|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 08/15/2004 : 22:09:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by Ricky Because that is why we are having this discussion. What most people are trying to understand is how you can say that god does not exist in a 0 evidence situation, and say that you can't draw a conclusion on PMC in a 0 evidence situation. That is the reason why we are having this entire discussion, its how it all started. We think that there is a conflict in thinking both things at once.
Then people are not understanding what I'm saying at all. What I have said repeatedly is that you can't draw a solid evidenced conclusion about what happens to human consciousness when the body dies.
I have never said that there is any case to be made for PMC. I fail to understand the need for people to continue to drag god into the thread.
Let me put it this way.... if, for any reason, you think I am saying in any way that there is a case to be made for PMC, then your not comprehending what I am saying. Quite frankly, I'm tired of saying it. On the topic of god, in this thread, I'll leave those unable to discern the intent of my words to wallow in their obviously blissfull state and say no more.
quote:
Correlation can lead to causation
Absolutely. As long as you remember that correlation does not equal causation, and that causation does not, neccessarily, explain the mechanism of action.
quote:
Posted by Ricky:If I get hit on the head hard enough to disrupt my brain, my consciousness will be altered.
When I take drugs that affect my brain, my consciousness will be altered.
When my brain stops functioning, for all that we can observe, so does my consciousness.
And the other ones that were previously listed. These all lead to the same conclusion, that consciousness and the brain are the same.
I disagree. I think that conclusion is premature. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2004 : 05:50:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I disagree. I think that conclusion is premature.
Why? What evidence would be acceptable to you? |
"There is no 'I' in TEAM, but there is an 'M' and an 'E'." -Carson
"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."
-Sophocles |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2004 : 06:31:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
Posted by Valiant Dancer:Therefore, one can not make definative statement on the existance or non-existance of PMC. Like the existance or non-existance of a supreme being, there is no proof to speak of. Occams rasor would say that the existance of God and PMC are equavalent.
Why does this theme keep rearing it's nasty little head in this thread? God is not relevent to this conversation, has nothing to do with this conversation, and does nothing but cloud the issue. Leave god in the religion folder.
Because consciousness surviving the death of the body is the classic definition of a soul, another theological construct. As such, saying that souls may exist absent evidence but God does not absent evidence is inconsistent. Both theological constructs (God and PMC) should be evaluated using the same criteria. Belief in both requires faith since there is no evidence for or against either. Occam's razor indicates that the existance of either theological construct is highly unlikely. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2004 : 10:37:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Let me put it this way.... if, for any reason, you think I am saying in any way that there is a case to be made for PMC, then your not comprehending what I am saying. Quite frankly, I'm tired of saying it. On the topic of god, in this thread, I'll leave those unable to discern the intent of my words to wallow in their obviously blissfull state and say no more.
We are not saying that you think PMC exists. What we are saying is that you say that there can be no conclusion made on PMC and that this conflicts with your conclusion on god, because in both cases the evidence for them is the same.
Now you say that there is not enough evidence for the case to be made that the brain and consciousness are one and the same. However, even if there was 0 evidence for anything, you would apply Occam's Razor to come to a weak conclusion that they are the same, as saying the opposite would be saying that something unknown must exist. And the fact that there is evidence for the brain and consciousness being the same only strengthens that position. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2004 : 17:30:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by Ricky: We are not saying that you think PMC exists. What we are saying is that you say that there can be no conclusion made on PMC and that this conflicts with your conclusion on god, because in both cases the evidence for them is the same.
You, Ricky, and obviously some others here, have failed to comprehend what I am saying. I have not said that no conclusion can be made about PMC, I have stated quite clearly, and on multiple posts, that no case can be made for PMC, that PMC are entirely unevidenced, and along with other such unevidenced drivel... they may be dismissed. What I fail to comprehend is how this leads you to believe that I somehow am trying to make a case for the existance of PMC. Are you all so geared up to verbally joust with the believers that anythiung that doesn't match exactly your preconcieved notions gets classified as attempted support for PMC?
quote:
Posted by Dave W:Arguing that there isn't enough evidence to reach a conclusion is nearly the same thing as arguing that the evidence for either proposition is equal in amount, which simply is not true. There are mounds of evidence for brain-based consciousness (the examples you've been given in this thread so far, Dude, just scratch the surface), while there is zero evidence that consciousness is something other than brain activity.
There are mounds of evidence that correlate brain activity and consciousness. Nothing, that I'm aware of, that indicates a definitive causation.
quote:
Posted by Dave W: Let me ask you a different question: what kind of causative evidence would convince you that the brain activity is consciousness?
My knowledge of neurobiology is pretty much that of an interested layman, so I'll have to answer that with an analogy... bear with me, it might make sense.
If the brain = consciousness, then there will be some identifiable process/chemistry/ect that should be clearly identifiable as giving rise to consciousness.
On to the analogy... a light.
Flip the switch, light goes on. Flip it again, light goes off. You can do it a 1000 times and everytime the light goes on/off. Strong correlation. But causation? Well, with the light we know the causation, the switch completes the circiut, electricity flows to the bulb, the filament glows giving off light. The flipping of the switch is not the cause of the light. (we know the causation in this process in alot more detail than my little blurb, but you get my point I hope)
The evidence we have now for brain = consciousness is kinda like the first part, about the switch. We can draw a strong correlation, but can we draw a causation from that? I don't think we can, yet. Not without a much much more detailed description of the chain of causation.
So I stand by my position that currently the statement "brain = consciousness" is unevidenced.
As a famous skeptic once said about the case for extra terrestrial life... the question is an important one, and any answer you come up with needs to be airtight. Same goes for human consciousness. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2004 : 18:24:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
We can draw a strong correlation, but can we draw a causation from that? I don't think we can, yet. Not without a much much more detailed description of the chain of causation.
Hi Dude, I'm a new poster. I think this is a very interestng thread and you have some interesting thoughts.
I guess my biggest question would be, why do we need to know the cause of consciousness? In this case, isn't correlation enough? It doesn't matter whether the brain is consciousness or not. I think it can be safely stated that "A working brain must be present for consciousness to be present."
It's merely a correlation, but one that is fairly supportable. Or at least one with enough evidence to outweigh the alternative statement, that "Working brains are not required for consciousness to be present."
The lightbulb analogy is flawed in that bulbs are not the only sources of light. Light can have many sources, so obviously an electric switch isn't a direct collary.
But no one has ever observed a consciousness independent of a functioning brain. That's 100% correlation. Is it causation? No, but again, I do not see why establishing a cause is at all necessary in this discussion.
If you think otherwise, perhaps you can explain to me why you feel that way. I'm having trouble understanding why knowing the cause of consciousness is necessary in establishing a living brain/consciousness correlation.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/16/2004 18:54:27 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2004 : 18:59:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by H Humbert: guess my biggest question would be, why do we need to know the cause of consciousness? In this case, isn't correlation enough? It doesn't matter whether the brain is consciousness or not. I think it can be safely stated that a working brain must be present for consciousness to be present.
Why do we need to know anything?
The question of human consciousness is one that has troubled the minds of people for thousands of years. A definitaive answer to the question, "What is human consciousness?" would be a great step forward in our understanding of ourselves.
But... your putting more burden on me than I have aksed for with that question. My intent, from my first post in this topic, was simply to express the opinion that we lack sufficient evidence to draw conclusions.
quote:
Posted by H Humbert: The lightbulb analogy is flawed in that bulbs are not the only sources of light. Light can have many sources, so obviously an electric switch isn't a direct collary.
Human consciousness has 6 billion sources. And if you think I'm trying to draw a similarity between ligh and human consciousness.... you need to re-read what I've posted. The analogy was simply meant to express the level of our current knowledge concerning human consciousness and the brain. It works just fine in that regard. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2004 : 19:28:52 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote:quote:
You, Ricky, and obviously some others here, have failed to comprehend what I am saying. I have not said that no conclusion can be made about PMC, I have stated quite clearly, and on multiple posts, that no case can be made for PMC, that PMC are entirely unevidenced, and along with other such unevidenced drivel... they may be dismissed. What I fail to comprehend is how this leads you to believe that I somehow am trying to make a case for the existance of PMC. Are you all so geared up to verbally joust with the believers that anythiung that doesn't match exactly your preconcieved notions gets classified as attempted support for PMC?
No.
You have made the case that PMC is totally non-evidenced. You have stated that any conclusion as to the presence or absence of PMC is premature due to our lack of evidence. This is not you making a case for PMC, it is you making the case that we must remain undecided about PMC. It's been this way since page one.
And on page three (I think), you more-or-less stated that you had reached the conclusion that there are no gods. Yet the evidence - pro and con - for some sort of god is precisely the same as for PMC: none whatsoever. We (and I speak for Ricky here) do not comprehend how, given the same lack of evidence, you can be decided on the one hand, and undecided on the other.
You go on to say, "but living people have consciousness, but nobody's ever seen god" as a counter-argument, but it fails because nobody's ever seen PMC in any way, shape or form. Your counter-argument only works if one assumes that PMC is somehow like living consciousness, but you and I agree that such an assumption is completely unreasonable.
So we're back to this. You claim that any statement made about PMC is unevidenced, and therefore questionable at best. But you do not also claim that any statement made about god is unevidenced, and therefore questionable at best. Instead, you state that god doesn't exist.
Yes, these are two different subjects, but we're trying to figure out why you insist on treating totally unevidenced claims differently in the one case than in the other.quote:
The evidence we have now for brain = consciousness is kinda like the first part, about the switch. We can draw a strong correlation, but can we draw a causation from that? I don't think we can, yet. Not without a much much more detailed description of the chain of causation.
We can draw an absolute correlation, as shown by H. Humbert. We've never found consciousness anywhere but inside a functioning - and functioning correctly - brain.
quote:
So I stand by my position that currently the statement "brain = consciousness" is unevidenced.
And, to go back to a previous analogy, if correlations were equivalent to "no evidence at all," we would think that aspirin's effect were unevidenced. All there was, long before the mechanism of causation was determined, was a correlation ("ingest this stuff" correlating with "headache relief").
That's where we are now with consciousness. We've got an absolute correlation between functioning brains and consciousness, but little knowledge of the mechanism which creates the phenomenon. Not "none," but little knowledge.
We have evidence. We have more evidence for "brain activity equals consciousness" than we have for any competing hypothesis (all of which require more asumptions for which there is zero evidence).
Saying that the claim is "unevidenced" seems to me to ignore the evidence we do have.
Through what mechanism do you think that anesthetics could work directly upon consciousness, and through consciousness change brain activity? Because that is the method of action required if consciousness is something other than brain activity.
What could another source of consciousness possibly be?quote:
As a famous skeptic once said about the case for extra terrestrial life... the question is an important one, and any answer you come up with needs to be airtight. Same goes for human consciousness.
Why does a tentative conclusion need to be "airtight?" History is replete with examples of important questions which were answered only crudely at first. Darwin had no knowledge of DNA or genetics. He had no clue as to the mechanism of inheritance through which evolution functions, but he could see that it had (and was) happening. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2004 : 20:02:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
We've never found consciousness anywhere but inside a functioning - and functioning correctly - brain.
Good catch. I suppose a "living" brain isn't applicable in all cases. "Correctly functioning" is a much better criterion.
quote:
Through what mechanism do you think that anesthetics could work directly upon consciousness, and through consciousness change brain activity? Because that is the method of action required if consciousness is something other than brain activity. What could another source of consciousness possibly be?
In an attempt to be fair to Dude, I was trying to think of a scenario in which brain function would only outwardly appear to be the source of consciousness, when in fact one had nothing to do with the other.
I don't think I'm the first to think of something like this, but what if the brain worked something like a television set? Meaning it were the device responsible for picking up a consciousness "signal." If the brain is damaged, the signal can either no longer get through or can get through only imperfectly and with substantial interference. However, though a healthy brain in this case would be an intergral part of expressing consciousness, it isn't the source. If it isn't the source, then it is possible for consciousness to exist independent of a functioning brain.
Now, of course I don't believe that, and Occham's razor would certainly trim away all my suppostions. But I think Dude's point isn't to argue whether my above theory or any other is correct, but simply that such alternatives can be imagined and so any firm conclusion at this juncture is unwarrented. Is that right?
I'm just trying to make absolutely certain I understand his position. |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/16/2004 20:35:14 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2004 : 20:42:35 [Permalink]
|
H. Humbert wrote:quote:
But I think Dude's point isn't to argue whether my above theory or any other is correct, but simply that such altentatives can be imagined, and so any firm conclusion at this juncture is unwarrented.
Yeah, but other such alternatives can be imagined for, say, gravity. It may act for all intents and purposes as if mass bends space-time, but it could really be a near-infinite number of invisible fairies pushing on stuff. In an absolute sense, since we've never detected a graviton, we've got no evidence for a mechanism for gravity. It may very well be fairies.
But, slicing away such unparsimonious possibilities is what Occam's Razor is for.
I'm reminded of something, which is important. Technically, my position is not that consciousness definitively ends with the termination of decent brain patterns, only that the evidence is so stacked in that direction that I can say I'm well over 99.9% sure that it does. In the same way, the idea that consciousness continues after organic death is not an absurdity to me, nor is it something which I think can't possibly happen. It's probability is not zero, but it's damn close to it in my mind.
And along those lines, it appears that Dude is arguing that a less-lopsided odds ratio is the more-reasonable position to take. Please note that I emphasized appears.
And my point has been that unless there is evidence for any possibility other than "brain activity equals consciousness," I don't see how a lower certainty value is justified.
Believe me, Dude, I already thought of the lightbulb-and-switch analogy (and the computer-and-software analogy), but assumed you would dismiss them (as you did) on the grounds that we know the causal links between switch and bulb. However, we don't. Nobody's ever visualized a single electron. All of our evidence for them is second-hand, through seeing their effects on other things. They might be itsy-bitsy fairies, too.
The difference between electron theory and consciousness theory is only that consciousness theory is not as well-tested. Yet. It's much more difficult to test. But it isn't the case that there is zero evidence for brain-based consciousness, there's just much less than for electrons. Or gravity.
What I'm saying is that it is possible (though rather unlikely) that every one of our current scientific theories is wrong. How much weight should we give this possibility? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2004 : 22:01:22 [Permalink]
|
..... long angry post deleted.
Since this conversation is never going to get past some obvious points, it's going to have to end.
Until you guys can explain to me how you can distort this:
quote:
Dude says:PMC is entirely unevidenced and therefore may be dismissed.
(PMC being defined as consciousness surviving the death of the body intact)
Into this: quote:
Dave W says:it is you [Dude] making the case that we must remain undecided about PMC.
I'm not going any further here.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2004 : 07:38:39 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote:quote:
Until you guys can explain to me how you can distort this:
quote:
Dude says:PMC is entirely unevidenced and therefore may be dismissed.
(PMC being defined as consciousness surviving the death of the body intact)
Into this:quote:
Dave W says:it is you [Dude] making the case that we must remain undecided about PMC.
I'm not going any further here.
Well, there are two problems with your description of what's happened here.
1) I have always, and you apparently agreed, said that there is no evidence that consciousness would continue beyond death "intact" or in any other state. The definition of PMC which I have been using has thus been "consciousness not ending with the end of brain activity," and I do not describe it as "intact" or any other way. I am not using any sort of John Edward-style PMC here. Never have been.
2) Yes, you've dismissed the claim that PMC exists (page 1 and many times since then). But you've also dismissed the claim that consciousness ends with death (page 1 and many times since then). That is why I describe you as insisting upon undecidedness. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 12:27:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by Dave W
2) Yes, you've dismissed the claim that PMC exists (page 1 and many times since then). But you've also dismissed the claim that consciousness ends with death (page 1 and many times since then). That is why I describe you as insisting upon undecidedness.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
They are both claims.
They are both unevidenced.
I should accept one claim because I dismiss the other? Even when both claims are totally unevidenced?
When there is better evidence to support brain = consciousness, then there would be some evidence for consciousness ending upon death.
I don't consider dismisal of unevidenced claims to be an undecided position. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 13:16:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Either consciouness ends with brain death, or it doesn't. What is the third possibility? Thus far you have avoided speculating, claiming that the burden of proof isn't on you. But it is on you if you maintain there is somehow a third possibility. I can't see one.
quote:
When there is better evidence to support brain = consciousness, then there would be some evidence for consciousness ending upon death.
Why do you require "better" evidence to support the conceit that consciousness is a product of brain activity to produce merely "some" evidence that it ends with brain death?
As Dave has stated, we already have "some" evidence. You haven't adequately addressed why you dismiss it, except to repeat that claim is "unevidenced." ????
In my opinion, at some point you're going to have to account for why you dismiss the available evidence and corollary link. Simply shooing it away with your hand isn't sufficient. You need to detail what factors aren't yet fully accounted for which could influence the connection. Because as I said, I cannot even think of a plausible alternative.
I have made an honest effort to look at both sides of this discussion. As it stands, I feel your position is untenable. "Brain = consciousness" is more than a wild guess. If you cannot point to specific flaws in the theory, then you cannot argue that it's invalid. |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/18/2004 13:38:57 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
