I do also claim that you are in the same position; i.e. that you are expressing theory, not verifiable truth. You counter all of my arguments by stating the obvious: i.e. that I have not offered proof. I have no ontention of offering proof! There is no proof, except conditional proof inside closed logical systems, like algebra, newtonian physics, etc., where there are preestablished, given rules by which one can prove or disprove assertions within that system. This is purely speculative philosophy: i.e. philosophy.

Let's look at you other points regradless of this problem.

Quote:

However, since I am an open-minded person, I am willing to indulge your assertion. If you think we are automata then by all means show and convince. Good luck.

It is no more possible to prove that we are automata than it is to prove we are not automata. You are making an assumption, just as I am.

I said:

Quote:

The fact that we have awareness of our behavior does not mean that that awareness is causal of the behavior.

To which you responded:

Quote:

Yes it does! Thats why we are having this conversation right now!

How does the fact that you are I are having this conversation prove that awareness of behavior is causal of the behavior? I'm not saying that the body called BrightNoon dosen't see what's on the screen and react by typing; it does. Thats not the point. Think of it like this; there's a battery wired to a motor by 10 ft. of wire, and at 5 ft. (in the middle) there's another connection leading to a light bulb. When the battery turns on, the motor runs, and the lightbulb also turns on. Is the lightbulb turning on the cause of the motor running? No, obviously not. It's action is an effect of the battery, just like the action of the motor is an affect of the battery. In the same way, consciousness could be an effect of the processes that actually cause behavior, not the cause of that behavior.

Quote:

Epiphenomenalism cannot even be asserted because the very act of asserting it contradicts its entire claim. The epiphenomenon is influencing the assertion, which it cannot do:

The epiphenomenalist influences the assertion only if you assume that the person (consisting of experiences, thoughts, etc.) is causal of behavior; i.e. you are assuming that the basis of epiphen. is false, and then claiming that epiphen. is false with logic based in that assumption. If on the other hand we assume that experience/consciousness does not cause behavior, but is in fact its effect, there is nothing conmtradictory in a person making an assertion; his body is doing whatever the action is (typing e.g.) and he is consciously experiencing that behavior without causing it.

Quote:

If pleasures and pains have no effect on our behaviour then there would be no reason why we adhere to certain aspects essential to life. Similarly, what stops us from indulging in manifestly destructive activities to our well-being? Obviously, pains and pleasures do have profound effects on us but for the epiphenomenalist the explanation for this is --to this day-- awaiting fruitful inference.

There is no place for pleasure and pain in the explanation of electrochemical gradients, muscle contractions, etc. which are responsible for behavior. Again, you only need to explain how we could survive without the impetus of pleasure and pain if you already ASSUME that we (consciousness) are responsible for our behavior. Rather, pleasure and pain, like all qualia, are effects, not causal of anything.

Quote:

So to say that epiphenomenalism is actually in cooperation with evolution is completely false. It actually goes against evolution.

Consciousness is a reflection of evolution which has no effect on evolution; i.e. it is a reflection of the physical body, which is subject to real evolutionaiory pressures. As such, epiphen. in no way contradicts evolutionairy theory.

Quote:

Really? So a rock is somewhat conscious too, only 'less complex'.

I see you have delve into panpsychism now.

I completely disagree. I dont think that consciousness is a fundamental aspect to reality, but again since I am so open-minded I will entertain your assertions and wait for good evidence and inference.

What is the essential difference between a man and monkey, a monkey and a dog, a dog and a snake, a snake and a fish, a fish and a snail, a snail and a diatom, a diatom and a bacterium, a bacterium and a pile of cellular debris from dead bacteria, that pile of organic debris and a pile of the inorganic material of which it consists? Where in the hierachy of biological complexity does the magic consciousness and free will appear? There a gradations of consciousness. The fact that we are so complex in comparison to everything else makes our perpsective very biased and leads to us to assume that we alone have this power; or rather, that this power is qualitatively different from anything else in the world. That's an unfounded assumption. Again, my statements are assumptions as well, I don't claim otherwise. I mean to provoke thought, perhaps persuade, but never prove.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;69793 wrote:

I am not claiming that my statements are the truth; I am expressing a theory.

First off, you're 'theory' isnt a theory. You're just giving hypotheticals.

Second, if you're just going to throw around random assumptions at me to try and make me do all the work of disproving your assertions then I will stop responding to you. However, if you truely are genuinely wanting to know then I will respond, but make up your mind because you've gone from epiphenomenalism to panpsychism to the zombie-argument, and it just seems like you're trying to be more of a nuisance than an inquisitive mind.

Brightnoon wrote:

It is no more possible to prove that we are automata than it is to prove we are not automata. You are making an assumption, just as I am.

No.

I know that I am conscious, I'm sorry you dont. As for other people, I use common sense to acknowledge that they too are conscious.

This is basic philosophy and I can go into further detail but again I wont give full explanation until I see that you actually want to know or you're just making me work for it.

Brightnoon wrote:

How does the fact that you are I are having this conversation prove that awareness of behavior is causal of the behavior?

The same way that me seeing a rock flying towards my head makes me move. I am aware of the rock and take appropriate measures to get out of the way.

Brightnoon wrote:

In the same way, consciousness could be an effect of the processes that actually cause behavior, not the cause of that behavior.

But we know otherwise. When I am not consciously aware of the rock flying at me then it hits me. However, if I am consciously aware of it my behaviour changes to get out of the way. What dont you understand?

Brightnoon wrote:

The epiphenomenalist influences the assertion only if you assume that the person (consisting of experiences, thoughts, etc.) is causal of behavior; i.e. you are assuming that the basis of epiphen. is false, and then claiming that epiphen. is false with logic based in that assumption. If on the other hand we assume that experience/consciousness does not cause behavior, but is in fact its effect, there is nothing conmtradictory in a person making an assertion; his body is doing whatever the action is (typing e.g.) and he is consciously experiencing that behavior without causing it.

Oh my god, you really dont get it. I dont know how to break it down any further than what has already been said but I'll try.

Ok, if epiphenomenalism is true then could a person say he is in fact conscious? No. Why? Because the fact that he says he is conscious, he would be contradicting epiphenomenalism. Why? Because him being conscious is influencing his assertion, that's why he is saying it. Likewise, could my car say that I have epiphenomenal gremlins? No. Why? Because if the car knew it had gremlins then the gremlins would be influencing its behaviour, which it cannot do. I dont know how to break it down more than that.

Brightnoon wrote:

There is no place for pleasure and pain in the explanation of electrochemical gradients, muscle contractions, etc. which are responsible for behavior. Again, you only need to explain how we could survive without the impetus of pleasure and pain if you already ASSUME that we (consciousness) are responsible for our behavior. Rather, pleasure and pain, like all qualia, are effects, not causal of anything.

Really? Pleasures and pains have no effect on you or anyone? WoW. Just wow.

Brightnoon wrote:

What is the essential difference between a man and monkey, a monkey and a dog, a dog and a snake, a snake and a fish, a fish and a snail, a snail and a diatom, a diatom and a bacterium, a bacterium and a pile of cellular debris from dead bacteria, that pile of organic debris and a pile of the inorganic material of which it consists?

A crap load. Listing all the differences would take forever.

Brightnoon wrote:

Where in the hierachy of biological complexity does the magic consciousness and free will appear?

I dont know. I wish that I and the scientific community knew but what you're asking for is like asking a physicist: what happened before the Big Bang? Nobody knows, yet.

Brightnoon wrote:

There a gradations of consciousness.

First thing you said that actually makes sense.

Brightnoon wrote:

The fact that we are so complex in comparison to everything else makes our perpsective very biased and leads to us to assume that we alone have this power; or rather, that this power is qualitatively different from anything else in the world.

We alone have this power? I dont know what that even means.

Are you saying we alone are conscious? If so then why are you asserting panpsychism?

Brightnoon wrote:

Again, my statements are assumptions as well, I don't claim otherwise.

Ya I know they're assumptions and they're wild ones at that. Anyone can assert absurdness. Some people assert bigfoot is real. Some people assert they were abducted by aliens. You can assert that there is a celestial teapot orbiting the sun. I can assert that after I die I will play in a marshmellow forest.

Here's the trick to the treat though: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So, if you want me to take your assertions seriously then present some evidence. And dont give me that, "this is a philosophy forum, we need to entertain these ideas." NO. WE. DONT. If you still dont see it that way then I am going to assert that I see underpants gnomes at night and make you try and prove me wrong. I have given you plenty of opportunities to present your case and I've seen nothing so far but ridiculous claims. Present something or get lost.

0 Replies

@salima,

[CENTER][CENTER]Exhibit 1[/CENTER][/CENTER]

[quote]Ok, if epiphenomenalism is true then could a person say he is in fact conscious? No. Why? Because the fact that he says he is conscious, he would be contradicting epiphenomenalism.[/quote]

If that is true, then the impotence hypothesis is false. However, why would it be true? Why does the fact of a person making that assertion ("I am conscious") disprove the impotence hypothesis (the idea that consciousness does not affect behavior)?

[quote]Why? Because him being conscious is influencing his assertion, that's why he is saying it.[/quote]

In other words, 'consciousness influences behavior, he is acting as he is (making the assertion) because of conscious phenomena." Isn't that the claim we are debating? In order to disprove my idea that consciousness has no effect on behavior, you simply claim that it does have an effect on behavior. That is not an argument, certainly not a proof. You are simply saying that what I'm saying is not true. Good evidence.

[CENTER][CENTER]Exhibit 2[/CENTER]
[CENTER] [/CENTER][/CENTER]
I claimed that humans may be automata: i.e. they may not have free will, their conscious acts may not cause behavior. Here was your evidence against that claim.

makes me move. I am aware of the rock and take appropriate measures to get out of the way.[/quote]

In other words, "my experience and thoughts caused my movement." Why? Once again, your proof against me is just a statement to the contrary.

[CENTER][CENTER]Exhibit 3[/CENTER][/CENTER]

[quote] I know that I am conscious, I'm sorry you dont. As for other people, I use common sense to acknowledge that they too are conscious.[/quote]

I'm afraid 'common sense' in not evidence, but I too assume we are all conscious. However, the issue is not whether we are conscious. I never claimed otherwise. I suggested that we may be automata: i.e. without free will. We could be both conscious and bound by natural law like everything else.

[CENTER][CENTER]Exhibit 4[/CENTER][/CENTER]

[quote] make up your mind because you've gone from epiphenomenalism to panpsychism to the zombie-argument, and it just seems like you're trying to be more of a nuisance than an inquisitive mind.[/quote]

The 'zombie argument' is your name for the impotence hypothesis, the basis of epiphenomenalism.

[CENTER][CENTER]Exhibit 5[/CENTER][/CENTER]

[quote] So, if you want me to take your assertions seriously then present some evidence[/quote]

From my last post: [quote] You counter all of my arguments by stating the obvious: i.e. that I have not offered proof. I have no intention of offering proof! There is no proof for anything, except conditional proof inside closed logical systems, like algebra, Newtonian physics, etc., where there are preestablished, given rules by which one can prove or disprove assertions within that system. This is purely speculative philosophy: i.e. philosophy.[/quote]

[CENTER][CENTER]Exhibit 6[/CENTER][/CENTER]

[quote]A crap load. Listing all the differences would take forever.[/quote]

Do you really think my goal was to prove my claim by showing that you can't literally list the differences between all those things?!? The point was to show that the difference between man and molecule is a difference of degree and complexity. You claim that consciousness is unique to man. Why? Of what does man consist that he alone has this power? If you suppose that very complex electrochemical reactions (brain) cause our very complex consciousness, why should somewhat less complex electrochemical reactions (dog brain) not cause a somewhat less complex form of consciousness, and so on until you have only basic chemical, and then atomic reactions?

[CENTER][CENTER]Exhibit 7[/CENTER][/CENTER]

[quote]First off, you're 'theory' isnt a theory. You're just giving hypotheticals.[/quote]

Theory: abstract thought, speculation

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

If you don't like my use of the word theory, feel free to call this an idea.

[CENTER][CENTER]Exhibit 8[/CENTER][/CENTER]

I said in last post: There is no place for pleasure and pain in the explanation of electrochemical gradients, muscle contractions, etc. which are responsible for behavior. Again, you only need to explain how we could survive without the impetus of pleasure and pain if you already ASSUME that we (consciousness) are responsible for our behavior. Rather, pleasure and pain, like all qualia, are effects, not causal of anything.

You responded: [quote]Really? Pleasures and pains have no effect on you or anyone? WoW. Just wow[/quote]

More good evidence on your part Kielicious. Great job arguing your case. :sarcastic:

I said in last post: The fact that we are so complex in comparison to everything else makes our perpsective very biased and leads to us to assume that we alone have this power; or rather, that this power is qualitatively different from anything else in the world.

[quote]We alone have this power? I dont know what that even means.

Are you saying we alone are conscious? If so then why are you asserting panpsychism?[/quote]

No, you are saying that we alone are conscious, judging by your previous mockery of 'pan-psychism.' I am saying, and said in the above statement which you apparently did not read, that our position as the most complex organism creates a bias: the assumption that we are the only consciousness, when in fact we are not.

[CENTER][CENTER]Exhibit 9[/CENTER][/CENTER]

The set up:
[quote=Kielicious]it just seems like you're trying to be more of a nuisance than an inquisitive mind.[/quote]

[quote]Oh my god, you really dont get it.[/quote]

[quote]Present something or get lost.[/quote]

The punch line:
[quote]I am so open-minded[/quote]

:shocked:

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Ive thought about this "emergence" theory before. Definitely not an expert on the subject, but its a neat concept.

I was thinking..i wonder how conciousness could just emerge to form such a unique personality for every individual. I wondered, since the personality is unique, should the thing that it arises from also be unique. It seemed that emergence should have a unique component or perhaps everyone would have the same personality. Im not sure how many things there are that define uniqueness for a person, but i entertained the crazy idea that since DNA is unique for every person than i wonder if its possible for conciousness to emerge, or resonate from it somehow.

1 Reply

@Neil D,

Neil;69994 wrote:

I wondered, since the personality is unique, should the thing that it arises from also be unique... i entertained the crazy idea that since DNA is unique for every person than i wonder if its possible for conciousness to emerge, or resonate from it somehow.

Monozygotic twins (identical twins) have the same DNA as one another. If they are raised in the same household they will also have similar environmental stimuli. Yet they are unique people from one another. They may have many similarities, but they won't be the same.

I think that there is certainly a biological component that our DNA informs, but part of this is also how our consciousness is cultivated by our parents, our environments, our experiences.

And in the end there are SO many variables at play that subtle variations here and there multiplied over years can make enormous differences in the end.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

I'm a fan of Kuhn's paradigm shifts, where a shift from a parental set may be much more of a major shift, than a minor sequitur.

While foundational cosmology sets are scalar to earth's, our unique evolutionary scale on this planet, and our growing control of nanotech, leads me to believe that the bulk of mind measure should be focused on individual and group scale.

Biological data should be more pertinent to advancements going forward.

1 Reply

@ValueRanger,

Brightnoon:

You try so hard to respond and put up a big show, and yet, who are you fooling? Just the people that enjoy the sparkles and bright shiny colors. I and every other thinking person am not impressed. Anyone can take words out of context, you're not special. In your entire response not one shred of evidence was presented. How sad. A great deal of time and energy went into your performance but how bout actually showing something... I doubt you will actually present some evidence because you know there isnt any, which is why you're just beating around the bush and have gone from epiphenomenalism to panpsychism to zombies and everywhere inbetween. You're just delaying the inevitable. So I'll leave you with my quote again and wait.

Me wrote:

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Also, why are you trying to say that I was using 'common sense' as 'evidence'? I clearly said:

Me wrote:

This is basic philosophy and I can go into further detail but again I wont give full explanation until I see that you actually want to know or you're just making me work for it.

Remember that? Oh yea, you didnt put that in because that would take away from the 'flashyness' of your big performance.

Brightnoon wrote:

Theory: abstract thought, speculation

Thanks for the 'definition' but I corrected you because I prefer scientific definitions. Which means your 'theory' is far from a scientific theory. You can use layman terms if thats what you're comfortable with though.:sarcastic:

Brightnoon wrote:

No, you are saying that we alone are conscious

Really? Care to show where I said that only humans are conscious? or would that put a truth damper on your performance as well?

So, until you present some evidence, I'll be waiting.

Oh, in the mean time, since you enjoy absurd speculation, I'll give you one: I am really a ghost. Prove me wrong. Go!

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

This paper;
Why Neural Correlates Of Consciousness Are Fine,
But Not Enough
is a wonderfully scholarly, broad, and well thought out, commentary on the subject at hand! All Perspectives might well enjoy. One cannot imbibe it down in one gulp, generally, it requires thoughtful and attentive sippin'.
(And I only had to look up one word! *__- )
I found it well worth the effort.
Enjoy
*__-

2 Replies

@nameless,

that link wrote:

For example, a strict correlation of birth rates and the size of stork populations
does not mean that babies are made or brought by storks;...
Thus, NCC alone are not sufficient to prove that our conscious experience is caused by or identical with neural events.

lmao

[quote= that link]there could be a common cause in the past for

both neural and mental states which are otherwise independent from each other (e.g., Gottfried
Wilhelm Leibniz' preestablished harmony), or a continued intervention of a causal agent, e.g. God,[/quote]

God did it!

Well, that explains everything I guess. Glad we got that figured out.

0 Replies

@nameless,

Quote:

Anyone can take words out of context, you're not special. In your entire response not one shred of evidence was presented.

1. How did I take your words out of context? Whenever I quoted one of your arguments, I quoted it in full, and preceded it with the argument of mine to which you were responding. Show me how I misrepresented your words; empty claims don't make it so. Let's look at an example of 'misrepresentation.'

Quote:

Also, why are you trying to say that I was using 'common sense' as 'evidence'?

Here's your statement that I used as evidence that you base an argument on 'common sense.' It is a full statement of yours, all that you wrote in a paragraph responding to a statement of mine. Nothing has been changed or deleted.

Quote:

I know that I am conscious, I'm sorry you dont. As for other people, I use common sense to acknowledge that they too are conscious.

Did you not say that? Sounds to me like you were using common sense, your inherent feeling that other people are conscious, as evidence that they are conscious: exactly as I claimed. Where's the misrepresentation? Not that it was 'evidence' relevant to the argument anyhow, as I explained. The issue wasn't consciousness, but free will. We have been debating whether consciousness affects physical reality, not whether consciousness exists. We both think it exists.

2. Throughout this thread, I have been objecting to and attempting to refute the following statement of yours, and the responses to my criticisms that followed.

Quote:

Epiphenomenalism is another form of dualism in that it tries to solve the interactionist problem by posing that the mind cannot and does not interact with not only the brain/body but nothing at all! One can already see the flaws in this point of view in that we know that the mind affects the body.

I have not been trying to prove that epiphenomenalism is true, but rather that your critique of that theory is flawed: i.e. not proof, not compelling, not logically sound. For that, I have offered a plethora of evidence. If I show that arguments against a theory are logically flawed, then I can claim reasonably that the theory has not been disproved. That's all I've ever claimed; I've not claimed that the theory is true. In the last post, I addressed all of your arguments in detail and demonstrated that they are tautological: i.e. that the premises are the same as the conclusions. Your argument against the impotence hypothesis ('the mind does not affect the body') is as follows: 'the mind does affect the body.' However, you have predictably chosen not to address any of these arguments against your logic, and instead engaged in a series of poorly conceived ad hominem attacks. Finally, your notion that epiphenomenalism is not a scientific theory, and therefore not valid, is rediculous. If only a scientific theory can be used to explain the problem of consciousness, then consciousness is indeed a biological problem! That's the question up for discussion! You assume that consciousness is a biological problem, and then take the logic which follows from that assumption (only a scientific theory can explain consciousness) as evidence for your assumption.

:listening:

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

Brightnoon:

Me wrote:

This is basic philosophy and I can go into further detail but again I wont give full explanation until I see that you actually want to know

I see you're still being intellectually dishonest in that you wont acknowledge the bolded portion that I said referring to 'common sense'. Remember kids, he only shows what helps out his hucksterism, not what people actually say.

Furhther proof of his hucksterism:

He says, "No, you are saying that we alone are conscious."

I say, "Care to show where I said that only humans are conscious?"

His response is to, again, ignore and continue his charade. Way to be intellectually honest. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You think everyone is a zombie? thats fine, just present some evidence for your case. You think a rock is conscious? thats fine, just present evidence to back it up. The burden isnt on me to prove it wrong. If you dont present evidence for your claims then outrageous claims can be presented by anyone, and the key to separating out the nonsense from the plausible is evidence. This is why we have a burden of proof, because if we didnt, I can claim ridiculous stuff and -somewhat- get away with it: I am really a ghost, now prove me wrong. Oh you cant? Then I must really be a ghost.

I am not sure that you understand that seeing how you say:

brightnoon wrote:

then I can claim reasonably that the theory has not been disproved

I said it before and I'll say it again, you cannot disprove epiphenomenalism nor can you disprove zombies, nor can you disprove that I am not a ghost. But does that mean that its true? NO.

Thankfully, that's not how it works (that not being able to disprove means the assertion is true by default). So, I and everyone else is still waiting for your extraordinary evidence to your extraordinary claims.

Also when you say,

brightnoon wrote:

Finally, your notion that epiphenomenalism is not a scientific theory, and therefore not valid, is rediculous.

If an assertion has no backing then it should be dropped. Its that simple. If I claim that I am a ghost, wouldnt you want some evidence? The same principle applies here. Burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Kielicious,

The bolded portion of text that you have brought up twice now is supposed to show what? I offered a quote in which you explicity mention common sense as evidence of the claim you are making: i.e. that all people are conscious. The bolded quote in no way contradicts that. It says that you ccould give 'full explanation.' Is that supposed ot mean that there's more than common sense in a full explanation if you were ot offer it? Great! Offer it. But you haven't. In any case, the fact that I did not quote that in addition to what I did quote is not 'hucksterism.' I quoted one of your statements in context and criticized it.

As for my claim that you think that only humans are conscious...isn't that your opinion? Weren't you ciriticizing and mocking the idea of 'pan-psychism,' the opposite view? Aren't you just now asking me to prove that a rock is conscious; i.e. because you think it is not conscious?

You continue to ignore my statement that I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT EPIPHENOMENALISM IS TRUE. I am only suggesting that your claim that it is false, is not suyppported by any logical argument. Why? Because the arguments you've offered are tautological. Once again, this debate is not about me claiming that epiphenomenalism is true and failing to offer proof. This debate is about you claiming that it is false and me saying that you arguments for that claim are not sound, and demonstrating how they are not sound. I have done that. You have not been able to explain yourself, and contionue to aks me for proof. Of what? I'm not making the assertion, you are: i.e. that epiphenomenalism is false. If you wan't to claim that it cannot be proven false, then why are you trying to disprove it?! If you stop trying to disprove, the debate is over. I have no intention, never have, to prove that it is true. It is a theory...oh sorry....an idea.

Quote:

I said it before and I'll say it again, you cannot disprove epiphenomenalism nor can you disprove zombies, nor can you disprove that I am not a ghost. But does that mean that its true? NO.

But does the fact that you cannot disprove something mean that is it false? NO! That's all I'm saying, that you have failed to disprove the theory. Nothing more. It may or may not be true.

Quote:

Thankfully, that's not how it works (that not being able to disprove means the assertion is true by default). So, I and everyone else is still waiting for your extraordinary evidence to your extraordinary claims.

If an assertion has no backing then it should be dropped

Then Kant, Nietzsche, Satre, and many (most modern) philosophers should be dropped? You just don't seemt to understand that, by applying the requrements of 'scientific proof' to philosophy, it becomes science, not philosophy. If the question under debate is about the validity of science, or the applicability of science to defining consciousness, you cannot begin with the argument that anything which is not scientific is false or should be discarded. Get it? That's like a reilgious person countering a argument against the water to wine miracle withy, well that argument dosen't quote scripture, so its invalid.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;70145 wrote:

Kielicious,

The bolded portion of text that you have brought up twice now is supposed to show what? I offered a quote in which you explicity mention common sense as evidence of the claim you are making: i.e. that all people are conscious. The bolded quote in no way contradicts that. It says that you ccould give 'full explanation.' Is that supposed ot mean that there's more than common sense in a full explanation if you were ot offer it? Great! Offer it. But you haven't. In any case, the fact that I did not quote that in addition to what I did quote is not 'hucksterism.' I quoted one of your statements in context and criticized it.

you (supposedly) quoted it in context and yet you leave out the direct next sentence about it. That's disingenuous on your part.

Brightnoon wrote:

As for my claim that you think that only humans are conscious...isn't that your opinion? Weren't you ciriticizing and mocking the idea of 'pan-psychism,' the opposite view? Aren't you just now asking me to prove that a rock is conscious; i.e. because you think it is not conscious?

If that was my opinion that humans were only conscious then you would be able to quote me, and yet, you cant quote me because thats not my position. You asserted panpsychism:

Brightnoon wrote:

A stone or a tree is not fundementally different, only less complex.

So if that is what you assert then show the evidence. Remember its not my position to prove it wrong, its your position to prove it right. Thats why we have burden of proof.

brightnoon wrote:

You continue to ignore my statement that I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT EPIPHENOMENALISM IS TRUE. I am only suggesting that your claim that it is false, is not suyppported by any logical argument. Why? Because the arguments you've offered are tautological. Once again, this debate is not about me claiming that epiphenomenalism is true and failing to offer proof. This debate is about you claiming that it is false and me saying that you arguments for that claim are not sound, and demonstrating how they are not sound. I have done that. You have not been able to explain yourself, and contionue to aks me for proof. Of what? I'm not making the assertion, you are: i.e. that epiphenomenalism is false. If you wan't to claim that it cannot be proven false, then why are you trying to disprove it?! If you stop trying to disprove, the debate is over. I have no intention, never have, to prove that it is true. It is a theory...oh sorry....an idea.

Ya I dont think epiphenomenalism is true and you're right that I didnt disprove it but again I cannot disprove epiphenomenalism. If you think it is true then present some evidence. However, it seems you want me to do the impossible and disprove it for you, to which I have already stated several times that you cant disprove it. That's like asking an atheist to disprove god. You cant do it. You further continue this line of thinking with statements like:

brightnoon wrote:

If you stop trying to disprove, the debate is over

brightnoon wrote:

That's all I'm saying, that you have failed to disprove the theory

So once again for the millionth time: you cannot disprove epiphenomenalism.

Understand what the burden of proof means.

brightnoon wrote:

But does the fact that you cannot disprove something mean that is it false? NO! That's all I'm saying, that you have failed to disprove the theory. Nothing more. It may or may not be true.

You're right. But does that mean its a coin flip scenario? No. You still have all the work ahead of you to make it even remotely close to a 50-50 decision.

brightnoon wrote:

Then Kant, Nietzsche, Satre, and many (most modern) philosophers should be dropped? You just don't seemt to understand that, by applying the requrements of 'scientific proof' to philosophy, it becomes science, not philosophy. If the question under debate is about the validity of science, or the applicability of science to defining consciousness, you cannot begin with the argument that anything which is not scientific is false or should be discarded. Get it?

I never said it is false.

And yes I think some things should be discarded. The philosophy of many of people, back in the day, thought that blacks were inferior to whites. Should we keep this idea around as valid? No. Thats all I am saying.

Edit: Still waiting on your evidence of panpsychism and zombies.

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Quote:

However, it seems you want me to do the impossible and disprove it for you, to which I have already stated several times that you cant disprove it.

I never asked you to disprove it. You claimed in the opening post of this thread that it has obvious flaws, implying it isn't a reasonable idea. All I have been doing is demonstrating thoroughly, as anyone watching the back-and-forth would know, that your arguments against epiphenomenalism are unsound. I will not, have not, and have no intention to claim that epiphenomenalism is true. It is the idea to which i subscribe, more or less: an opinion. I'm not interested in persuing this any further, as there's nothing for me to say which I haven't already said. I've refuted all your arguments, I feel confident in the following statement; Kielicious has not disproved epiphenomenalism, it may or may not be the case. Whether the theory is or is not true is not my argument. I want only to show that as a theory it is perfectly capable of accounting for all problems, and that it is plausable. That is all. It's regretable that we always seem to fall into this pattern of personal vendetta. I'm breaking it now.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;70193 wrote:

I never asked you to disprove it. You claimed in the opening post of this thread that it has obvious flaws, implying it isn't a reasonable idea. All I have been doing is demonstrating thoroughly, as anyone watching the back-and-forth would know, that your arguments against epiphenomenalism are unsound. I will not, have not, and have no intention to claim that epiphenomenalism is true. It is the idea to which i subscribe, more or less: an opinion. I'm not interested in persuing this any further, as there's nothing for me to say which I haven't already said. I've refuted all your arguments, I feel confident in the following statement; Kielicious has not disproved epiphenomenalism, it may or may not be the case. Whether the theory is or is not true is not my argument. I want only to show that as a theory it is perfectly capable of accounting for all problems, and that it is plausable. That is all. It's regretable that we always seem to fall into this pattern of personal vendetta. I'm breaking it now.

Even though, for the millionth and a half time, I have said that one cannot disprove epiphenomenalism, I still have offered arguments against it that you just discard. You havent refuted any of them. You just refuse to acknowledge them. I stated the problem of epiphenomenalism in that it cannot even be asserted. And your reply was that I was assuming that the assertion of E was influencing it:

brightnoon wrote:

The epiphenomenalist influences the assertion only if you assume that the person (consisting of experiences, thoughts, etc.) is causal of behavior

Its not an assumption and thats the point. If my car said it had gremlins, then the gremlins are having an effect on the car (i.e. making it say it had gremlins). If the car notices at all that it has gremlins then that means the gremlins themselves are influencing the car. It doesnt have anything to do with free-will. It doesnt matter if the gremlins have free-will or not. The issue is that their very existence is affecting and influencing the car, which it cannot do.

The only way out of this is to claim some sort of liar zombie, and thats exactly what you did (well not the liar part but zombies nonetheless). However, there is nothing wrong with that. You can claim whatever you want, but all I was saying is that if you want to claim zombies then back up what you say and present some evidence. To which you ignored and replied by saying that you werent asserting anything, and yet you were still wanting me to disprove it. That's why we got off track.

Edit: I really wish we would have more civil discussions with eachother and not be so itchy with our verbal trigger fingers. I am not saying you are being the difficult one, for the problem lies with both of us it seems. Hopefully, we can end this trivial pursuit of backlash and come to an agreement.

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

My apologies for not getting back timely; bursts of work increase pop up from time to time, and one just has. In the very same breath I feel moved to admit to a bit of emotional loss, over what could be possibly seen as a loss of a more academical air of presentation on the thread.

Let me make an attempt at synergizing a possible win/win situation to the preceding exchange. One thing I have found, in discussions with those who tend to adhere to the position of epiphenomenalism (so far, at least) is that they would not hesitate to agree to the statement that 'mind is brain. By extension, this entails that the collective elements of conscious brain (please note the collective noun usage here...that is important) are all functions of the conglomerate of brain activity which kind of culminates in the state of consciousness.

We thus reach the 'better-supported-by-the-evidence' conclusion that consciousness is a biological domain. The selective experiments of Libbet and Haggard while showing the fact of conscious level below that conscious level we term consciousness, as some recent studies support as well, do not deal with distal intentions and activities and the neural correlates such entail. It is understood that such distal brain states are reached as a result of active consciousness--which again, afterall, is simply a level of conscious activity.

Also, for example, consciousness is found to be required for hippocampi laying down of declarative (explicit) memory in the CA1,3 area. It has been shown rather evidently that certain shades of states of consciousness can and do affect certain receptor count, or even mapping across brain area. These are instances where we can ascertain that there is a physical state (a brain state) which is the result of consciousness.

BrightNoon, by your presentation at large, you are not saying that you believe consciousness to not be a biological problem; correct?

I will continue with where I had left off earlier, and go on from there, but I am quite tied up for the next two weeks. I'll get to it as soon and as regularly as I can. In the meantime, I look forward to the benefit of academically laid out discussion by all involved.

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

When it comes to the hard problem of consciousness, which is what I'm assuming all this fuss is about, I just want to get one thing straight. Naturalism and immaterialism are not contradictory, right? So maybe this is the more productive root to explaining why and how?

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

My opinion has always been that the mind/consciousness/"soul" are all directly connected to the brain...or better yet "happen in" the brain.

Head injury, alcohol, drugs, brain deseases all alter our state of consciousness. Majority of our most complicated experiences that we are used to attributing to a "soul", such as love for example, are already explained as a simple (or not so simple) brain process. It will probably be hard for majority of us to let go of the ideas of the soul or some sort of a non physical existence but I do believe that more and more evidence will be available in the near future that will make the "soul" or anything that steps out of the physical matter absolutely unnecessary.

0 Replies

Consciousness is a Biological Problem

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know