-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Consciousness and the Soul
- Thread starter Silver Wolf
- Start date
'A burden of proof', you say. What do you propose they could do to 'prove' these deep metaphysical teachings?
They avoid nothing. There is no way to physically 'prove' what they are saying. My study of the paranormal leads me to logically conclude that there is much more to this universe than our known physical. As for an explanation on how all this fits into reality, I have seen nothing anywhere close to the worldview of Hindu-based thought in understanding this complex universe. Hence, it is my belief. It is also my belief that there are advanced souls on earth that can teach us things beyond our reach. I have studied many of these masters and believe the best of them to be absolutely genuine and not self-deluded or con-men. There are no proofs of anything. The masters I respect say the only proof is to experience for yourself. Many have done that but of course this can't be done in fifteen minutes. It can't take years or lifetimes to quiet the noise of the chattering mind.
Last edited:
How do orders given by Hitler to officials and carried out by highly trained operatives amount to a mob?
You argue that individual ants have minds. All are evidence suggests that they don't. We know how their nervous systems work. We can reproduce it precisely using formal models. We can do much better. We can reproduce the kind of "thought" that most animals on the planet are capable of using programs. And we have. Even for mammals, we can to some extent "program" their "minds" by inserting artificially created "memories" (see here).
That ants work like brains do. Individual parts (ants or neurons) obeying a few simple local rules can collectively experience the kind of learning most life on this is limited to when it comes to "thought".
Why is the answer to the first definitely no? Because we don't experience the physical processes that generate consciousness? Why should we? You've assumed in your argument that because we don't experience neurons firing consciousness isn't physical, but given no reason for this assumption. We experience proprioception (it feels as if our hands were touching, feet moving, etc., although in fact it is all signals processed in sensorimotor regions of the brain). We can experience pain in a foot that isn't there. We can be forced to experience or not experience memories and qualia through various types of stimulation and manipulation (electrical, magnetic, "physical", etc.).
We can even have subjects "see" something with an eye but not experience it consciously, yet still process the experience unconsciously and report what was seen even though they can't report that they saw it.
Clearly, there is a gap between what we experience and what we experience consciously, yet there is no reason to suppose that this necessitates that consciousness be nonphysical and good reason to suppose it needn't. The same things, like sight, that you experience consciously can be experienced unconsciously and sufficiently so such that you can e.g., be aware of the information you "saw" without knowing you saw it. The exact same process, the exact information transmitted, but all of the sudden the prevention of certain connections across hemispheres makes an conscious experience and unconscious one that you can talk about but you cannot determine why you can talk about it. So why assume, when we can make you experience things physically and make the same physical experiences be experienced unconsciously or consciously, that the mind is nonphysical? In particular, why should you experience it as physical if it is?
Finally, what could be done to falsify your claim? If it could not even in principle be falsified, then what merit lies in it?
Last edited:
nazz
Doubting Thomas
I'm no expert on that event but even if it were instigated it was still ultimately a mob action.
Not really. The only mind I know for sure exists is my own. But I make an assumption there are other minds like my own. I just see no good reason to assume that any living thing with a brain has no consciousness however primitive. But I am fascinated by the idea they might not.
I can't understand how we could.
I am sure that is true. I am sure we will soon have the technology, if we don't already have the rudiments of it, to produce androids that look and act just like human beings but have no interior experience. I can tell you with confidence that won't make me stop knowing I am a conscious being or even from believing other humans beings are as well.
Could be.
Just one scintilla of physical evidence.
We have probably reached that impasse I spoke of before. What is painfully self evident to me seems to be lost on others.
What amazes me is how someone could believe something physical exists without a single shred of physical evidence and yet reject the notion of God based on the exact same lack of physical evidence. But actually I can understand it because consciousness is something that cannot be denied to exist.
Ironically, the following quote:
"Many scientists are materialistic, do not believe in spirits or God, and insist that the mind is created by the laws of chemistry and physics. Such scientists gloss over the question of where do the laws of chemistry and physics come from. Such a belief system is biased, logically unwarranted and arrogant. Such scientists violate the true spirit of science. Scientists do not know everything, and they dont understand everything they think they know."
comes from
Klemm, W. R. (2011). Atoms of Mind: The Ghost in the Machine Materializes. Springer.
In other words, somehow who shares some of your sympathies started his own "quest to understand mind [and]...After considering leading alternative ideas, I now conclude that CIPs [circuit impulse patterns] must lie at the heart of what we call mind, whether such mind is non-conscious, subconscious, or conscious. The other theories of consciousness seem less defensible."
We have much more than that. Clearly, you don't think it is physical evidence. But I'm not sure why.
When we can identify neurophysiological activities that are merely correlations, not causally implicated in conscious activities, that's physical evidence. Neural correlates of consciousness are physical evidence, as correlation entails that either A causes B, B causes A, or C causes both. Logically, if a portion of the brain is correlated with (but not necessarily a cause of) some conscious experience, then there are only 3 options to explain this. Either the identified physical activities cause the conscious experiences, or the conscious experiences cause the physical activities, or something else causes both. The second option is out, because when the activities cease (via e.g., brain lesions or deliberate surgical severing of connecting brain regions) the conscious experiences cease. So we are left with correlation is in fact causation (or at least a partial cause) or that something else causes conscious experience and the physical correlations of it.
But if something else, something non-physical (like a soul) were causing the nonphysical conscious experience, why would we detect it physically and be able to both stimulate it and stop it physically? That is, if there were a "ghost in the machine", and if this "ghost" were capable of creating a conscious experience AND creating the physical correlates of it, why would it do this?
The reason "you can't have your cake and eat it too" is because naturally, if you have a cake, you can either continue to have it or eat it. If you truly want both, you have two buy two cakes, one just to "have". In this case, if there is a non-physical "mind" causing both the non-physical conscious experiences AND the physical correlates of it, then the correlates are entirely superfluous.
It's not supposed to. It's supposed to suggest that consciousness can be physical and that there is no reason to suppose that because it is we should experience as such.
Not instigated. Orders were passed on high to local commands to be carried out by highly trained SS and SA paramilitary units. They were careful to limit burnings to synagogues, killed only Jewish citizens, arrested something like 10x the number killed (when was the last time you saw a mob dragging people out of their homes under arrest?), destroyed Jewish shops, and displayed nothing characteristic of mobs. It was a very highly organized, efficient, controlled, ruthless massacre targeting Jews in Germany and carried out by some of the most efficient & feared operatives that ever existed.
Last edited:
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
Greetings, from the nightmarish loka of SW.
What is the relation, in your opinion, of the Consciousness and Soul. I've heard several people claim that consciousness is dependent on mind, which is dependent on body, but I'm not convinced.
I heard someone claim that the soul is just super-consciousnes, and that the body's mental/conscious states were mere manifestations of that single consciousness (could not find a link, sorry. :sorry1
How do you feel about the soul and it's relation to consciousness?
Where does the concept of a conscious part of man, that exists as something separate from the body and supposedly goes on existing...somewhere, (insert religious belief) come from? Surprises, surprise...it doesn't come from the Bible but is almost universally accepted by all other religions. Why do we think death doesn't really mean death?
In the Bible, Adam was not told that he would continue to exist; he was told that he would return to the dust at death. He was not told about heaven or hell...only life or death. (Gen 3:19)
The conscious self lives in the brain. When the brain dies, the other body organs follow...the person ceases to exist for the present. (Eccl 9:5, 6, 10)
Christ's death, however buys them another opportunity to live again, not by the continuance of an immortal soul, but by means of a resurrection. Jesus and his apostles demonstrated what a resurrection was....it was a return to life in the flesh; an awakening from a "sleep" and a reuniting with loved ones. (John 11:11)
Jesus will call the dead from their graves with both the righteous and the unrighteous given a second chance at life. (John 5:28, 29)
The soul is "you"; not something that just lives in your body that continues after death....that is what the Bible teaches.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Likewise I can't understand why others think it is. That is the impasse. And no amount of good argumentation ever changes anyone's mind.
No, not for consciousness. It's just evidence of neurophysiological activities, nothing more.
Correlation never implies causation. Your equation fails if A=rain dance, B=rain, and C=the hydrologic cycle. "A" can be correlated to "B" but can't be proven to be the causative agent, "B" obviously does not cause "A", and while "C" can be shown to cause "B" it does not cause "A".
I think I just disproved this above.
For the reasons above I don't think that follows. I do definitely think that your "A" can be a part of the causative process. I also think your "B" may cause some of "A". I don't see a need for a "C". My conjecture is that our conscious mental fields somehow react to the electromagnetic patterns in the brain.
Yes, when consciousness is embodied. But we don't know that consciousness can only exist in a body. A good analogy is this. Imagine a man living in a room with a window. He can watch the world go by through the window. But if you brick up the window he no longer can. However take the man outside and his view of the world is restored.
Well, there is a view in the philosophy of mind that posits just that. Actually if one takes a purely naturalistic view of mind it is consciousness itself which is superfluous!
That's not the conclusion I would draw from it (if it could definitely be shown to be the case). Rather it would show that a fully functioning but non-conscious nervous system is all some kinds of living things need to survive. It would actually lend weight to the argument that consciousness is superfluous and not the product of the brain.
You seem to know more about than I so I'll let that example go. However I think there are many cases of mob mentality that would illustrate my previous point.
It always entails causation. Drinking water is correlated with alcoholism. In fact, 100% of alcoholics drank water before becoming alcoholics. Why? Because everybody drinks water. Here, C is the reason for the correlation. A (water) doesn't cause B (alcoholism), because C (people drink water) causes both. That's just basic logic. Correlation is a necessary, but not sufficient, component of causation.
I gave no equation. It's simply basic logic. Correlation means that x cannot occur without y. The problem is that we don't know if this is because x causes y or y causes x or some z causes both. I think it best to make this clear before going on, as it is impossible to know your reasoning (or, perhaps, for me to understand it) without getting this straightened out.
Last edited:
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Drinking water causes alcoholism? How do you figure that?
There seems to be a semantic disconnect. Correlation just means two factors occur in tandem. There may be an actual connection or it may just appear there is when in reality it is merely coincidental. In some cases there may well be a "C" responsible for both A and B. To use an example from:
Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In a widely studied example, numerous epidemiological studies showed that women who were taking combined hormone replacement therapy (HRT) also had a lower-than-average incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), leading doctors to propose that HRT was protective against CHD. But randomized controlled trials showed that HRT caused a small but statistically significant increase in risk of CHD. Re-analysis of the data from the epidemiological studies showed that women undertaking HRT were more likely to be from higher socio-economic groups (ABC1), with better-than-average diet and exercise regimens. The use of HRT and decreased incidence of coronary heart disease were coincident effects of a common cause (i.e. the benefits associated with a higher socioeconomic status), rather than cause and effect, as had been supposed
But in many cases there is not (as in my example of the rain dance, rain, and the hydrologic cycle). Again from the same site:
For any two correlated events A and B, the following relationships are possible:
You were leaving out the last possibility.- A causes B;
- B causes A;
- A and B are consequences of a common cause, but do not cause each other;
- There is no connection between A and B; the correlation is coincidental.
In the case of physical interactions occurring in the brain and conscious experience it can't be shown if there is an actual connection or mere coincidence. One could posit there is something responsible for both but this is unnecessary. We clearly already know what causes at least some of the physical interactions in the brain. We just don't know how consciousness arises.
Last edited:
No. It's correlated. There are three "causal" options to explain a correlation (a non-causal relationship that entails causation) such as the fact that drinking water is correlated with alcoholism.
1) Drinking water causes alcoholism
2) Alcoholism causes people to drink water
Neither one of these is true. The last option is
3) something else causes both.
This is true. Every person drinks water, alcoholics are people, ergo alcoholics drink water. Similarly:
"When we ask whether a relationship is causal, it is important to consider what the quoted word is intended to contrast withwhat other kind of relation are we trying to distinguish from those that are causal? One important contrast is with relationships that are merely correlational. The relationship between barometer readings B and occurrence/non-occurrence S of storms is merely correlational rather than causal; neither B nor S causes the other; instead both are effects of a common cause (atmospheric pressure)."
Hoerl, C., McCormack, T., & Beck, S. R. (Eds.). (2011). Understanding counterfactuals, understanding causation: Issues in philosophy and psychology. Oxford University Press.
It's why smoking doesn't cause cancer, it is simply correlated with it. Of course, by correlated here we mean that smoking causes your chances of getting cancer increases vastly. But it does not technically cause cancer as not everyone who smokes gets it.
"if events of type A, say, are more likely to occur given events of type B than in the absence of events of type B, and if the explanation of this is not that events of type A are caused by events of type B, or vice versa, then there must be some third type of event say, C such that events of type C cause both events of type A and events of type B."
Dowe, P., & Noordhof, P. (2004). Cause and chance: Causation in an indeterministic world. Routledge.
It doesn't. Whether one approaches causation from a chance-raising framework, counterfactual definiteness, possible worlds, etc., correlation remains as a way to determine causal factors. If event A always occurs (or, from a statistical standpoint, does so a statistically significant amount of the time) in tandem with event B, then either one causes the other or something else causes both. Every time someone is shot with a bullet there's a gun that fired it. Every time something falls there's a gravitational-like force pulling matter towards the Earth (or some other planet or moon or whatever). When a red light appears, cars tend to stop (correlation). Why? Because the drivers know that they are supposed and usually decide to do so. They don't have to (the red light doesn't cause the driver to stop). But they tend to. Events that occur in tandem like this, especially those which always occur in tandem (as with brain lesions or severing connections and the inevitable lack of ability for particular perceptual experiences), entail a causal relationship. And there are only three options.
Coincidental is just a way around alpha levels. In correlational studies, given certain assumptions (most of which are incorrect most of the time, such as the assumption of a normal distribution and ignoring how arbitrary departures from normality can vastly skew correlational results), we can say what the probability is that the observed "strength" of a relationship between variables is due to chance. Take all double-blind placebo-based studies of medications. One group gets the real meds, another group doesn't, and nobody (including those giving out the meds) knows which except the people running the experiment. Not everybody will respond equally. More importantly, even if everybody improves, there is always a chance that the results are due to some other unknown factor (like the placebo effect, particularly where psychopharmaceuticals are concerned). So if the placebo didn't work, and the drug did, it could be a pure coincidence explained by e.g., the fact that the placebo group was comparatively "immune" to placebo effects, or that the test group was highly susceptible to placebo effects, or both. But the "coincidence" is only a coincidence in that we don't know the 3rd cause C that explains the relationship and because it appears to have occurred coincidently rather than that the expected cause explains the correlation. In reality, it's still a third cause C.
Precisely. Coincidence still implies a common cause.
And when you show that the rain dance occurs a statistically significant amount of the time in tandem with rain, then we'd need to look for a common cause.
The last possibility was defined in that same site as being "coincident" due to a "common cause". The coincidence part is merely a subjective evaluation due to expected results that weren't achieved via the expected causal variables and despite an observed high correlation. Basically, it means "there's a common cause but we don't know what".
1) There's no such thing as mere coincidence, even in an indeterministic world. Probabilistically, we can be highly certain of a great many imperfect correlations.
2) We're not dealing with imperfect correlations. We're not talking about the possibility that X disorder will result in a lapse of motor control or that Y stimulation will tend to result in a perceptual experience. We're talking about perfect 1:1 correlations. Prevent the hemispheres from communicating and you will get X result. Lesion this brain region and you will likewise prevent some conscious experience Y.
That coincidence stuff is even in your source explained by a "common cause".
Last edited:
I don't have much hallucinogenic experience but I think that a sane person can tell the difference between a hallucinogenic experience from the reality. At least he can tell that "I had a hallucinogenic experience" or "I had a dream last night". This means that he knows that his hallucinogenic experience or dream is not or may not be a reality.
One can tell such a difference because in reality things are continuous, you won't go to a spot at a moment and another spot the next moment. You stay at the same spot all the times unless you decide to leave that spot. In reality you can get the visual details of your environment, while in a dream you cannot. All these allow you to tell the difference between a dream (or perhaps a hallucination) and the reality. If by this standard and by the best judgement of a sane person after the experience, he can't distinguish whether it's a dream or a reality. Then it bears a chance that it is an experience about a reality rather than a dream (or hallucination). Say, you take drug you feel high and you fly. But when you go back to reality afterwards, most likely you can tell that it's not an experience of the reality, but a dream of some kind.
Soul can be considered as a parallel processor lies on the plane of another space. This space somehow "overlaps" with our physical 3-D environment. In Jewish wording this space is called Sheol. And one (his soul) will descend there naturally after death. It is possible that our physical brain cannot operate by itself without the soul. But the soul can operate by itself without the brain. They both work as one till the moment of your death. Your body and soul may not be separated before the flying out of the spirit. The spirit is more like a lock between the soul and the body. Even after the flying out of the spirit, your soul may still find it difficult to get out of the body. They simply stick to each other and the body will try to drag the soul back to its position. The senses of seeing, hearing and touching will remain (no information about tasting and smelling yet).
Out of body experiences are usually not true experience as it may not be possible for the soul to be separated from the body before the flying out of the spirit (which only occurs at the moment of death). Such a kind of experience can be manifested or induced by external elements (say, by the evil spirits) when the soul slightly skews a bit from the body in a particular way. This can also be practised. Some Buddhists practice this to obtain the out of body or supernatural experience. This however by no means says that the soul is truly going out of the body. This skew can also occur to a person who doesn't have a good health, especially mentally speaking. Under the status, he may "see ghosts", because the skew of soul from body causing a kind of "leakage" which allows him to have a kind of contact to the "outside world" (spiritual beings in Sheol). As long as one has such a "leakage", beings of the out side world (mostly evil spirits from Sheol) will try to manifest all kinds of "experience" on him.
Similarly, such a kind of skew/leakage can also occur to certain children (leakage is due to the soul and body not 100% well combined in one way or another). As a result, those evil spirits in Sheol may have a chance to manipulate, manifest or induce an incarnation memory (say, they tell their own experience before their death to the children for them to memorize).
That's my study result, the 2 cents.
One can tell such a difference because in reality things are continuous, you won't go to a spot at a moment and another spot the next moment. You stay at the same spot all the times unless you decide to leave that spot. In reality you can get the visual details of your environment, while in a dream you cannot. All these allow you to tell the difference between a dream (or perhaps a hallucination) and the reality. If by this standard and by the best judgement of a sane person after the experience, he can't distinguish whether it's a dream or a reality. Then it bears a chance that it is an experience about a reality rather than a dream (or hallucination). Say, you take drug you feel high and you fly. But when you go back to reality afterwards, most likely you can tell that it's not an experience of the reality, but a dream of some kind.
Soul can be considered as a parallel processor lies on the plane of another space. This space somehow "overlaps" with our physical 3-D environment. In Jewish wording this space is called Sheol. And one (his soul) will descend there naturally after death. It is possible that our physical brain cannot operate by itself without the soul. But the soul can operate by itself without the brain. They both work as one till the moment of your death. Your body and soul may not be separated before the flying out of the spirit. The spirit is more like a lock between the soul and the body. Even after the flying out of the spirit, your soul may still find it difficult to get out of the body. They simply stick to each other and the body will try to drag the soul back to its position. The senses of seeing, hearing and touching will remain (no information about tasting and smelling yet).
Out of body experiences are usually not true experience as it may not be possible for the soul to be separated from the body before the flying out of the spirit (which only occurs at the moment of death). Such a kind of experience can be manifested or induced by external elements (say, by the evil spirits) when the soul slightly skews a bit from the body in a particular way. This can also be practised. Some Buddhists practice this to obtain the out of body or supernatural experience. This however by no means says that the soul is truly going out of the body. This skew can also occur to a person who doesn't have a good health, especially mentally speaking. Under the status, he may "see ghosts", because the skew of soul from body causing a kind of "leakage" which allows him to have a kind of contact to the "outside world" (spiritual beings in Sheol). As long as one has such a "leakage", beings of the out side world (mostly evil spirits from Sheol) will try to manifest all kinds of "experience" on him.
Similarly, such a kind of skew/leakage can also occur to certain children (leakage is due to the soul and body not 100% well combined in one way or another). As a result, those evil spirits in Sheol may have a chance to manipulate, manifest or induce an incarnation memory (say, they tell their own experience before their death to the children for them to memorize).
That's my study result, the 2 cents.
Last edited:
nazz
Doubting Thomas
OK, I'd rather not quibble over semantics. I'm willing to acquiesce to a definition of correlation as event A always or almost always occurs in conjunction with event B. However I cannot agree that if A does not cause B, and B does not cause A, then there must be a C that is responsible for both. Your example...
As I said in the case of the physical activities of the brain we know that a stimulus results in a neural cascade the path of which we can physically trace so the stimulus is the cause of that. It's simple action and reaction. But that does not mean neural activity cannot be caused by something else nor does it follow that conscious experience is also caused by that same stimulus without any other causal factors involved. There doesn't need to be a cause C for both A (physical activity in the brain and B (conscious experience). A may be caused by C and B by D.
Now other than mentioning it could be mere coincidence (I can't rule that out) I've never suggested that neural activity has nothing at all to do with conscious experience. Just that it is insufficient in explaining conscious experience.
...does not follow. There is not "something else" which causes both water drinking and alcoholism. People drink water because they are thirsty (or they might drink other liquids in attempt to satisfy their thirst including alcohol). But people become alcoholics for a variety of complex reasons. There is no common cause of water drinking and alcoholism. All alcoholics drink water but not all water drinkers become alcoholics.
As I said in the case of the physical activities of the brain we know that a stimulus results in a neural cascade the path of which we can physically trace so the stimulus is the cause of that. It's simple action and reaction. But that does not mean neural activity cannot be caused by something else nor does it follow that conscious experience is also caused by that same stimulus without any other causal factors involved. There doesn't need to be a cause C for both A (physical activity in the brain and B (conscious experience). A may be caused by C and B by D.
Now other than mentioning it could be mere coincidence (I can't rule that out) I've never suggested that neural activity has nothing at all to do with conscious experience. Just that it is insufficient in explaining conscious experience.
Last edited:
FranklinMichaelV.3
Well-Known Member
I don't think he's saying it's a cause, he's saying that there is a correlation between drinking water and alcoholism. The correlation stands true that all people who are alcoholics also drink water. So there's a correlation between drinking water and alcoholism the strength of that correlation will vary given the other factors that come into play.
It's not really semantics at all. One of the most famous mathematical proofs in physics is Bell's inequality, which is (trivially) a proof that if particular measurements on a physical system are made such that particular correlations between particle spins are found, then either locality or realism must be sacrificed to explain it. Such results were found first by Aspect et al. in 1982, and currently the majority of quantum physicists, theoretical physicists, cosmologists, particle physicists, etc., accept nonlocality. The relevant point is that Bell provided a mathematical framework to show that if particular correlations between space-like separated particles occurred, then the only possible explanations are
1) throw realism out the window (unnecessarily)
2) realize that locality is not an option (arguably, this is true for classical physics as well)
The reason it is possible to mathematically show what can and cannot be argued about the results is because for any correlation there must be a common cause. Technically, of course, there is never really one cause, we must distinguish between proximal and distal causes, we must take into account sufficient causes vs. necessary causes, etc. Cause and effect isn't straightforward. But the entire logical behind correlations is that of possibility raising. Given X occurs, we're more likely to find that Y occurs. There is a logical connection between these two events.
Even for "pure" coincidences, like the fact that I happen to put my hat down the moment the light went out, there are arguably common causes. However, those are single events and they aren't correlated. Me putting my hat down doesn't make it more likely that the lights will turn off. I can test this by putting it down again. Same with a rain dance.
I'll try to make this simple but clear (difficult to do without math). In probability and statistics we have dependent events (both weak and strong) and independent. A simple example of dependent is the probability that, having picked an ace out of a deck of cards, you will get another ace on the second pick. The reason it's dependent is because after picking one ace you now have changed both the number of cards and the number of aces, changing the probability space (your chances). Contrast this with an easy example of independent probabilities: flipping a fair coin. Each flip is totally independent of the flip before it. If I get "heads" one flip, I know nothing about what my next flip will be.
But what if the coin weren't fair? What if it were weighted such that the probability of getting heads were 3x that of tails? How would I know? Well, if the events are totally unconnected, then I don't expect that the flips will show any correlations. Each one should be completely independent of the others. Every single coin toss should have a 50/50 chance. Clearly, however, if I flip the weighted coin twice and get HH (two heads) I haven't shown anything. What if I flip it 100 times? The actual math gets more interesting here (combinatorics), but intuitively the more we flip a fair coin, the more we'd expect the sequence to approximate half H's and half T's. We can calculate this probability exactly. The better thing to do would actually be to use the average result of sequences of length 10 or so. Mathematically, this rushes off towards the expected distribution much faster as the results from each sequence are combined, but because I deliberately chose an event with only two possible outcomes, the difference isn't great enough to make it worth delving into why we might be better of using another method.
The main point is that, if after 10, 100, & finally 1,000 tosses of a coin, I consistently get close to if not exactly 3x as many heads as tails, it's not a fair coin. The events are not independent. It's not that one flip causes or influences another. Rather, every single toss is affected by something that connects them all: the weight that make the coin unfair. After each coin toss, the correlation between the entire sequence and any future sequence grows stronger and stronger until the two sequences are equal. Again, we can calculate exactly what the odds are for this being true at every single point in a given sequence.
That's because correlation isn't equal to causation. It doesn't mean that it doesn't entail causation. In fact, correlation is a necessary condition for causation. It isn't a sufficient condition, as the correlation would have to be perfect and there are lots of correlations that aren't. If I know someone is an alcoholic, can I say something about whether they drink water? Yes. Why? Because they are human. Only humans are alcoholics and humans drink water. What about the reverse? Yes again, only with much less certainty. So much less that it's a worthless measure, because the probability that the following is true,
If someone drinks water, that someone is an alcoholic
for any person X is equal to the number of people who are alcoholics over the number of total people. In other words, it's no different than
If someone is a person, that someone is an alcoholic
I can perfectly predict the odds that for any person who drinks water, that person is an alcoholic so long as I know the number of total people and alcoholics. Why? Because being human is the cause of both drinking water and alcoholism. Are there multiple causes? Of course. Should we distinguish between proximal and distal causes? Yes. But none of this matters. What matters is the logic of correlation: if event X is more likely to happen given event Y, there must be a reason. Just like the "fair" coin toss. Each toss should be totally uncorrelated with every other toss, and thus long sequences should approximate 50/50.
The problem with correlations like that between water and being an alcoholic or with coin tosses of a weighted coin is that you're really dealing with probabilities. I can't say that a coin is unfair just because the probability that I got 3x more heads after n tosses is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. Those are astronomically small odds, but not impossible odds. The brain is different:
I give you special glasses to put on such that I can show something to you that you will only see with one eye. For the sake of example, we'll just say that rather than having to cut your head open and separate hemispheres our ability to magnetically alter neural activity is so great that I can ensure your hemispheres cannot communicate using a harmless procedure. Before I do this, I show you an apple and you tell me you see it. You observe it and consciously experience what you observe. Then I start my harmless version of what we can do now but not harmlessly: I ensure certain regions of your brain don't connect, and I show you the a banana. This time you don't know that you see it. Your visual system is unable to communicate with the necessary cortical regions, but it does communicate to your brain and you are able to tell me about the banana, although you don't know why. If I ask why, you'll make up a story (possibly about being hungry, or possibly you'll say that you had a banana for breakfast, or just about anything that will satisfy you). Because you don't have any idea why I can make you think about a banana, orange, apple, scissors, pencil, and so on. This could go on all day and you would continue identifying what you were shown without knowing why and making up a story instead.
You cannot ever consciously experience what you see in the eye I'm showing. This isn't just that the odds are small, or the probability that it is due to chance grows smaller. There are no sequences, no large proportion of people for whom this doesn't hold true (as with water drinkers who aren't alcoholics). It's just like removing any connection between your nervous systems and your legs. Unless there is some way for the signals to get your legs moving, they won't ever move.
Why is it, then, that I can stop a conscious experience you have by making physical changes, and do so in such a way that you can continue to unconsciously experience what you perceived consciously only a moment ago? That is a causal connection, not just a correlation. If I do X, Y happens. If I sever these connections, you are no longer able to experience these perceptions consciously. If I reconnect them, you are. There is a 1-to-1 cause/effect relationship here.
You said that any evidence to the contrary would be enough to convince you. Hence the discussion about correlations. You said that these connections between the physical and conscious weren't evidence. I'm claiming that even correlations would entail causation.
Last edited:
nazz
Doubting Thomas
I don't think those are the only options. Those are merely the only options if one wants to explain such things naturalistically. Of course I would argue what "naturalistic" even means when the parameters of classical physics break down.
In any event I did mention quantum entanglement earlier as a good analogy for the possible brain/mind connection. But I pointed out that in that scenario we are still dealing with physical objects. In the case brain/mind we are dealing with physical/nonphysical interactions. A whole other ball of wax.
So what? I think I've already addressed this sufficiently. To summarize my position again there are two possibilities:
1.Brain and mind are not really connected but only appear to be
2. Brain and mind are connected such as brain activity is reflected in conscious experience
I know of no way to rule out option one. Do you? Can you think of a scenario in which option one could be true? I can. It would certainly be bizarre but bizarreness is not justification to discount it.
If option two is correct than brain activity is only one part of the entire causal process which produces conscious experience. This I take to be an undeniable fact and I think I have sufficiently explained why I take that position.
The truth is I don't know and neither do you. No one does. All we can do is speculate.
No, it is not proof or even evidence of a causal connection. Only potential evidence. One would have to be able to identity the causal mechanism to have a case and this can't be shown.
Ignoring consciousness and widening this to anything at all, how would one demonstrate evidence of a causal connection? If I do some action X, and always get event Y, most would say "that's causation". You apparently do not think so. So what would be?
nazz
Doubting Thomas
To prove causation you must explain how X causes Y.
By that logic, we can't prove that when we hold an object, and then drop it, there exists anything that causes it to crash on the floor/ground. Gravity is one of the unsolved problems in physics, and currently not only does the GTR have internal inconsistencies, there is no agreed upon consistent version compatible with quantum physics. We can't prove that the heart causes blood to flow through veins, we can't prove that sexual intercourse causes childbirth (after all, it's only a correlation), we can't prove that anything causes cancer, etc. In fact, given that quantum mechanics is a formalism that corresponds to physical "reality" in some unknown way, we can't say that anything causes anything.
However, I asked "how would one demonstrate evidence of a causal connection?" (emphasis added), not how would one prove. You said there was not even evidence, not that there was simply no proof.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
That's not true at all. We can observe a heart pumping blood, we understand and can explain the sexual reproduction process, we know what factors can contribute to cancer, etc.
Sexual reproduction is a good example to illustrate what I mean actually. You start with a correlation: pregnancy occurring after sexual intercourse. It doesn't happen all the time but often enough to explore the correlation as possibly causal. But it takes describing the process of insemination to demonstrate the causal connection.
Similar to evolutionary theory. Just having something like shared genes doesn't prove common descent (as creationists will be quick to remind). But explaining evolutionary process occurring by means of natural selection of beneficial genetic mutation, genetic drift, etc, provides a means of explaining the process in causal ways.
Basically what I am saying is that causation is clearly established when one demonstrates a process sufficient to explain the resulting phenomena.
Gravity is a little different because for one thing although it could be classed as "physical" it is not matter or energy. I think it would not be a stretch to call it a nonphysical force which acts upon physical objects. So in a sense similar to mind.
I was using "prove" in a colloquial sense. "Demonstrate" might be a better word.
We can observe the brain working during consciousness, and we understand how certain factors contribute to consciousness better than we do many factors contributing to cancer. But we can not show how either "work".
I don't see how this is different than doing the same for a conscious process like seeing. We find not only that a brain regions aren't just active when you describe an object that you see, but also that we can guarantee 100% (unlike with sexual intercourse and pregnancy) that when we prevent these areas from communicating with others identified as necessary to process visual stimuli subjects universally can experience seeing something but not realize that they see it. We can conscious experiences on or off disconnecting, lesioning, or altering via e.g., electrical fields particular parts of the brain. We can describe how these conscious experiences word physically much the same way we can reproduction. However, as we are currently unable to explain how a single cell is capable of doing what it does, we are limited to imperfect explanations in both cases.
The way we do this is the same for demonstrating that certain brain regions are responsible for conscious processes. In fact, in most cases evolutionary theory can't be tested in the same way, as we require proxy observations to stand in for the tens of thousands of years it can take for populations to exhibit significant genetic changes.
Yes, but we've done this with conscious experiences. That's how we know how to manipulate conscious processes: cause and effect. What we lack are complete explanations, but we lack these for living systems in general (not to mention things like gravity).
Gravity is spacetime curvature. However, currently there is no agreed upon theory unifying gravity (general relativity) and quantum physics.
I figured that. We don't prove anything in sciences except insofar as we do so mathematically. That's where proofs exist: mathematics. So I assumed you meant the term colloquially.