|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 08/18/2004 : 14:27:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by H Humbert: 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.
When you phrase the proposition in axiomatic terms like that, of course there is no option outside the two presented.
quote:
Posted by H Humbert: 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.
I've repeatedly said that the evidence, to my knowledge, establishes nothing more than a correlation between a functioning brain and consciousness. Correlation does not equal causation. There is, to my knowledge, insufficient evidence to establish a firm causal link between the brain and consciousness. The only thing we have is a strong correlation. There is no evidence to dismiss, as you claim I am doing.
I'm not sure how me dismissing unevidenced claims can lead you to accuse me of dismissing evidence. |
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 : 15:32:06 [Permalink]
|
I see. So basically what you're saying is, until the source of consciousness is 100% known, you refuse to speculate on what becomes of it.
It isn't that you have an opinion one way or the other, you just refuse to form one. You don't reject any specific arguments because you refuse to consider their individual merits. For you, the folder of available data sits unopened, and shall remain so until the source of consciousness is known.
Occam's Razor does not aid you in paring down competing theories since you refuse to evaluate them, and so have nothing to pare down.
What you really have been arguing for this whole time is the right not to consider the issue. The only difference between this topic and god is that you have considered the arguments for god.
I'm of the opinion that enough tentative evidence exists to form a tentative conclusion. I believe the corollary is strong enough to imply a direct link. You obviously do not. That's fine.
However, you cannot simply state that the topic is off limits for evaluation until the source of consciousness is known. You must intimate how knowing the source of consciousness directly impacts available conclusions. You aren't guilty of dismissing evidence, you're dismissing the process of evaluating evidence.
I asked you before to state how knowing the source of consciousness would change our available conclusions, and you simply responded with “Why do we need to know anything?"
That isn't the point. The question isn't rhetorical. The point is: How would altering the value set of X (the source of consciousness) effect the available conclusions of Y (it goes on after death) or Z (it doesn't go on after death)? You're right, if it were possible that the source of consciousness altered our available choices, we could go no further. But it doesn't, not that I see.
I'm simply asking you to provide a value for X that could somehow alter the structure of the formula. Otherwise, we can assign different values for X of various degrees of likelihood (brain, soul, etc.), and get an answer.
|
"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 15:41:35 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 19:06:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by H Humbert: However, you cannot simply state that the topic is off limits for evaluation until the source of consciousness is known. You must intimate how knowing the source of consciousness directly impacts available conclusions. You aren't guilty of dismissing evidence, you're dismissing the process of evaluating evidence.
You need to read this thread before you jump in at this late date with accusations like that. Shit, you need to go back and re-read the multiple posts by me where I have clearly stated that the evidence presented, to date, only indicates a correlation.
quote:
Posted by H Humbert: Occam's Razor does not aid you in paring down competing theories since you refuse to evaluate them, and so have nothing to pare down.
Obviously you haven't read shit in this thread except the last couple of pages. Occam's Razor is a tool for sorting through evidence. In an example used by Nigel Warburton in a book about critical thinking, Occam's Razor is used to examine photographic evidence of the Loch Ness monster. You take the fuzzy old photo's and you can determine that it's unlikely a dinosaur in them because other factors more easily explain the photo. You don't use Occam's Razor to reach a conclusion about the existance of the monster, as there is no need to do so.
quote:
Posted by H Humbert: I see. So basically what you're saying is, until the source of consciousness is 100% known, you refuse to speculate on what becomes of it.
Now we are speculating? As fas as I'm aware we are discussing what you can conclude, not speculate, about human consciousness.
And, one more time because it doesn't seem to be sinking in, correlation is not causation. All the evidence that I am aware of, concerning the brain=consciousness, only establishes correlation between the two. |
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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 19:21:45 [Permalink]
|
What evidence of cause would convince you, Dude?
The high-level lightswitch/brain analogy holds 100% of the time, in terms of blunt trauma, ECT and even lobotomies.
And as I've already pointed out, we've never seen an electron, or - technically - a photon, so even though we think we know the causative chain between lightswitch and lightbulb, it could still be the Will of Allah or what-have-you. |
- 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 : 21:18:48 [Permalink]
|
As with the lightswitch analogy, if our understanding of the brain were another level deeper (say something like the part of the switch analogy where we are aware of the closed circuit and power flowing to the lightbulb) and that information remains consistent with the correlation between functioning brain and consciousness.
That would probably do it. |
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 : 22:22:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
You need to read this thread before you jump in at this late date with accusations like that. Shit, you need to go back and re-read the multiple posts by me where I have clearly stated that the evidence presented, to date, only indicates a correlation.
I'm sorry, I have read the post in its entirety. I wasn't "accusing" you of anything, merely trying to get a handle on your position. Thus far, I've only seen you post what isn't your position, things you haven't said, and conclusions you haven't reached. If I misinterpret you, then correct me. It's that simple. No need to get angry.
quote:
Occam's Razor is a tool for sorting through evidence. In an example used by Nigel Warburton in a book about critical thinking, Occam's Razor is used to examine photographic evidence of the Loch Ness monster. You take the fuzzy old photo's and you can determine that it's unlikely a dinosaur in them because other factors more easily explain the photo. You don't use Occam's Razor to reach a conclusion about the existance of the monster, as there is no need to do so.
That makes sense.
quote:
Now we are speculating? As fas as I'm aware we are discussing what you can conclude, not speculate, about human consciousness.
And, one more time because it doesn't seem to be sinking in, correlation is not causation. All the evidence that I am aware of, concerning the brain=consciousness, only establishes correlation between the two.
I meant that in the sense that at this point all theories are necessarily speculative. That doesn't mean that some aren't more reasonable than others. See, that's what I thought we were doing. Trying to use logic and reason to reach the most plausible tentative conclusion. That's why correlation has been brought up.
What you seem to be requiring is proof. If we wait until there is proof that brain activity is the cause of consciousness, then there is no further need to reason through anything. It will simply become a matter of medical fact. Consciousness ceases when brain activity does, just as blood flow ends with the cessation of a heartbeat.
|
"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 22:24:05 |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 22:59:20 [Permalink]
|
Wow, I leave for three days and you guy's fire this back up.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
As with the light switch analogy, if our understanding of the brain were another level deeper (say something like the part of the switch analogy where we are aware of the closed circuit and power flowing to the light bulb) and that information remains consistent with the correlation between functioning brain and consciousness.
That would probably do it.
Well now we might be getting somewhere (probably not). I would argue that ALL the experiments that have been done on how the brain functions and how that functioning correlates with consciousness = our awareness of the closed circuit and power flowing to the light bulb.
Taken from A User's Guide to the Brain by John J. Ratey, M.D.
"we are know beginning to learn what, physically, in the brain creates attention and consciousness, thanks to research by people such as Rodolfo Llinas, Chief of Physiology and Neuroscience at the New York University School of Medicine. Llinas and others have shown that neurons don't simply sit around quietly waiting for incoming data to arouse them, they are always active and choose whether and how to respond to stimuli. Llinas uses the analogy of going into a store (the brain). Before you enter you (the stimulus) look through the window and see a group of clerks (neurons) talking with each other. There is activity, communication. You enter the store, making yourself now a new incoming stimulus. At first the clerks keep chatting; they may have sensed you. But if you clear your throat loudly enough, one of them will look at you. You now have part of the brain's attention. If you say, “I want to buy that overcoat”, suddenly all the salesmen pat attention. The brain is now conscious of you. Having become conscious of the stimulus, a few clerks take action: one goes to get the coat and another goes to the cash register to ring up the sale. Some of the remaining clerks continue chatting; others rearrange shirts on the shelf, Still others, who have been in the front of the store arranging a window display, continue their activity without noticing the other clerks at all. If neurons are always communicating and acting in the background, we begin to see a physical system that is always in a ready state. This state of activity, itself, may be consciousness.
|
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 10:39:30 [Permalink]
|
Or, going back to the aspirin analogy (not that I want to), they way that causation was established without knowing the actual mechanism of action. A controlled study that compared the result of aspirin vs placebo against symptom relief.
If there were some way to use that type of strategy to evaluate consciousness.... you'd have strong evidence for causation without actually knowing the precise mechanisms. I can't think of a way to apply that to this situation however. |
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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 12:53:58 [Permalink]
|
Compare the consciousness of a group of people who take a hammer-hit to the head to the consciousness of a group of people who don't receive a head wound?
Nah, would only establish that a strong blow to the head can remove consciousness.
Of course, one still needs to assert a possible source for consciousness other than the brain if one is going to state that a non-brain-based consciousness is a scenario which should be seriously entertained (even just to say "there's not enough evidence to reach any conclusions").
Like "consciousness either ends with death or it doesn't," consciousness is either sourced from the brain itself or it is not. If not, where does it come from? Do we have any evidence whatsoever that such an external source is, indeed, the source of consciousness?
Is this a good time to whip out Occam's Razor? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2004 : 22:32:15 [Permalink]
|
Brave teacher!
but yeah, the analogy is directly from Sagan's book. |
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 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
