epiphenomenalism and dual aspect theory

[Wyman]

In another thread, I asked Gingko about scientific explanations of consciousness. Since that would be off topic for that thread, I am starting this one.

Gingko (and anyone else who wishes to respond), what are epiphenomenalism and dual aspect theory?

[Greylorn Ell]

In another thread, I asked Gingko about scientific explanations of consciousness. Since that would be off topic for that thread, I am starting this one.

Gingko (and anyone else who wishes to respond), what are epiphenomenalism and dual aspect theory?

If you are too dumb to open a dictionary link or see what Wikipedia has to say on these topics, you are incapable of discussing them competently. So ignore such issues and find a nice comic book forum if you need to express in public whatever passes in your mind for thought.

Thank you,
Anyone Else

[Wyman]

I was trying to start a discussion about current theories of consciousness. I tried to lure gingko into it because I find that he is intelligent and knowledgeable. In that regard, I will direct a question to you when I feel like discussing space aliens.

[Ginkgo]

In another thread, I asked Gingko about scientific explanations of consciousness. Since that would be off topic for that thread, I am starting this one.

Gingko (and anyone else who wishes to respond), what are epiphenomenalism and dual aspect theory?

Epiphenomenalism is a materialistic theory of consciousness.It is popular when it comes to scientific explanations for consciousness. The theory basially claims that our thought and feelings are not just physical states in our brain, instead they are seen to be by-products of the neurological function. A bit like claiming smoke is a by-product of fire.

It fits in with modern scientific explanations of consciousness because it see consciousness as simply a secondary process of the physical events. Prinz and Dennett would say that consciousness is "delivered" to us. I don't particularly like this because it gives the impression that we are just helpless spectators when it comes to our thoughts.

[Ginkgo]

Dual-aspect theory claims that mind and body are both attributes of the one entity. In Spinoza's case, it was substance or nature. The mental and physical worlds are both aspects of the one substance or entity. Spinoza would say that there is no influence between one and the other, rather there exists a type of parallelism.

The relationship between this theory and modern scientific explanations is obviously a very long bow to draw, if not impossible. In my opinion (others may disagree) this idea eventually led to materialistic emergentism. Basically this idea says that consciousness is an emergent property of complexity. In other words, build a complex enough machine or brain, then you will find it becomes conscious.

We can see that this idea also sits well with the idea of consciousness being a secondary product of the processes going on inside the machine or brain. As I said before, I don't particularly like these ideas because they give the impression that consciousness is a bit of an illusion. But that's just me.

[Impenitent]

ask yourself, if the "mind" was not directly connected to the brain, why do lobotomies work?

-Imp

[Greylorn Ell]

I was trying to start a discussion about current theories of consciousness. I tried to lure gingko into it because I find that he is intelligent and knowledgeable. In that regard, I will direct a question to you when I feel like discussing space aliens.

Fine, but only if you do some research on them beforehand. Reading comic books and watching sci-fi stuff on TV doesn't count.

I've used lures to catch fish, rodents, and flies. "Luring" a human being seems a bit snarky, unless you're running a prostitution ring or con game. If you want to engage someone in a conversation, why not work up enough integrity to ask him a straight-up question?

[Wyman]

why not work up enough integrity to ask him a straight-up question?

How much more straight-up can I be, when I say:

I asked Gingko about scientific explanations of consciousness. Since that would be off topic for that thread, I am starting this one.

Gingko (and anyone else who wishes to respond), what are epiphenomenalism and dual aspect theory?

Anyway, enough of that crap.

As for Epiphenominalism, I see the distinguishing characteristic of ep(it's such an obnoxious word, it needs abbreviation) is not so much that the brain causes consciousness, but that consciousness, in turn, has no causal efficacy whatsoever. The causation is a one way street.

That the brain causes consciousness is fairly uncontroversial (except to certain spiritual types). The brain is a platform for consciousness, as Imp points out.

Materialism requires that everything have a physical cause. So far, so good, since the brain is the physical cause of consciousness.

From here, I get confused. Do they think consciousness is 'not physical' or 'physical'? What does 'physical' mean here? Are they dualists?

I can't help but think of Plato's analogy of the soul to the harmony produced by the lyre in the Pheado. When the lyre is destroyed, so is the music it produces.

But music can be thought of as physical sound waves which are certainly causally efficacious. Or, it can be thought of as the 'qualia' - or finished product - of the interpretive, percipient listener. And then round the circle we go - for then do the sound waves 'cause' the listener to hum along and think happy thoughts, or does the qualia? In the brain/qualia context, do the neural firings tell the whole causal story?

Does ep break this circle, or even attempt to?

[henry quirk]

Seems to me: mind (a recursive process) only happens in material of a particular composition and complexity (a brain embedded in a body).

That is: substance comes first; peculiar process within the substance comes second.

Have I described "epiphenomenalism"?

If so: not seein' how 'mind' being the product (on-going process) of the brain makes any one "just (a) helpless spectator when it comes to (his or her) thoughts".

As usual (it seems to me) language is getting in the way instead clearing the path.

Consider 'mind' as (cluster of on-going) processes (not a thing to be teased out and examined); consider that a person 'thinks' (an on-going process), he or she doesn't have 'thoughts' (things).

Viewed this way, a person can conclude that he or she is not riding around in a meat car but 'is' the meat car, 'is' the brain (embedded in a body). That is: 'you' (as 'I', as 'self') are the totality of processes occurring within a discrete mass of particular and peculiar composition and complexity, and, that said totality of process is an irrevocable function of that particular and peculiar composition and complexity.

Not seein' why this isn't obvious or why it may be considered controversial or debatable.

[Wyman]

That is: substance comes first; peculiar process within the substance comes second.

Have I described "epiphenomenalism"?

I think they would say that, in addition, the processes cannot causally influence the substance. They only seem to influence the substance, but that is an illusion. Only physical things can have causal efficacy per materialism.

The problem is, that it really, really 'seems' that the mind influences the body's activities. So much so that I think it used to be a reductio ad absurdum argument against materialism. So they admit there are such things as your 'processes,' but they are impotent, ineffective things like steam whistles attached to a locomotive.

I'm not sure (and I think this is also where you are perplexed) exactly why they feel the need to admit that these processes are separate 'things' at all. It has something to do with bats and raw feels and qualia I think.

[jackles]

what ever happens to the brain inside consciousness the consciousiness of its self exists independent of the brain. and so is undamagable.the brain is damagable consciousness is undamagable.

[henry quirk]

"I think they would say that, in addition, the processes cannot causally influence the substance"

Which, again, is (I think) language gettin' in the way.

Obviously, if the process is integral to the substance (not isolatable from the substance) then to talk about the 'non-causative-ness' of the process is silly (cuz the process is what the substance does).

Up-thread Ginkgo wrote "A bit like claiming smoke is a by-product of fire"...as it pertains to 'processes not causally influencing the substance' Ginkgo's bit brings to my mind this analogy: fire (a process) consumes the wood (affects the substance) even as the fire (a process) extends out from the wood (the substance).

The wood 'does' fire and the fire affects the wood.

The two, wood and fire (substance and process), are intertwined.

Wood can 'be' without fire, but fire certainly 'needs' wood (or some other combustible) and when fire is 'being done' it always affects the combustible.

'Body-Brain' and 'Mind', I think, is a comparable relationship.

[Wyman]

Wood can 'be' without fire, but fire certainly 'needs' wood (or some other combustible) and when fire is 'being done' it always affects the combustible.

'Body-Brain' and 'Mind', I think, is a comparable relationship.

'Combustion' is a concept, or description of a process. 'Combustion' does not exist by itself out in the world as a physical thing - it is a concept, a descriptive concept.

Fire and smoke are physical things with physical effects. Fire (radiation) burns and smoke irritates the lungs.

If consciousness is merely a concept, then talking about its efficacy is a category mistake, like saying that combustion burns your skin if you get too close to it.

Ep seems to me to say that consciousness is more than a concept (like combustion). It is thing in the world, like fire, smoke and train whistles. But it is a special sort of thing that has no causal effects. Therefore, I suppose, one cannot measure it (with what, a non-physical instrument?)

Gingko seemed to say in the posts where this conversation began, that ep was something of a scientific theory and testable. I don't see it, since it is not testable.

[Impenitent]

meat cars die

imagined drivers of meat cars can live forever in heaven or hell so obey the priest

but god is dead...

-Imp

[HexHammer]

what are epiphenomenalism and dual aspect theory?

1) why don't you look it up youself?!?
2) do you really think anyone would be able to convey the information 100%??
3) there's always a tiny loss in the quality of information.
4) now you pose the risk of conveying wrong information.
5) this is why cozy chatters fail at jobs, as they want everything served to them, instead of looking for info themselves.