Is there a GOD? Or a continuous recycle process of life? Or does everything cease to exist in death? (paradise, Buddhism)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Repeat after me. Correlation does not imply causation, Correlation does not imply causation, Correlation does not imply causation, Correlation does not imply causation, Correlation does not imply causation,
You have just committed the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely.
Are you not tired of being knocked off your high horse, over and over and over and over. Repeat after me, correlation can be evidence of causation, science depends on this. Do you really want to imply for the second time that science does not exist?
NOT ONCE HAVE I SAID CORRELATION PROVES CAUSATION. I HAVE SAID IT IS EVIDENCE. Do you understand the difference yet, after having this explained to you how many times now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
I'm not asking you to post scientific evidence. I'm asking you to post where Christoph von der Malsburg states from his own mouth that he believes that consciousness is created by the brain. Oh yea that's right you can't post that because HE NEVER SAID IT and he does not know if it does.
That is correct, you do refuse to investigate yourself. I have done this work, and part of my work depends on it. I am not going to spoon feed you any more. So quit with this well known dodge. If you do not have the courtesy to investigate my claims as I did yours, it just proves you are dishonest.
And even if I did, you would just misrepresent this like you did the last two papers.
What is even more laughable, if the neurobiologist (big clue in that word) Christoph von der Malsburg does not believe this, why did he create a company to study aspects of consciousness in the brain?
consciousness noun
2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind
ALL brain functions. Unless you want to argue they come from somewhere else. The elbow, perhaps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Well you posted earlier supposed evidence that awareness and consciousiness go hand in hand. According to your evidence without awareness, you cannot have consciousness. So if starfish are not conscious how do they operate without having awareness?
Starfish do have primitive awareness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
This is not a good theory.
It is the only one we have good evidence for, despite your assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
It is not conclusive evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain but since you are such an expert in this, claim to know that consciousness is created in the brain and have already found solid evidence that proves your point then we should probably just stop this dialogue now.
Yes, I have highlighted where you have straw manned my argument. Once again you go from evidence to proof. This can only be deliberate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
You are basically saying that you are smarter and know more about the subject than all the geniuses out there. Even smarter than geniuses like Mathematical physicist Roger Penrose who has openly said many times he does not understand consciousness and how it was created. You must be truly brilliant to know more about his subject than Roger Penrose, yet you have done no work of your own on this subject. I am amazed that you are smarter than all the geniuses out there that still do not understand where consciousness comes from.
Once again you repeat this lie. Once again, I am taking much of my information from these experts. And my work confirms their findings, despite you somehow 'knowing' that I "have done no work of your own on this subject". That is how I make some of my money. Modelling certain aspects of consciousness. Actually many industries do this to some extent, despite you saying this should not be possible. Google would be surprised at all the work they have not done on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Ahh but they do share my view. Pinker quote on quote from his mouth said “Beats the heck out of me. I have some prejudices, but no idea of how to begin to look for a defensible answer. And neither does anyone else." When he was asked on how consciousness might arise from something physical, such as the brain.
Hmm seems to me that Pinker agrees with my view point that no one knows exactly where consciousness comes from.
Another quote out of context. Let Hofmann (Conscious Realism and the Mind-Body Problem, Donald D. Hoffman 2008) explain.
As McGinn (1989) puts it, “WE know that brains are the de facto causal basis of consciousness, but we have, it seems, no understanding whatever of how this can be so.” Pinker (1997) agrees. After asking how conscious experience arises from physical systems he answers (Pinker 1997, pp. 146–147): Beats the heck out of me. I have some prejudices, but no idea of how to begin to look for a defensible answer. And neither does anyone else. The computational theory of mind offers no insight; neither does any finding in neuroscience, once you clear up the usual confusion of sentience with access and self-knowledge.
Note how Pinker agrees with McGinn? And note how McGinn says consciousness is a product of the brain? And Pinker agrees with this? Despite you saying NO ONE says this? Then who are the WE?
And note how you misrepresented what Pinker was talking about? Not where it comes from, but how it arises.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Quote from John Eccles:
“We regard promissory materialism as superstition without a rational foundation. The more we discover about the brain, the more clearly do we distinguish between the brain events and the mental phenomena, and the more wonderful do both the brain events and the mental phenomena become. Promissory materialism is simply a religious belief held by dogmatic materialists . . . who often confuse their religion with their science.”
By his open criticism of the physical narrative he is agreeing with my view point.
And what site did you copy that out of context phrase from? Note the '...'? Typical signal for quote mining. You could of course look at his work as a neurophysiologist (big clue in that word), where he separates consciousness from the physical, but never from the brain. Much like a computer and a program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Richard Feynman openly said “What is time? We physicists work with it every day, but don’t ask me what it is. It’s just too difficult to think about.”
He agrees with my view point on immortality.
Your non sequitur has nothing to do with our discussion.
But as you said earlier that if we have "already found solid evidence that proves your point then we should probably just stop this dialogue now", then the quote of McGann by Hofmann that Pinker agrees with means we can now end this interesting sub thread and get back on topic. Thank you for playing, but next time:
1) stop inventing,
2) stop misrepresenting, and
3) do your homework first.
You have just committed the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely.
Are you not tired of being knocked off your high horse, over and over and over and over. Repeat after me, correlation can be evidence of causation, science depends on this. Do you really want to imply for the second time that science does not exist?
NOT ONCE HAVE I SAID CORRELATION PROVES CAUSATION. I HAVE SAID IT IS EVIDENCE. Do you understand the difference yet, after having this explained to you how many times now?
You don't have to say correlation proves causation for me to see that is what you are implying. I did not dismiss correlation entirely. Correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other. There is a lot more to proving causation than a simple correlation or relationship between two things. I'm implying that the causes require more investigation. Everything in your view apparently is a closed shut case.
Quote:
That is correct, you do refuse to investigate yourself. I have done this work, and part of my work depends on it. I am not going to spoon feed you any more. So quit with this well known dodge. If you do not have the courtesy to investigate my claims as I did yours, it just proves you are dishonest.
And even if I did, you would just misrepresent this like you did the last two papers.
What is even more laughable, if the neurobiologist (big clue in that word) Christoph von der Malsburg does not believe this, why did he create a company to study aspects of consciousness in the brain?
consciousness noun
2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind
ALL brain functions. Unless you want to argue they come from somewhere else. The elbow, perhaps?
LOL, this is a common excuse for someone that cannot back up their claims. Just because someone studies consciousness does not mean they automatically have evidence that they know that consciousness is created by the brain. Obviously you also take that view for yourself. I called you out on your BS claims and now you are just full of excuses telling me to investigate.
Quote:
Starfish do have primitive awareness.
Well, they should have consciousness if they have awareness according to you.
Quote:
It is the only one we have good evidence for, despite your assertion.
This theory has yet to be determined right, so it is NOT good evidence.
Quote:
Yes, I have highlighted where you have straw manned my argument. Once again you go from evidence to proof. This can only be deliberate.
Conclusive or not, you still have not shown any evidence at all.
Quote:
Once again you repeat this lie. Once again, I am taking much of my information from these experts. And my work confirms their findings, despite you somehow 'knowing' that I "have done no work of your own on this subject". That is how I make some of my money. Modelling certain aspects of consciousness. Actually many industries do this to some extent, despite you saying this should not be possible. Google would be surprised at all the work they have not done on this.
If your work confirms these findings where is the evidence? You have yet to show any evidence or show anyone claiming that they have found that consciousness is created in the brain. It seems you are the only one in this universe to make this claim. Scientists infinitely smarter than you studying the brain are not making this claim.
Quote:
Another quote out of context. Let Hofmann (Conscious Realism and the Mind-Body Problem, Donald D. Hoffman 2008) explain.
As McGinn (1989) puts it, “WE know that brains are the de facto causal basis of consciousness, but we have, it seems, no understanding whatever of how this can be so.” Pinker (1997) agrees. After asking how conscious experience arises from physical systems he answers (Pinker 1997, pp. 146–147): Beats the heck out of me. I have some prejudices, but no idea of how to begin to look for a defensible answer. And neither does anyone else. The computational theory of mind offers no insight; neither does any finding in neuroscience, once you clear up the usual confusion of sentience with access and self-knowledge.
Note how Pinker agrees with McGinn? And note how McGinn says consciousness is a product of the brain? And Pinker agrees with this? Despite you saying NO ONE says this? Then who are the WE?
And note how you misrepresented what Pinker was talking about? Not where it comes from, but how it arises.
You seem to misunderstand the quote. McGinn is saying they do not have understanding how consciousness is created in the brain. That more experimentation needs to be done. McGinn's ENTIRE philosophy is the idea that the human mind is not equipped to solve the problem of consciousness. You might want to research people before spewing your BS at me.
Quote:
And what site did you copy that out of context phrase from? Note the '...'? Typical signal for quote mining. You could of course look at his work as a neurophysiologist (big clue in that word), where he separates consciousness from the physical, but never from the brain. Much like a computer and a program.
I have looked at his work and nowhere does he state that he knows where consciousness is created in the brain.
Last edited by Diesel350z; 12-21-2018 at 07:42 AM..
You don't have to say correlation proves causation for me to see that is what you are implying.
The one thing I did not do. You are the one who talks about proof. I have always said we have evidence. Why must you always misrepresent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other. There is a lot more to proving causation than a simple correlation or relationship between two things. I'm implying that the causes require more investigation.
I know. I explained that to you. Several times now. Evidence / proof, remember?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Everything in your view apparently is a closed shut case.
No. Should anyone provide good evidence for an alternative, I will look.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
LOL, this is a common excuse for someone that cannot back up their claims. Just because someone studies consciousness does not mean they automatically have evidence that they know that consciousness is created by the brain. Obviously you also take that view for yourself. I called you out on your BS claims and now you are just full of excuses telling me to investigate.
I spent precious time looking at your 7 links, you refuse to even investigate one person. Quit your BS, Forrest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Well, they should have consciousness if they have awareness according to you.
1) that does not follow, and 2) who says they do not? And 3) you are still missing my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
This theory has yet to be determined right, so it is NOT good evidence.
That is not how science works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Conclusive or not, you still have not shown any evidence at all.
Now you are just lying. You even got on your high horse and demonstrated several times I had provided evidence (neural correlates is that evidence), before riding into the tree of stupid arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
If your work confirms these findings where is the evidence?
In my bank account. How many times do I need to explain this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
You have yet to show any evidence or show anyone claiming that they have found that consciousness is created in the brain. It seems you are the only one in this universe to make this claim. Scientists infinitely smarter than you studying the brain are not making this claim.
So you keep misrepresenting. I even quoted one. And look below. You immediately contradict yourself and name one who IS making this claim.
Here, let me happily quote McGinn saying the very thing you say no one is saying. “WE know that brains are the de facto causal basis of consciousness,"-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
You seem to misunderstand the quote. McGinn is saying they do not have understanding how consciousness is created in the brain.
I know that is what he is saying. That is why I posted it. Because he is one of several ("We", remember) who make this claim. And Pinker agrees with him, so that is at least 3. Minsky makes 4, Dennet makes 5. Yet you keep claiming NO ONE is making this claim!
Why can you not keep your story straight?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
That more experimentation needs to be done. McGinn's ENTIRE philosophy is the idea that the human mind is not equipped to solve the problem of consciousness. You might want to research people before spewing your BS at me.
More invention from you. You do not even know McGinn's philosophy. You do not research this, you copy quotes out of context and then misrepresent them. And when I prove you are dishonest, you simply misrepresent again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
I have looked at his work and nowhere does he state that he knows where consciousness is created in the brain.
So why did he write Quantum Processes in the Brain, a scientific basis of consciousness? You know, quanta -> atoms -> neurons - consciousness. Research, you have done no such thing.
Now why do you not ask who argues the brain is the cause of consciousness in the science section? I am getting bored of being the only one refuting your BS.
All those who are discussing this in this thread should read both of them before continuing to post. Your perspectives may be different at that point (if everyone has an open mind, of course).
All those who are discussing this in this thread should read both of them before continuing to post. Your perspectives may be different at that point (if everyone has an open mind, of course).
Diesel is going to have to do a lot of excuse making and inventing with those.
All those who are discussing this in this thread should read both of them before continuing to post. Your perspectives may be different at that point (if everyone has an open mind, of course).
lmoa, great post.
but many people don't want facts to get in the way of opinion. i was told to change wording on consciousness and/or don't talk about some science so that theist can't use it and make atheism harder to sell.
The one thing I did not do. You are the one who talks about proof. I have always said we have evidence. Why must you always misrepresent?
I know. I explained that to you. Several times now. Evidence / proof, remember?
No. Should anyone provide good evidence for an alternative, I will look.
You THINK you have evidence for proof that consciousness is created in the brain and when I refute it all you do is attack me by saying I’m misrepresenting.
Quote:
I spent precious time looking at your 7 links, you refuse to even investigate one person. Quit your BS, Forrest.
Ah resorting to personal insults I see. I actually provide links when you ask for me to back up my claims but when I ask you to back up your claims I am required to look it up myself? Funny how that works. Looks like you won’t be able to provide any proof to your claim on this one.
Quote:
1) that does not follow, and 2) who says they do not? And 3) you are still missing my point.
. So are you saying that starfish are conscious even though they have no brain?
Quote:
That is not how science works.
There is good scientific theory and bad scientific theory. Out of all people you should know this
Quote:
Now you are just lying. You even got on your high horse and demonstrated several times I had provided evidence (neural correlates is that evidence), before riding into the tree of stupid arguments.
I’m lying because you can’t present any evidence to back up your claims. Good one!!
Quote:
In my bank account. How many times do I need to explain this?
Brilliant response showing absolutely nothing.
Quote:
So you keep misrepresenting. I even quoted one. And look below. You immediately contradict yourself and name one who IS making this claim.
Here, let me happily quote McGinn saying the very thing you say no one is saying. “WE know that brains are the de facto causal basis of consciousness,"-
I know that is what he is saying. That is why I posted it. Because he is one of several ("We", remember) who make this claim. And Pinker agrees with him, so that is at least 3. Minsky makes 4, Dennet makes 5. Yet you keep claiming NO ONE is making this claim!
Why can you not keep your story straight?
Lol, did you even read his paper “Can we solve the minds body problem?” Where he presents 5 different premises, this is only one premise he outlines. You must have missed where he says:
"I think, it is because the senses are geared to representing a spatial world; they essentially present things in space with spatially defined properties. But it is prescisely such properties that seem inherently incapable of resolving the mind-body problem; we cannot link consciousness to the brain in virtue of spatial properties of the brain"
"This is, indeed, why it seems that consciousness is theoretically epiphenomenal in the task of accounting for physical events. No concept needed to explain the workings of the physical world will suffice to explain how the physical world produces consciousness."
"The property of consciousenss itself (or specific conscious states) is not an observable or perceptible property of the brain"
"My position is both pessimistic and optimistic at the same time. It is pessimistic about the prospect for arriving at a constructive solution to the mind-body problem, but it is optimistic about our hopes of removing the philosophical perplexity."
So basically he is saying the answer to finding mind-body answer is impossible, not only very difficult, for human beings to discover. That there will never be a theoretical solution to the problem of consciousness.
Maybe try reading the whole paper the next time before calling someone a liar.
Quote:
More invention from you. You do not even know McGinn's philosophy. You do not research this, you copy quotes out of context and then misrepresent them. And when I prove you are dishonest, you simply misrepresent again.
McGinn is best known for his work in the philosophy of mind, and in particular for what is known as new mysterianism, the idea that the human mind is not equipped to solve the problem of consciousness.
So who is misrepresenting now?
Quote:
So why did he write Quantum Processes in the Brain, a scientific basis of consciousness? You know, quanta -> atoms -> neurons - consciousness. Research, you have done no such thing.
Now why do you not ask who argues the brain is the cause of consciousness in the science section? I am getting bored of being the only one refuting your BS.
So because he wrote a book about the brain that automatically implies that consciousness is created in the brain?
Even he definitively does not know everything works.
He said: “We can’t define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: “you don’t know what you are talking about!”. The second one says: “what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?”
And he said: “What I cannot create, I do not understand.”
And he said:
“I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and of many things I don’t know anything about, but I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way it really is as far as I can tell.”
And he said:
”I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”
And he said:
“We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery.”
But somehow you understand it all. You sir must be a genius.
You THINK you have evidence for proof that consciousness is created in the brain and when I refute it all you do is attack me by saying I’m misrepresenting.
Once again with the 'proof'. I KNOW I have evidence that consciousness is created in the brain, the neural correlates is that evidence. That is why it is the consensus opinion. Not your contrived 'evidence for proof', just evidence. Why do you insist on misrepresenting this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
I actually provide links when you ask for me to back up my claims but when I ask you to back up your claims I am required to look it up myself? Funny how that works. Looks like you won’t be able to provide any proof to your claim on this one.
You are still dodging. I have backed up my claims, including a few papers (that you insist on misrepresenting them). You want me to do this again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
. So are you saying that starfish are conscious even though they have no brain?
No, I was pointing out we were talking about the human brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
There is good scientific theory and bad scientific theory. Out of all people you should know this
If the evidence (neural correlates) supports that theory, it is a good theory. If it does not support the theory, it is a bad theory. So once again, if the brain is the cause of consciousness, then we should see the neural correlates. And we do. That is why the neural correlates is the evidence you claim I have not presented. It could also be evidence for some other theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Brilliant response showing absolutely nothing.
Then try looking at any other practical use of artificial evidence. Try the facial recognition work of von der Malsburg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Lol, did you even read his paper “Can we solve the minds body problem?” Where he presents 5 different premises, this is only one premise he outlines. You must have missed where he says: ...
Irrelevant to the points I was making. And you know I was not talking about Hoffman's theory.
I was pointing out where Hoffman quotes McGinn saying “WE (so that is more than one) know that brains are the de facto causal basis of consciousness,", so that is more than one person who says consciousness is caused by the brain. He literally says that. Yet you repeatedly claimed no one but me is making that claim.
Hoffman also points out Pinker agrees, so 1) that is at least three experts saying this, and 2) that Pinker does not agree with you.
And Hoffman shows this by quoting the passage you took out of context, that Pinker agrees the brain causes consciousness, but he does not know how. Yet you claimed it "seems to me that Pinker agrees with my view point that no one knows exactly where consciousness comes from".
You can keep moving the goal posts if you want, but I am just going to come back to this point. In fact from now on, I am just going to post a version of the above. Because it demonstrates how when your ignorant assertions are shown to be wrong, you then just misrepresent.
McGinn is best known for his work in the philosophy of mind, and in particular for what is known as new mysterianism, the idea that the human mind is not equipped to solve the problem of consciousness.
So who is misrepresenting now?
Again, you are, as that is not point I was making. and you know that too. As I quoted, McGinn (and others) say the brain is the cause of consciousness, but he does not know how this is done. McGinn said the brain is the cause of consciousness, you said the opposite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
So because he wrote a book about the brain that automatically implies that consciousness is created in the brain?
No, because he says in the book that the fundamental neural units of the cerebral cortex are linked to conscious experience. It is an inference, not an implication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
But somehow you understand it all. You sir must be a genius.
I have not claimed I understand it all. So once again you misrepresent.
No excuse. Great articles showing that more research needs to be done.
the difference diesel is that we draw conclusions based on what we do know. You are basing what you believe on what we don't know.
imagine the control I have if I can make people believe? history has shown, execute, shun, outcast those that see its just pretend.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
