jamest wrote: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?
Bruce Burleson wrote: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...
Bruce Burleson wrote:jamest wrote: 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.
jamest wrote:
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.