The subjective observer is a fictional character

[SpeedOfSound]

James if you quit claiming you won the argument before you have then I wont have to call you on it. Okay?

[jamest]

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.

No, it's not. For instance, there's always a correlative relationship between light and the sun, but this does not imply that the sun causes light. Indeed, it is the 'internal event' of light that has caused the concept of 'sun' to become apparent to us. In fact, the origin of this 'light' that causes this concept of sun, is unknown to us (at this juncture). But to assume that the sun causes the experience of light is to assume that a real sun exists which causes the experience of light... which then causes the concept of 'sun' to become apparent to us.
You're too-far embroiled within your own intuitions and assumptions. To say that x causes y, implies that there really IS an 'x'. But remember, all x's and y's known by the brain, are really aspects of its own self - parts of the brain itself. That is, when the brain sees the sun, it is really seeing a NN. And when it sees 'light', it is also seeing a NN. So, to say that the sun causes light, is really just to assume that an external sun causes an internal NN. But, assumptions are no good, here, in the philosophy forum - particularly when they are being utilised to PROVE the fictional status of an immaterial being.

Does cigarette smoking cause cancer?

Does Tom cause Jerry to run?

Brains are correlated to consciousness 100% of the time,

Toms actions are correlated to Jerry's, 100% of the time. Shall we conclude, therefore, that Tom & Jerry are real entities and that both actually impact upon one another, causally?

100% correlation is no more significant to the issue of actual causality, than is 1% correlation, since correlation can NEVER imply causality. You obviously don't understand this, or you wouldn't be repeating yourself, trying to sustain this fallacy.

How else would one show causality?

One must prove that something exists, prior to attributing causal potency to it. What you are doing, is assuming that something exists - thus enabling you to bestow it with causal potency.

Do you think that anything is caused by anything, and if so, why?

Yes, causality must be relevant - but only to beings that are irreducible to something else.

[SpeedOfSound]

Let me count the ways you fail.

For the brain to know that its own internal states

Out of the box fail. If you are talking about a physical model of the brain saying that the brain must know something is ridiculous. You can speak of a human knowing something but you can't jump into the middle of the fucking brain and talk about the brain knowing things about itself. Until you drop this dualistic thinking all of your critical analysis is Fail.

If you don't understand this maybe we can help you. You are going to have to help us help you by asking some new questions.

it demands a model of the brain that knows its own internal states are synonymous with information about something which is not itself.

Fail.

enable said brain to apply external meaning to its own internal states.

Fail.

It cannot know this, Graham.

Fail.

And any credible brain-model must incorporate this realisation therein. That is, there can be no NNs "firing in recognition of an incomplete stimulus", since said NNs would not be firing in response to the world, but in response to an idea about that world.

Ahh. Something to talk about. Next post.

requiring the presence of an inferER who applies meaning to its observations.

Fail.

the brain is in a void, observing nothing other than 'lego states'.

Fail.

Pray tell, how does the brain infer that one lego state is angry at another?
Clearly, the meaning of 'anger' comes AFTER deciding that its 'lego states' are representative of external entities.
Such inference cannot occur UNTIL this decision has been made.

Fail.Fail. Fail.

All because of your insistence of talking about the brain as your idealistic idea of mind when we are clearly talking about the internal functioning of a brain. Try to grasp this. A human can be spoken of as knowing, responding. having intent, etc. You can't discuss neural networks like they are things that do this nor can you factor out something called a brain and say it 'knows it's neural networks'. What you have done is injected an assumption of what you hope to prove within the argument. So everything you have said up to this point is rendered nonsense due to this type of thinking.

[jamest]

James if you quit claiming you won the argument before you have then I wont have to call you on it. Okay?

I'm not here to 'win the argument'. That implies that my goal here is to elevate myself above all others that I confront.

I'm here to sharpen my own mindset... and to affect other mindsets in the process. Man, if my goal was as shallow as you imply that it is, then I would be distraught. Really, james has nothing to gain, here.

[SpeedOfSound]

No, it's not. For instance, there's always a correlative relationship between light and the sun, but this does not imply that the sun causes light. Indeed, it is the 'internal event' of light that has caused the concept of 'sun' to become apparent to us. In fact, the origin of this 'light' that causes this concept of sun, is unknown to us (at this juncture). But to assume that the sun causes the experience of light is to assume that a real sun exists which causes the experience of light... which then causes the concept of 'sun' to become apparent to us.
You're too-far embroiled within your own intuitions and assumptions. To say that x causes y, implies that there really IS an 'x'. But remember, all x's and y's known by the brain, are really aspects of its own self - parts of the brain itself. That is, when the brain sees the sun, it is really seeing a NN. And when it sees 'light', it is also seeing a NN. So, to say that the sun causes light, is really just to assume that an external sun causes an internal NN. But, assumptions are no good, here, in the philosophy forum - particularly when they are being utilised to PROVE the fictional status of an immaterial being.

This is quite simply your attempt to rush in your religious belief without any reasoned basis for doing so.

We know the sun gives off radiation in the visible spectrum and so do you. You probably put sun-block on your kids and this is why. If you think your kids are internal events and don't need sunblock we need to discuss with child welfare.

[SpeedOfSound]

James if you quit claiming you won the argument before you have then I wont have to call you on it. Okay?

I'm not here to 'win the argument'. That implies that my goal here is to elevate myself above all others that I confront.

I'm here to sharpen my own mindset... and to affect other mindsets in the process. Man, if my goal was as shallow as you imply that it is, then I would be distraught. Really, james has nothing to gain, here.

Then quit making pompous claims and we will be good. Reading in every one of your posts about how you have destroyed Grahams model is quite disconcerting. Let's just stick to the arguments and pay attention to the many rebuttals you have been given.

[SpeedOfSound]

This would enable said brain to apply external meaning to its own internal states. However, how can a brain know that its own internal states are synonymous with information about something which is not itself?
And any credible brain-model must incorporate this realisation therein. That is, there can be no NNs "firing in recognition of an incomplete stimulus", since said NNs would not be firing in response to the world, but in response to an idea about that world.

Speaking of NNs firing in response is faulty. They are not legos. They are not precisely defined. They overlap and interconnect and that's whey they are called networks. They have feedback and feed-forward connections. A way to think about them is to consider standing waves. Do you know what those are? Another way to think of them is a having settled states. A recognition of some pattern would have some section of the brain in a settled state and a sort of standing wave of activity is set up.

The brain cannot 'apply meaning' to it's states. That's your dualist homuncular thinking again. Don't say things like that.

I'm not sure what you mean by an incomplete stimulus. What do you mean?

What do you mean about an 'idea about the world'?

If you mean that inside the brain that Networks can take other nets as inputs then yes. That's what it does at many levels. I think the level you want to hear about is in the higher order association cortices. What's the problem with that? It's old news.

[jamest]

All because of your insistence of talking about the brain as your idealistic idea of mind when we are clearly talking about the internal functioning of a brain.

You are ignoring the purpose of this thread, which is to PROVE the fictional status of an immaterial observer. Talking about the internal functioning of a brain does not prove anything, then, unless such models avoid the problems associated with assumption; consideration; causality; purpose; meaning; etc., required as a basis for formulating these models.

A human can be spoken of as knowing, responding. having intent, etc. You can't discuss neural networks like they are things that do this nor can you factor out something called a brain and say it 'knows it's neural networks'. What you have done is injected an assumption of what you hope to prove within the argument. So everything you have said up to this point is rendered nonsense due to this type of thinking.

I am assuming nothing within this thread, nor am I intent on arguing the idealistic perspective. It is clearly evident that I am devoting my time to an assault upon fallacious ideas associated with brain models that attempt to fully explain human identity and behaviour in purely materialistic terms.

[SpeedOfSound]

All because of your insistence of talking about the brain as your idealistic idea of mind when we are clearly talking about the internal functioning of a brain.

You are ignoring the purpose of this thread, which is to PROVE the fictional status of an immaterial observer. Talking about the internal functioning of a brain does not prove anything, then, unless such models avoid the problems associated with assumption; consideration; causality; purpose; meaning; etc., required as a basis for formulating these models.

You have used the term NN's in every one of your replies. If you don't want to talk about the functioning of the brain then stop talking about it in your arguments.

But if you do then you can't be attacking the model because Graham and I and I think everyone else here IS talking about how brains works to create a fictional subjective observer. That is the damned model.

Within that model all of these things you complain about are supported. Quite well. You will find very few modern philosophers of any brand that deny that.

What I hear you saying, and it is very confusing, is "the model doesn't work! don't tell me about the model!"

What the Fuck?

Is anyone else here getting this same vibe?

[SpeedOfSound]

I am assuming nothing within this thread, nor am I intent on arguing the idealistic perspective. It is clearly evident that I am devoting my time to an assault upon fallacious ideas associated with brain models that attempt to fully explain human identity and behaviour in purely materialistic terms.

If you are assuming nothing then why are you calling the ideas fallacious and assuming a homunculus?

[jamest]

We know the sun gives off radiation in the visible spectrum and so do you.

We 'know' nothing of the sort. We just infer - from our NNs/experiences/sensations that the sun GIVES off radiation.

Whether the sun GIVES anything is on a par with whether the sun CAUSES anything. That is, the sun can only GIVE anything if it is real beyond the representaive NN/experience of it.

Does Jerry GIVE Tom the runaround? No, Hanna Barbera GIVE the impression that Jerry gives Tom the runaround.

You aren't taking in what I am saying. We don't know any facts about 'the sun' that regard it as a causal agent or as a GIVER of any phenomenon. Please try to understand this... and demonstrate this understanding in any future posts.

You probably put sun-block on your kids and this is why.

Sure... and Jerry always runs from Tom, lest he be Tom's supper.

I am not denying that there ARE significant correlations between observed entities. I'm just taking the conversation to a higher level and am pointing-out that Jerry running from Tom proves nothing, least of all that Tom actually causes or gives, anything.

If you think your kids are internal events and don't need sunblock we need to discuss with child welfare.

Render unto Caesar the things that are Caeser's.

[jamest]

I am assuming nothing within this thread, nor am I intent on arguing the idealistic perspective. It is clearly evident that I am devoting my time to an assault upon fallacious ideas associated with brain models that attempt to fully explain human identity and behaviour in purely materialistic terms.

If you are assuming nothing then why are you calling the ideas fallacious and assuming a homunculus?

I'm calling ideas about brain-models 'fallacious' that attempt to PROVE the fictional status of an immaterial observer, whilst employing the necessity of assumption [about the external world]; meaning; purpose; consideration; [assumed] causality, into those models.

When I said that I was assuming nothing, I was refering to the fact that I do not need to employ 'God' as a basis for my refutations. They are based purely upon rational considerations of the models utilised in the objective of disproving the existence of said observer.

[SpeedOfSound]

We know the sun gives off radiation in the visible spectrum and so do you.

We 'know' nothing of the sort. We just infer - from our NNs/experiences/sensations that the sun GIVES off radiation.

Whether the sun GIVES anything is on a par with whether the sun CAUSES anything. That is, the sun can only GIVE anything if it is real beyond the representaive NN/experience of it.

Does Jerry GIVE Tom the runaround? No, Hanna Barbera GIVE the impression that Jerry gives Tom the runaround.

You aren't taking in what I am saying. We don't know any facts about 'the sun' that regard it as a causal agent or as a GIVER of any phenomenon. Please try to understand this... and demonstrate this understanding in any future posts.

You probably put sun-block on your kids and this is why.

Sure... and Jerry always runs from Tom, lest he be Tom's supper.

I am not denying that there ARE significant correlations between observed entities. I'm just taking the conversation to a higher level and am pointing-out that Jerry running from Tom proves nothing, least of all that Tom actually causes or gives, anything.

If you think your kids are internal events and don't need sunblock we need to discuss with child welfare.

Render unto Caesar the things that are Caeser's.

Oh I'm taking in what you are saying and I'm just pointing out that it's complete confused garbage. I spent some time last night explaining to you why your cartoons fail and here ya are again pretending that it has something to do with all this.

The higher level you are trying to force the conversation to is your completely ungrounded belief in an orchestrating god thingy that makes cartoons for your non-existent supernatural mind thingy.

The thread was started with an empirical model of the brain and you have been asserting away with you homunculi for about 15 pages and then in the last two days you are starting to question the very existence of the sun while still spouting about neural networks. You are very confused.

You need to figure out which playground you want to play in or this will just keep going nowhere as it has been. If you want a thread on god go get one. If you want to pretend to have attacked our physical model of the brain then stick to that.

[SpeedOfSound]

I am assuming nothing within this thread, nor am I intent on arguing the idealistic perspective. It is clearly evident that I am devoting my time to an assault upon fallacious ideas associated with brain models that attempt to fully explain human identity and behaviour in purely materialistic terms.

If you are assuming nothing then why are you calling the ideas fallacious and assuming a homunculus?

I'm calling ideas about brain-models 'fallacious' that attempt to PROVE the fictional status of an immaterial observer, whilst employing the necessity of assumption [about the external world]; meaning; purpose; consideration; [assumed] causality, into those models.

When I said that I was assuming nothing, I was refering to the fact that I do not need to employ 'God' as a basis for my refutations. They are based purely upon rational considerations of the models utilised in the objective of disproving the existence of said observer.

Nope. This is still very confused. I can't make any sense out of what you have said here. Let me get more coffee and while you clear this up.

[SpeedOfSound]

'm calling ideas about brain-models 'fallacious'
that attempt to PROVE
the fictional status of an immaterial observer,
whilst employing the necessity of assumption [about the external world];
meaning;
purpose;
consideration;
[assumed] causality,
into those models.

Can you unpack that strange sentence for me so that I can understand what you are really saying?