MGL wrote: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.
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.
]
Panpsychism
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: Panpsychism
Re: Panpsychism
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.
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.
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: Panpsychism
MGL wrote:MGL: All panpsychism is saying is that - as consciousnees cannot be produced by the brain (WHICH IS FALSE)- 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.
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.
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.
Re: Panpsychism
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.
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.
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: Panpsychism
No, I realise that is rests on nothing - that is the whole point.MGL wrote: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.
It seems to rest on the falsehood, expressed by you that the brain is 'incapable' of consciousness which is palpably incorrect.
Re: Panpsychism
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.
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.
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: Panpsychism
MGL wrote: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.
Re: Panpsychism
The brain is where consciousness takes place.
Muscles are where movement takes place.
Just as we would not accept "It happens in the muscles. There is no movement but for the muscles." as an explanation for how movement is accomplished, we should not accept "It happens in the brain. There is no consciousness but for the brain." as an explanation for how consciousness is accomplished. We can go down, level by level, until we understand how the properties of particles and the fundamental forces explain how our muscles give us movement. We cannot say the same for the brain giving us consciousness.
Muscles are where movement takes place.
Just as we would not accept "It happens in the muscles. There is no movement but for the muscles." as an explanation for how movement is accomplished, we should not accept "It happens in the brain. There is no consciousness but for the brain." as an explanation for how consciousness is accomplished. We can go down, level by level, until we understand how the properties of particles and the fundamental forces explain how our muscles give us movement. We cannot say the same for the brain giving us consciousness.
Re: Panpsychism
Patterner wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 1:17 am The brain is where consciousness takes place.
Muscles are where movement takes place.
Just as we would not accept "It happens in the muscles. There is no movement but for the muscles." as an explanation for how movement is accomplished, we should not accept "It happens in the brain. There is no consciousness but for the brain." as an explanation for how consciousness is accomplished. We can go down, level by level, until we understand how the properties of particles and the fundamental forces explain how our muscles give us movement. We cannot say the same for the brain giving us consciousness.
Split-Brain Syndrome.
Social Processing.
Sol and Earth exist and physically interact. (Why do we even give names to these stones?)
Consciousness and Brains exist and also interact.
Humans have believed that Sol revolves around the Earth.
Humans now have access to information which shows them that the truth is the Earth revolves around Sol.
The truth also is that Sol is revolving around other objects in the Galaxy, which altogether (the Galaxy) is revolving around some unknown thing in and of itself (as far as we can tell.)
Re "Evolving". (Obituaries.)
I think that (in a similar manner) what we humans presume about the brain and consciousness has it that some "believe" that Consciousness "revolves" around Brain, while other "believe" Brain "revolves" around Consciousness.
At this point, there is no consensus (among the "believers") which is "real" due to the rather tricky undertaking for Consciousness to "prove" to "itself" that "it" is "Real".
Some "believers" claim that the bridge over the Void of Death is "out" (does not exist) and that is the end of "you" "forever" or "until "God" decides whether you "live" or "stay dead".
I guess "we" will cross that bridge if "we" come to it.
For now "we" are stuck with the data we do have available to "us"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roKV8XJHXKc
https://www.ted.com/talks/eleanor_longd ... anguage=en