The subjective observer is a fictional character

[jamest]

Correlation does not imply causation has become sort of a banner for the idealist or woofull.

No, it's a simple logical fact. I have even provided an example to prove my point (Tom doesn't actually cause Jerry to do anything, regardless of the behavioural correlations between them).

This is not proof that things don't have physical causes.

Correct. But it is proof against those people (like Bruce) who wish to utilise correlations as a proof of causality.

It is simply a caution that the cause may need further ferreting out. In the matter of brains there has never been a shred of proof that anything beyond biochemistry is involved so correlation with the only things we have found is the most sensible bet we can make.

For you, 'proof' = observation. Which is just an extension of your asserted epistemology/ontology.

Along with that the evidence for causation and the models that have logical mechanisms is as high as a mountain.

Mount Mole Hill.

The evidence of woo-brain is non-existent.

Humbug.

[SpeedOfSound]

I object to the use of belittling language as 'argument'.

I don't see it as belittling. It's descriptive. What would be another good short name for supernatural beliefs? I'll use that if you prefer.

You shouldn't be embarrassed if you believe in these things.

[SpeedOfSound]

You've certainly provided many links. But you yourself haven't confronted the rationale that demands confronting here. What I would like to see, from you, is a straightforward post - using your own words - that gives an overview of a brain model that fully makes sense of the issues that have been forthcoming. Certainly, links to whole books are of little use, here. Few readers of this thread, including myself, have the time to read whole books. And even links to snippets of information aren't that worthwhile, because they are limited in what they say and don't address the overall themes underpinning this thread. Imagine me, for instance, just providing you with a constant stream of idealistic links in response to questions that you may have posed about the irrationality of idealism. This isn't a book club... it's a discussion forum.

I'm sorry that you missed all of the material in the posts I have provided. The links were only to provide supporting evidence. I have written thousands of words describing the model that addresses your concern. If you get permission from the mods I will repost the whole thing in one page.

So you claim here that I am only providing links is probably just an oversight on your part.

[Bruce Burleson]

Consciousness is epiphenomenal to brain health and complexity. I'm not even sure how metaphysics enters into this discussion.

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

Note that an idealist doesn't [necessarily] reject that there is correlation between the brain and behaviour, or even between the brain and thinking/feeling. Certainly, I don't. But correlation doesn't imply causality, ......... But unless those brains are real and are the 'essence' of behaviour/thought/feeling, then the situation becomes similar to Jerry running-away from Tom: that is, there is doubt about whether brains cause behaviour/thought/feeling, regardless of any apparent correlations.

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

Now, this does not mean that there is not some other reality "out there" that might affect us, that might act as a stimulus for our brains. THAT would be a metaphysical discussion. But whatever experience we have, whether of natural or non-natural origins, that experience is registered in the brain, and any behavior that emerges as a result of that experience is processed through the brain. The brain receives the stimulus, from whatever source, and causes behaviors in response to that stimulus. The brain stands between stimulus and behavior.

[SpeedOfSound]

Epistemology and metaphysics are at the heart of this discussion... and the utilisation of science to explain behaviour/thought/feeling in terms of 'the brain' being the cause of said phenomena, is indicative of an exact epistemology and metaphysic.

Your opinion. Epistemology may be pertinent but you have never gotten around to showing how this discussion is metaphysical.

Science has no 'facts' about causality. Science only has facts about correlations. Just because Y follows X does not mean that X causes Y. It's a logical fallacy to presume so... and the conclusion is dependent upon assuming the reality of X.

The unreality of X is your conclusion and your metaphysical philosophy. This discussion is about a model and what it supports not about your idea that god is causing us to experience X.

So back on track. You need to show that the model can't support human behavior before you get to start a thread explaining why reality isn't real.

The model is a physical model and has physical evidence and causation which is an empirical given.

[SpeedOfSound]

No, it's a simple logical fact. I have even provided an example to prove my point (Tom doesn't actually cause Jerry to do anything, regardless of the behavioural correlations between them).
...
Correct. But it is proof against those people (like Bruce) who wish to utilise correlations as a proof of causality.
...

You have given an example of how cartoons aren't reality. You should think long and hard about that. Finding the causes of things requires evidence and reason and logical models that support the evidence.

Cartoons require artists. Metaphysical bedtime stories require a kind of artist too. I call them CosmoCons.

For you, 'proof' = observation. Which is just an extension of your asserted epistemology/ontology.

For you to put your pants on in the morning you use the same epistemology. And yes for me proof does require some evidence. That's why cartoons don't tell us anything useful about science.

[jamest]

I've just been outside my house. I viewed a three-quarter moon to the south-west (it's approx. 0200 here in England).

Sorry, I should have said that I viewed the moon to the south-east. Not important or relevant, but correct.

[SpeedOfSound]

I object to the use of belittling language as 'argument'.

I don't see it as belittling. It's descriptive. What would be another good short name for supernatural beliefs? I'll use that if you prefer.

You shouldn't be embarrassed if you believe in these things.

This just implies that 'natural' = real... and that 'supernatural' = woo.

I've just been outside my house. I viewed a three-quarter moon to the south-west (it's approx. 0200 here in England). So, what caused this experience? According to science, the sun's rays are being reflected from the moon's surface, to my eyes - that is, the sun causes this experience. However, this correlation between sun and moon doesn't equate to any definite causality, not unless one asserts that the sun and moon are actually real. Therefore, if one conflates correlation with causality, then he does so via an assumed epistemology/ontology/metaphysic. That is, science is wrong to conflate correlation with causality.

Which is woo. The moon and sun are real james. Real is what we know not an ontology. It's epistemology. Metaphysics about really real and not-real are your bedtime stories and cartoons. No basis.

You went outside. You looked at the moon. You assumed the same epistemological reality as I hold. Otherwise you wouldn't have bothered going outside and looking in that direction.

Nor would you have come back in to type on your real keyboard and tell me about it.

You also seem well versed in this business of the sun reflecting off the moon. Why is that? Why do you so casually assume I have the same knowledge that you can use it as an example ?

Neither of us need a metaphysical position for this communication. If we did we would not be able to communicate because we are as wide apart on that business as the sun and moon.

And why is it that all of you supernatural guys use physical metaphors and analogies?

Don't you have any of your own wooaphors or woologies?

[Bruce Burleson]

However, this correlation between sun and moon doesn't equate to any definite causality, not unless one asserts that the sun and moon are actually real. Therefore, if one conflates correlation with causality, then he does so via an assumed epistemology/ontology/metaphysic. That is, science is wrong to conflate correlation with causality.

For you, does anything ever cause anything? If not, then your world is essentially incoherent. You could never predict any consequence - I could blow up a balloon and New York City could disappear. Science does not "conflate" correlation with causality - it makes observations and then tests those observations. If I put my hand on a hot stove 1000 times, and 1000 times in a row it results in my hand being burned, then it is a reasonable hypothesis to say that putting one's hand on a hot stove "causes" one's hand to get burned. (It would also be reasonable to conclude that I am insane). Then we operate on that hypothesis until some other evidence suggests something else. The connection between brains and behavior is not metaphysical - it is based on countless observations that are proved by empirical evidence daily.

[SpeedOfSound]

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

And have you looked at the article and book on perception that I linked? Those two were philosophy. I thought you would like that.

[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.