untermensche
Contributor
Yes but causation is always a correlation.
-
Features
COLOUR
- Thread starter ruby sparks
- Start date
Yes but causation is always a correlation.
DBT
Contributor
That's you.
You are so far embedded in fantasy that you have no idea about the purpose of research or reality.
Once again, what I said is supported by evidence, experiments and analysis by those who work in the field. Which you reject in favour of your absurd autonomy of mind idea, your dualism.
Which, not understanding the meaning or implication of an autonomy of mind claim, you also deny.
A dualist who is in denial of his own position.
untermensche
Contributor
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-correlation
The problem is you are using terms loosely without definition. Correlation has several mathematical definitions.
Yu are arguing with assumptions and loose reasoning. The general conversational meaning of correlation and mathematical correlation are two different things. That is the problem with philosophical debate on topics like causality.
untermensche
Contributor
I am using words as they are defined.
If one thing causes another then they by definition have a correlation.
To say they don't is just showing you don't know what words mean.
The thing about correlations is they don't always mean causation and some people make bad assumptions from correlations alone.
In this thread many people are making bad assumptions about the correlation between energy and the experience of color.
They assume energy has information about color in it.
That is a very bad assumption.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
How would you prove a correlation is causation?
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
... by noting that what untermensche calls correlated is actually determined.
skepticalbip
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 7,304
- Basic Beliefs
- Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
EM radiation with wavelength ~450nM is blue light by definition.
EM radiation with wavelength ~550nM is green light by definition.
EM radiation with wavelength ~650nM is red light by definition.
The experience someone has when radiation of these frequencies are a stimulus that excites the appropriate cones in their retina they call color.
The fact that you don't like this, are incapable of understanding this, or deny this is irrelevant.
untermensche
Contributor
The experience is the only thing with color.
The stimulus is not color nor defined as a color.
The stimuli are defined as invisible colorless energy that causes one bond of a double bond on a retinal molecule to momentarily break.
Your empty claims about so-called definitions are noted.
Again.
untermensche
Contributor
You tell me. I am just telling you what the word correlation means.
So now you know.
untermensche
Contributor
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Declaring evolution chance is an example of denying by using partial definition of what has been materially demonstrated. It is not an argument against whether the process of chance over time, probability, is material, which is exactly the process that has been materially demonstrated. That which has been causally demonstrated is determined.
Last edited:
DBT
Contributor
You have proven that you don't understand. It's on display for all to see and read. Yet you are blind to your own folly.
Where is your evidence for autonomous mind?
Why can't you accept the evidence of wavelength being directly related to our experience of colour?
untermensche
Contributor
You couldn't demonstrate these absurd claims.
My evidence of an autonomous mind is the understanding that only minds understand ideas and decisions based on ideas must therefore be autonomous.
Prove a brain understands ideas.
The very notion is absolute stupidity.
You ignore every implication of your absurd notions. Like the clear implication that if you did not freely choose which ideas you believe your belief in them is totally meaningless.
But you are in a philosophy forum with no ability to deal with ideas.
untermensche
Contributor
Your lack of understand of evolution is not an argument.
The appearance of all organisms and all their features is pure chance. Driven by random mutations. Nothing is determined.
No external energy can determine what an organism will make from the transformation of a molecule caused by it.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
EvolutionCapsule:
The above provides the basis for a rich suite of processes through which evolution occurs. The important point to remember here is that the processes involved are materially defined and continue to be improved as we further understand the subject of evolution.
These processes are empowered by a set of principles and operations including Genetics, Heredity, and Reaction Norm driven by Sources of variation including mutation, sex and recombination, and gene flow resulting in natural selection.
So when you say pure chance you need to recognize there are very specific principles applicable to things going on to produce what has become to be known as the genetic variation of Natural Selection process of biological evolution.
Chance doesn't cover it. You can yell chance until the cows come home and you won't get a human being from a bacterium.
Evolution reduces to living things adjusting to energy changes to more or less optimally use that which is available. So while things can't be expected to get more complex they do.
You are right. We can't expect a particular outcome. Still we do observe that biological outcomes tend to become more complex over generations which one should expect given the processes ongoing tend to increase in number.
untermensche
Contributor
Every organism and every feature of every organism is the product of sheer chance. You haven't said anything different and don't understand that.
In sexual reproduction the traits parents pass to offspring are sheer chance since the offspring is a random combination of two genomes randomly split to form haploids.
One organism finding another and mating with it is a series of random chances based around random proximity.
It is all random. No guiding hand anywhere.
And energy cannot possible force a nervous system to create a specific color simply because it transforms cis retinal to trans retinal.
No mechanism.
DBT
Contributor
Your ideas about the relationship between brain and mind have no merit.
Your homunculus/dualism was put to rest long ago.
What we call mind or consciousness is, according to all evidence, a collection of abilities, features and attributes of brain activity; an electrochemical process....altered by inputs, chemical or structural changes.
It is you who cannot handle the truth. More than sufficient evidence, experiments, analysis by experts in their field has been provided for your education, but you reject it all in favour of something that you have been repeatedly asked to explain, but clearly cannot.
untermensche
Contributor
Your lack of any ideas about it or understanding of it is not an argument.
You have no understanding of the mind beyond your subjective experience of your own mind.
You don't have the slightest clue what a mind is objectively. You know about some correlations but don't even understand this very well. You think a person driving a car with four good tires and driving a car with only two good tires and two flat tires is the same thing.
A mind is not a homunculus.
You just have one bad understanding on top of bad understanding.
You think brains construct minds for no reason. You can't give me one purpose for a mind.
You think brains understand ideas because your mind understands them.
You have no evidence of the objective mind. You don't have the slightest clue what it is. It s a completely unknown phenomena beyond our subjective experience of having a mind. You have subjective reports and correlations and nothing else.
Give me one purpose for a mind?
Why does the brain need some other thing aware of the world (that thing researchers demand reports from so they can pretend to do research about the mind) when it is according to you making all decisions and therefore already aware of the world?
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
The above:Evolution
Capsule:
s change in the heritablecharacteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation.[3] Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population.[4] The circumstances that determine whether a characteristic should be common or rare within a population constantly change, resulting in the change in heritable characteristics arising over successive generations. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules
The above provides the basis for a rich suite of processes through which evolution occurs.
No mechanism.
How can you be blind? You pointed right at it and denied it.
Probability of survival, provides the mechanism for evolution to work.
Ya'll need some edikatin son.
You should wake up and smell the roses. You don't need subjective intervening variables to handwave your way though through how we are what we are. All it takes is a bit of observation and a smidge of science to get where you need to be.
Park your tractor. Open up you capabilities. Get past the delusions produced from looking inward. Even David Brooks is beginning to get the message. He's asking Is Self Awareness is A Deluson https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/opinion/psychology-consciousness-behavior.html