The subjective observer is a fictional character

[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.

[jamest]

The problem I see in your thinking there is that you have made huge assumptions about the nature of 'assumptions' and 'meaning', as if you had certain information that these cannot be 'tags' relating to representational relations between brain states and 'the world'.

An assumption is the application of a generalised pattern classification to a situation about which there is limited information. If the data is incomplete pick an interpretation that fits some of it. Do you have a sound argument against NNs doing that, firing in recognition of an incomplete stimulus pattern?

For the brain to know that its own internal states are synonymous with "information" and are "incomplete", demands a model of the brain that isn't simply responding to its own internal NNs. In fact, it demands a model of the brain that knows its own internal states are synonymous with information about something which is not itself. 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?
It cannot know this, Graham. 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.

As for 'meaning' it is accuracy, saliency and survival.

'Survival'? You hope to strengthen the credibility of your model by integrating purpose into it? Such concepts are utilised by idealists, Graham. You are straying from your original goal: to explain human behaviour in terms of a brain-model that does not incorporate assumption; meaning; purpose; consideration, into it.

A NN that responds to an angry expression has 'meaning' that influences behaviour.

Graham, your brain model cannot include responses to "an angry expression". In fact, your brain model can only include responses to NNs. Indeed, the concept of 'anger' is not one detected by any sense. Anger is infered - requiring the presence of an inferER who applies meaning to its observations.

The same expression recognised in the presence of other recognitions may render the detection more or less relevant - more or less 'meaningful'.

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

I'm going to end my response here, Graham. It's late and I don't want to spend more time on your post when I've already exposed major flaws apparent in your thinking. If you think that I haven't addressed something significant from the rest of your post, then let me know and I'll give it some attention.

[SpeedOfSound]

...I've already exposed major flaws apparent in your thinking. .

You have exposed only major flaws in your own thinking. Fail.

[jamest]

James wants to talk about metaphysical causality, not the empirical kind.

What's wrong with that? We're involved in a discussion that seeks to PROVE that the 'subjective observer' is a fictional character, remember. And since empirical correlation doesn't imply causality, then such correlation cannot be utilised to prove said objective.

James is not interested in what he considers merely circumstantial evidence.

Correction: logic is not interested in circumstantial evidence.

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.

Funny.

[jamest]

...I've already exposed major flaws apparent in your thinking. .

You have exposed only major flaws in your own thinking. Fail.

Please refrain from passing judgement devoid of basis and argument. If you want to condemn my thoughts, then address them first.

[SpeedOfSound]

...I've already exposed major flaws apparent in your thinking. .

You have exposed only major flaws in your own thinking. Fail.

Please refrain from passing judgement devoid of basis and argument. If you want to condemn my thoughts, then address them first.

I'm working on it. I just thought I had to comment on your assertion to get it out of the way.