Downward Causation: Useful or Misguided Idea?

[Subsymbolic]

Argument by empty assertion.

There is nothing here but your opinion.

What? my opinion that there is a school of thought called linguistic behaviourism? Or the fact that such behaviourist hold that we mistake intentional states for phenomenal states? All you are doing here is admitting your ignorance of an entire school of thought.

We cannot dispute that if there are ideas there is that which experiences them.

We certainly can. Dennett does in Consciousness explained, Ryle does in The Concept of Mind and so on. It's a position that certainly can, and recently has been disputed.

Argument by magic name dropping.

Again nothing but empty unsupported opinion.

You cannot dispute this. It is the understanding of "experience". It is what the word is founded upon.

A thing that can experience having an experience. You can't have an experience without something experiencing it.

Nope, merely pointing out there are philosophers and Cognitive scientists who dispute it, demonstrating that it can be disputed.

Dennett for example tells a compelling story of precisely how it can happen.

Dennett is a worthless bag of wind in this area. He explains nothing about experience beyond what we know from having experiences.

Calling someone a 'worthless bag of wind' isn't actually a rebuttal. How about proving he's wrong by argument?

An intentional something telling and believing a story about its own heterophenomenology will do.

If something is believing something else then it is separated from what it is believing.

Sure, Dennett is quite clear: we have beliefs about other beliefs, we mistake these beliefs for qualia. (As I've said, I don't even disagree with him. I do however accept that there is no objective way of denying his position.

You have not overturn the truism that to have an experience requires that which experiences and the things it can experience.

Actually, what I have done is asked you to live up to the standard of evidence you require of anyone else: objective evidence. I note that you have igonored that utterly in the last few exchanges and so I can only assume you see the problem and are ignoring it.

You can't wave this away. It is not going anywhere.

I don't have to. You offered a false dilemma - I demonstrated there are other options. That's game over. More to the point, to be consistent, you need to offer objective evidence for these wild metaphysical claims you are making.

 

[ruby sparks]

"The brain generates ideas which consciousness experiences". Wow. I think that goes beyond dualism, to triunalism.

Anyone willing to go to quartalism or quintalism?

How about infinitism, with god at the end?

 

[Subsymbolic]

"The brain generates ideas which consciousness experiences". Wow. I think that goes beyond dualism, to triunalism.

Anyone willing to go to quartalism or quintalism?

How about infinitism, with god at the end?

I bet you don't have any objective evidence of that though.

 

[ruby sparks]

"The brain generates ideas which consciousness experiences". Wow. I think that goes beyond dualism, to triunalism.

Anyone willing to go to quartalism or quintalism?

How about infinitism, with god at the end?

I bet you don't have any objective evidence of that though.

Let me check.......nnnnnnnope. No wait, yes, I do, yessir. However, it's very runny. I think it's a bit runnier than you'll like it, sir. Oh sorry, you said evidence. I thought you said cheese.

 

[Subsymbolic]

"The brain generates ideas which consciousness experiences". Wow. I think that goes beyond dualism, to triunalism.

Anyone willing to go to quartalism or quintalism?

How about infinitism, with god at the end?

I bet you don't have any objective evidence of that though.

Let me check.......nnnnnnnope. No wait, yes, I do, yessir. However, it's very runny. I think it's a bit runnier than you'll like it, sir. Oh sorry, you said evidence. I thought you said cheese.

I notice you haven't asked me about limburger sir...

 

[untermensche]

Calling someone a 'worthless bag of wind' isn't actually a rebuttal. How about proving he's wrong by argument?

There is absolutely no argument here to rebut.

You've said some magic words and dropped some names but have explained nothing.

There is not the experience of vision without that which can experience vision and that which is experienced.

It cannot be any other way.

You have made no argument.

Dennett is quite clear: we have beliefs about other beliefs, we mistake these beliefs for qualia.

As clear as oil. What is this "we" that has beliefs?

 

[Speakpigeon]

"The brain generates ideas which consciousness experiences". Wow. I think that goes beyond dualism, to triunalism.

Anyone willing to go to quartalism or quintalism?

How about infinitism, with god at the end?

Exactly. That buck definitely needs to stop somewhere!
EB

 

[Subsymbolic]

Calling someone a 'worthless bag of wind' isn't actually a rebuttal. How about proving he's wrong by argument?

There is absolutely no argument here to rebut.

You've said some magic words and dropped some names but have explained nothing.

There is not the experience of vision without that which can experience vision and that which is experienced.

It cannot be any other way.

You have made no argument.

Dennett is quite clear: we have beliefs about other beliefs, we mistake these beliefs for qualia.

As clear as oil. What is this "we" that has beliefs?

Well to quote Dennett: ' The self is the centre of narrative gravity'. Unlike you, I can objectively prove that Dennett believes that. Your faith claim about the elves in your head has no objective basis beyond your subjective certainty, which sounds very similar to the subjective certainty held by some of the more faithful here.

I'll say it again for you to ignore: you want to object to other people's arguments about consciousness on the grounds of there being no objective evidence you really need to have objective evidence for your subjective certainty. I don't care how often you beat your breast and assert that your subjective certainty is proof. It isn't.

 

[DBT]

The problem is that I don't see what your point is. Your remark - for example - ''it doesn't seem to allow for the processes acting on the development of the brain before and during its existence'' - doesn't appear to be correct because the process of ongoing brain development is not at odds with the necessity of information input via the senses. In fact the brain requires information input in order to develop. Example of sensory deprivation prove that.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'before its existence' unless this refers to genetic information in relation to brain architecture, etc, but that is not a point of contention, nor does it contradict the wording of the article.

Yeah genetic structure.

My point is that while there is a kinda Piagettian dialectic going on, the sort of information your source assumes is passing through the brain just isn't. All that has to be passed on is the error correction. While the error correction will inform the model this is a long way from the model your sources are working from.

Try this if you want to:

http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~karl/Whatever next.pdf

The thing is, the article is specifically dealing with sensory input and the role it plays in relation to a brains conscious representation of the external world in general and one's immediate environment.

Something that is not possible without sensory input....sensory input being the sole source of information about the external world, hence its necessity and the use of the word 'must' by the authors of the article.

This is true regardless of anything else, regardless of error correction (which also requires a source of information) and practically everything else.

Case studies of extended sensory deprivation clearly demonstrate the necessity of sensory input for healthy brain function.

 

[Subsymbolic]

The problem is that I don't see what your point is. Your remark - for example - ''it doesn't seem to allow for the processes acting on the development of the brain before and during its existence'' - doesn't appear to be correct because the process of ongoing brain development is not at odds with the necessity of information input via the senses. In fact the brain requires information input in order to develop. Example of sensory deprivation prove that.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'before its existence' unless this refers to genetic information in relation to brain architecture, etc, but that is not a point of contention, nor does it contradict the wording of the article.

Yeah genetic structure.

My point is that while there is a kinda Piagettian dialectic going on, the sort of information your source assumes is passing through the brain just isn't. All that has to be passed on is the error correction. While the error correction will inform the model this is a long way from the model your sources are working from.

Try this if you want to:

http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~karl/Whatever next.pdf

The thing is, the article is specifically dealing with sensory input and the role it plays in relation to a brains conscious representation of the external world in general and one's immediate environment.

Something that is not possible without sensory input....sensory input being the sole source of information about the external world, hence its necessity and the use of the word 'must' by the authors of the article.

This is true regardless of anything else, regardless of error correction (which also requires a source of information) and practically everything else.

Case studies of extended sensory deprivation clearly demonstrate the necessity of sensory input for healthy brain function.

That's cool, I'm not here to convince you of anything you don't want to believe.

I'm talking about what happens to the sensory information when it hits the senses. Light hits an eye (for example) prepped (by evolution, learning and priming) for what it expects, by a preexisting model of what is out there. As a result it doesn't have to bother cascading the entire signal, merely how the signal differs from expectation. Your chaps imagine a brain laying back waiting for the information. I'm suggesting a brain leaning into the information and not even bothering to process anything that it expects. It's a massive difference that reduces the brain's workload enormously, allows most of the work to be in place far in advance and makes studies like the one you quoted look for the wrong thing in the wrong place. By the time things are happening where they are looking for it there's no must about what is being processed.

I'm not denying that there is sensory input, just how it is handled.

 

[DBT]

The thing is, the article is specifically dealing with sensory input and the role it plays in relation to a brains conscious representation of the external world in general and one's immediate environment.

Something that is not possible without sensory input....sensory input being the sole source of information about the external world, hence its necessity and the use of the word 'must' by the authors of the article.

This is true regardless of anything else, regardless of error correction (which also requires a source of information) and practically everything else.

Case studies of extended sensory deprivation clearly demonstrate the necessity of sensory input for healthy brain function.

That's cool, I'm not here to convince you of anything you don't want to believe.

I'm talking about what happens to the sensory information when it hits the senses. Light hits an eye (for example) prepped (by evolution, learning and priming) for what it expects, by a preexisting model of what is out there. As a result it doesn't have to bother cascading the entire signal, merely how the signal; differs from expectation. Your chaps imagine a brain laying back waiting for the information. I'm suggesting a brain leaning into the information and not even bothering to process anything that it expects. It's a massive difference that reduces the brain's workload enormously, allows most of the work to be in place far in advance and makes studies like the one you quoted look for the wrong thing in the wrong place.

It's not a matter of what I want to believe. It's about what the evidence supports. I don't think 'my chaps' - the authors - imagine that ' a brain is laying back waiting for the information'

I don't know how you come to that view. As I see it, the article is simply focusing on the role and necessity of sensory input for normal brain function....which does not deny the complexity of the process or a host of other things that are necessary for the emergence of conscious experience.

 

[untermensche]

There is absolutely no argument here to rebut.

You've said some magic words and dropped some names but have explained nothing.

There is not the experience of vision without that which can experience vision and that which is experienced.

It cannot be any other way.

You have made no argument.



As clear as oil. What is this "we" that has beliefs?

Well to quote Dennett: ' The self is the centre of narrative gravity'. Unlike you, I can objectively prove that Dennett believes that. Your faith claim about the elves in your head has no objective basis beyond your subjective certainty, which sounds very similar to the subjective certainty held by some of the more faithful here.

I'll say it again for you to ignore: you want to object to other people's arguments about consciousness on the grounds of there being no objective evidence you really need to have objective evidence for your subjective certainty. I don't care how often you beat your breast and assert that your subjective certainty is proof. It isn't.

"narrative gravity"? What nonsense!

If there is some narrative that entails two things.

The narrative and the thing aware of the narrative.

Dennet has not escaped Descartes necessity that if there is a thought there must be something aware of that thought.

He isn't close.

You have no argument.

 

[Subsymbolic]

There is absolutely no argument here to rebut.

You've said some magic words and dropped some names but have explained nothing.

There is not the experience of vision without that which can experience vision and that which is experienced.

It cannot be any other way.

You have made no argument.



As clear as oil. What is this "we" that has beliefs?

Well to quote Dennett: ' The self is the centre of narrative gravity'. Unlike you, I can objectively prove that Dennett believes that. Your faith claim about the elves in your head has no objective basis beyond your subjective certainty, which sounds very similar to the subjective certainty held by some of the more faithful here.

I'll say it again for you to ignore: you want to object to other people's arguments about consciousness on the grounds of there being no objective evidence you really need to have objective evidence for your subjective certainty. I don't care how often you beat your breast and assert that your subjective certainty is proof. It isn't.

"narrative gravity"? What nonsense!

If there is some narrative that entails two things.

The narrative and the thing aware of the narrative.

Dennet has not escaped Descartes necessity that if there is a thought there must be something aware of that thought.

He isn't close.

You have no argument.

While I have plenty and know damn well that you can't rebut an argument by simply stating 'What nonsense!' especially when I rather doubt you are even familiar with the argument in question, the fact is that I don't need any, because you have zero objective evidence of this awareness you speak of.

I'll say it again: you can't have any objective evidence of awareness. Sure, you have oodles of subjective anecdotal evidence, but that isn't good enough for you in all other cases so it isn't good enough for you in your own case.

I know you know this too because you've scrupulously avoided commenting on it for a dozen or so posts and it's the central point I've made over and over again.

You reject everyone else's arguments on the grounds that they have no objective proof and yet expect your assertions about your conscious experience and what seems obvious to you to be accepted even though there's no possibility of objective proof of these either. There's a word for people who do that...

Now .. fingers in your ears and lalalala.

 

[untermensche]

Again I see nothing here to rebut.

You have dropped a few names said some magic words and think you are done.

This is inescapable.

Thus the emptiness of your position.

I know for certain that "I", some thing that can experience, is having experiences.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Again I see nothing here to rebut.

You have dropped a few names said some magic words and think you are done.

This is inescapable.

Thus the emptiness of your position.

I know for certain that "I", some thing that can experience, is having experiences.

You have zero objective proof for that and as such your claims don't live up to a standard you insist for anyone else.

Even if I wasn't rubbing your nose in this fact while you tiptoe round it, the fact is that you are confusing indefeasibility with knowledge. Sure, no one can prove your seeming wrong, but that doesn't mean that how thing seem to you is how things are. Certainly, you have no objective proof of that.

 

[untermensche]

What I know for certain is a higher form of evidence than objective measurements of the world.

And measurements are only verified by what I experience about them.

 

[ruby sparks]

......that doesn't mean that how thing seem to you is how things are. Certainly, you have no objective proof of that.

....or any objective evidence either, even of the very runny sort.

 

[untermensche]

Irrefutable logic is not in need of evidence.

To experience requires something that can experience and the things it can experience.

There is no other way.

Thus all we have are magic words and name dropping as opposition.

We could break it in half for those having trouble.

How is something experienced unless there is something capable of having an experience?

What would it mean for there to be experience but nothing having it?

 

[Elixir]

Irrefutable logic is not in need of evidence.

Irrefutability has little to do with correctness.

 

[ruby sparks]

How is something experienced unless there is something capable of having an experience?

The objective evidence suggests that the something capable of both generating and having an experience is most probably your brain. There is a vast clinical and experimental body of objective evidence showing significant causal interconnections and correlations between the anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry of the brain, on the one hand, and states of consciousness, on the other.

Your turn.