Philosophy Now Forum

MGL: All panpsychism is saying is that - as consciousnees cannot be produced by the brain - and for there to be an explantion of how conscious properties are present in the world - one is obliged to assume they are a fundamental feature of reality, something like mass.

Chaz: But you are simply deny the evidence that does indeed exist; the brain does produce consciousness, rocks do not.

MGL: The evidence only demonstrates there is a correlation between brain and consciousness. This correlation remains to be
explained by a theory.


Chaz:

But it is this very correlation upon which your own theory depends, fool. If you deny that then you have nothing at all.

I think we are done here - I've already dealt with this point.


MGL:

I am not denying there is a correlation , I am denying that it is explained by your claim that phenomenal consciousness is produced by the brain. I have not notice you justify this claim anywhere except to simply repeat it like a mantra or suggest that a correlation implies causation, neither of which are very satisfying responses.


You seem to pin a lot on the notion of correlation. There is also a correlation between the collision of atomic particles and the release of energy. Now this energy is not magically produced from nothing by the mere violent combination of this particular arrangement of matter. It is released from energy that is already present in the mass of the particles. An explanation of consciousness as a product of the brain must rely on some similar principles. Either we can reduce sensations of redness to neuron firings or we can't. If we can't then the sensation of redness must be a primitive feature of reality, something like energy. If we can reduce redness to neuron firings, then that is something that remains to be explained, unless you want to rely on magic. You cannot simply rely on the correlation of neuron firings with consciousness as an explanation of the latter.

Unless you can respond to my points and explain their foolishness rather than misrepresent them to award yourself a smug chuckle at a straw man's expense , there is, I agree, no point in continuing.

MGL: The evidence only demonstrates there is a correlation between brain and consciousness. This correlation remains to be explained by a theory.


Chaz:

THis is the third time you have said this and the third time you have ignored the evidence.
The evidence is that there is NO correlation between rocks and consciousness
You are not even wrong. You have nothing to say whatever.
You are not even on the page.


MGL:

In case you did not realise it, the case for panpsychism does not rest on the observational evidence of a correlation between rocks and consciousness.

No, I realise that is rests on nothing - that is the whole point.
It seems to rest on the falsehood, expressed by you that the brain is 'incapable' of consciousness which is palpably incorrect.

MGL:

In case you did not realise it, the case for panpsychism does not rest on the observational evidence of a correlation between rocks and consciousness.

Chaz:

No, I realise that is rests on nothing - that is the whole point.
It seems to rest on the falsehood, expressed by you that the brain is 'incapable' of consciousness which is palpably incorrect.

MGL:

I said no such thing, but as you are simply arguing against claims I never made and simply ignore my attempts to clarify, it seems pointless to make any further attempt to do so.

I agree. It seems to have escaped your attention - I have been saying that for some time that whilst you continue to ignore the basic evidence, and present none of your own you are just blowing it out of your nethers.