The subjective observer is a fictional character

[jamest]

Hello Bruce.
We're discussing - as per the thread-title - the prospects for an immaterial observer. And here, you make a claim about what consciousness is and what causes it. So, surely you must see that the thread is really about metaphysics and that you are making a metaphysical claim? That's how metaphysics comes into it.

Do you seen consciousness on our level in anything that does not have a complex brain?

No. Neither do I see anything running, that doesn't have legs - including Jerry, btw. But this correlation between legs and running does not prove that legs are the cause of running.

Why is a claim that consciousness is epiphenomenal to brain status a "metaphysical" claim?

Because, ultimately, it is reducible to a claim about what the actual cause of consciousness/experience is. It transcends correlation, into the realm of being and causality.

It is no more metaphysical than saying that an automobile functions because there is a combustion engine in it that is powered by gasoline (or petrol, in some formerly great nations). A simple claim that something exists because of something else is not metaphysical.

Then, at the very least, your narrative is incomplete. For example, for me to proclaim that Tom causes Jerry to do anything, is an incomplete narrative of the events being considered.

No, there is not really any doubt that brains cause behavior/thought/feeling. Give me an example of a particular behavior whose proximate cause is not the brain.

There is certainly no doubt that brain activity correlates with behaviour/thought/feeling. Likewise, there is no doubt that Jerry's frantic sprints correlate with Tom's behaviour.

The simplest explanation for behavior is that it is caused by neurons firing and chemicals interacting in the brain. Occam's Razor is of great value here - entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.

Actually, Bruce, there is nothing 'simplistic' about the brain. In fact, one of the counters against Searle's 'Chinese Room argument', is grounded within the immense complexity of the brain (the argument for the emergence of meaning, from complexity (by Dennett, if I remember correctly).

There is no need to add a metaphysical explanation to human behavior when the physical is sufficient.

You don't understand, Bruce: any argument dependent upon a specific reality, is metaphysical.

[jamest]

BTW james. Do you think it was belittling of you to use the term pseudo-science to refer to my posts?

I apologise if the use of that term was infered as belittling. I was only suggesting that 'brain models' are essentially lacking in required detail and are essentially speculative. Akin to a caveman describing the sun as "something that is burning, persistently".

[SpeedOfSound]

BTW james. Do you think it was belittling of you to use the term pseudo-science to refer to my posts?

I apologise if the use of that term was infered as belittling. I was only suggesting that 'brain models' are essentially lacking in required detail and are essentially speculative. Akin to a caveman describing the sun as "something that is burning, persistently".

That's what the links are for and that's why you have the ability here to respond to my posts and ask for further details and clarification.

Before you assert that modern neuroscience is the equivalent of your caveman I think you should exhaust the resources to check on your assumptions.

So far all I have heard form you about my posts is pseudo-science, caveman, and oh by the way 'i never read them'.

[SpeedOfSound]

No. Neither do I see anything running, that doesn't have legs - including Jerry, btw. But this correlation between legs and running does not prove that legs are the cause of running.
...

Then, at the very least, your narrative is incomplete. For example, for me to proclaim that Tom causes Jerry to do anything, is an incomplete narrative of the events being considered.
...
There is certainly no doubt that brain activity correlates with behaviour/thought/feeling. Likewise, there is no doubt that Jerry's frantic sprints correlate with Tom's behaviour.

Your appeal with the cartoon is telling. You know and we know that Tom and Jerry is a sketched cartoon and that these critters do not exist. For you to know that you must be contrasting it with things that do indeed exist.

So you already give the non cartoon reality the same amount of epistemological support that we all do. If you didn't then your use of the contrast would be meaningless.

But you want to take the metaphor and go 'one up' and claim that something else that we have no evidence for and you have no proof of is responsible for our non-toon reality.

This backfires on you because all you have done is propose a philosophy that is a cartoon itself and not even as real as Tom and Jerry. At least we all know what you are talking about with Tom and Jerry and we all know that a real artist drew the cartoons.

With your philosophy cartoon we have not a shred of a thing to grasp onto. We just have your word for what you imagine to be.

So maybe you want to quit using cartoons as your argument.

Toonilosphy?

[SpeedOfSound]

The same is true of the Argument from Illusion. It doesn't work unless we agree that the illusion is contrasted with a reality that is true.

You again have to ask us to go one up and assume that your metaphor of illusion applies to the reality that gave us the idea of illusion in the first place.

Al this proves is that you know how to use analogies to outsmart yourself. We all do it occasionally.

[SpeedOfSound]

BTW james. Analogies, which you are so fond of using as an argument, are based on correlation.

The difference between scientific correlation and analogies is that with the latter it is a given that they are not causative. They are meant to be descriptive, not proof.

In other words they are a weaker form of explanation.

So you are attempting to use the weak form to dispel the strong.

[Bruce Burleson]

Actually, Bruce, there is nothing 'simplistic' about the brain.

Simple and simplistic are two different concepts. The simplest explanation for behavior is that it is caused by the brain, something we can see and measure. That does not mean that the brain is either simple or simplistic.

You don't understand, Bruce: any argument dependent upon a specific reality, is metaphysical.

I understand what you are saying - I simply think that what you are saying is meaningless. You are just adding an unnecessary, confusing and unfounded level of argument to something that seems otherwise clear.

[jamest]

Actually, Bruce, there is nothing 'simplistic' about the brain.

Simple and simplistic are two different concepts. The simplest explanation for behavior is that it is caused by the brain, something we can see and measure. That does not mean that the brain is either simple or simplistic.

You don't understand, Bruce: any argument dependent upon a specific reality, is metaphysical.

I understand what you are saying - I simply think that what you are saying is meaningless. You are just adding an unnecessary, confusing and unfounded level of argument to something that seems otherwise clear.

In a philosophical discussion about the prospects for an immaterial subjective observer, how can it be "meaningless" or "unnescessary" to point out the ontological claims inherent within any particular brain model, specifically when the concept of causality is utilised within such models?

I have explained why correlation doesn't imply causality, Bruce, but you want to ignore that and pretend that it does as a means of supporting your claims that brains cause 'consciousness'. It's a logical fallacy, Bruce. One which cannot be overlooked in any 'proof' designed to render said 'subjective observer' as obsolete. That is why it is both necessary and meaningful for me to say such things.

This is not the science forum, Bruce, where such technicalities can go unchecked. You have wandered into a metaphysical discussion happening within the philosophy forum. The heat comes with the territory.

[jamest]

BTW james. Analogies, which you are so fond of using as an argument, are based on correlation.

Using a cartoon was an example of how correlation doesn't imply causality. It wasn't an analogy.

[SpeedOfSound]

BTW james. Analogies, which you are so fond of using as an argument, are based on correlation.

Using a cartoon was an example of how correlation doesn't imply causality. It wasn't an analogy.

Are you trying to claim that correlation doesn't imply causality is some kind of metaphysical statement or are you using it the way it is meant to be used?

[SpeedOfSound]

BTW james. Analogies, which you are so fond of using as an argument, are based on correlation.

Using a cartoon was an example of how correlation doesn't imply causality. It wasn't an analogy.

You've used the coyote and you have used paintings as an analogy for your philosophy before. Now we have Tom and Jerry.

You are making a metaphysical case with it and hence it is an analogy not an example. I wont quibble over semantics on this anymore.

My philosophy is that 'the world' is reducible to ordered sensations/quale.
This means that any experienced object is reducible to something else that isn't actually that object.
This is a bit like saying that the entities depicted within a cartoon are reducible to the orderly application of inks upon paper, so that said entities are reducible to something else that isn't actually those entities. And yet, within any cartoon, there are behavioural correlations between apparent entities. For example, Jerry always runs when he sees Tom. But does this mean that Tom itself causes Jerry's behaviour? No, it doesn't, since what really causes Jerry's behaviour is 'the essence' behind the cartoon.

A proper example would be to talk about a study where men who own Corvettes have 50% more heart attacks. This does not imply that Corvettes cause heart attacks.

You Fail. You are trying to use the cartoon to explain your idea of orchestrated sensations and reality.

Specifically you use it to try and claim that just because the brain does all of this stuff that looks exactly like it's supporting all of those functions that it's really God, the great cartoon maker in the sky, that is doing it.

You are going analogue metaphysical on us.

[GrahamH]

James, did you miss this post?

[Surendra Darathy]

The heat comes with the territory.

Yep. Set that fire under us. Be sure to tie us to the stake, first.

Then, along with all that heat, try adding a little light, instead of doing it all with smoke and mirrors.

IOW, I don't just want the seed of doubt as to whether the brain is sufficient to account for consciousnessness. I want to hear what aspect of consciousnessness demands additional factors, all without having to assume my conclusions. IOW, I want to have consciousnessness defined in such a way that the brain is insufficient to account for it. Hint: This may involve some serious tool-bending, if I am permitted to call a spade a spade. I want to know which and how many spoons are being bent and how they are being bent without the interference of brain activity.

This is not the science forum, Bruce, where such technicalities can go unchecked. You have wandered into a metaphysical discussion happening within the philosophy forum.

Cue that creepy music from Rod Serling's "Twilight Zone". "A dimension of sight; a dimension of mind."

I have explained why correlation doesn't imply causality

But why would you want to do that? Nobody here is talking about metaphysical causality except you. I thought you said this was a "discussion" (underlined in your remarks, just above). What you're doing is lecturing someone on metaphysical causality, but all the seats in the lecture auditorium are empty. To whom are you lecturing, James? God?

No, there is not really any doubt that brains cause behavior/thought/feeling. Give me an example of a particular behavior whose proximate cause is not the brain.

Okay, maybe Bruce does want to parse the semantic details of metaphysical causality. Why don't you two get a room, or something? You could always start a thread devoted to the subject. The internet name for this is "derail".

(Congratulations, Bruce: Your discourse has more or less been co-opted into counting angels dancing, in the midst of an otherwise sober analysis of internal combustion engines.)

The way this works is that metaphysics appears where two or more are gathered in its name.

...Heavy metal thunder...

Actually, Bruce, there is nothing 'simplistic' about the brain.

Simple and simplistic are two different concepts. The simplest explanation for behavior is that it is caused by the brain, something we can see and measure. That does not mean that the brain is either simple or simplistic.

You don't understand, Bruce: any argument dependent upon a specific reality, is metaphysical.

I understand what you are saying - I simply think that what you are saying is meaningless.

Such equivocation on "meaninglessness" should not go unpunished. I'm aware of all the mystical mumbo-jumbo entailed in "understanding the meaningless".

I, too, am a past master at floccipaucinihilipilification.

[Bruce Burleson]

I have explained why correlation doesn't imply causality, Bruce, but you want to ignore that and pretend that it does as a means of supporting your claims that brains cause 'consciousness'. It's a logical fallacy, Bruce. One which cannot be overlooked in any 'proof' designed to render said 'subjective observer' as obsolete. That is why it is both necessary and meaningful for me to say such things.

I don't have a problem with the idea that correlation doesn't imply causality standing alone. But when the same events are correlated time and time again, a causal link is suggested. Does cigarette smoking cause cancer? Brains are correlated to consciousness 100% of the time, as far as we can tell, much more than cigarette smoking and cancer. How else would one show causality? Do you think that anything is caused by anything, and if so, why?

[Surendra Darathy]

I have explained why correlation doesn't imply causality, Bruce, but you want to ignore that and pretend that it does as a means of supporting your claims that brains cause 'consciousness'. It's a logical fallacy, Bruce. One which cannot be overlooked in any 'proof' designed to render said 'subjective observer' as obsolete. That is why it is both necessary and meaningful for me to say such things.

I don't have a problem with the idea that correlation doesn't imply causality standing alone. But when the same events are correlated time and time again, a causal link is suggested. Does cigarette smoking cause cancer? Brains are correlated to consciousness 100% of the time, as far as we can tell, much more than cigarette smoking and cancer. How else would one show causality? Do you think that anything is caused by anything, and if so, why?

James wants to talk about metaphysical causality, not the empirical kind. James is not interested in what he considers merely circumstantial evidence. In your heart, you know that consciousnessness is "caused" by the Great Woo-O-Sphere.

According to James, everything you experience is a big puppet show orchestrated by the Puppet Master, Itself. And we don't mean Cousin It. You don't exist. I don't exist. We're all just a bunch of thought bubbles above a Big Cartoon Face.

Causality is a mere sideshow compared to the un-parsimony of the Whole Shebang.