Downward Causation: Useful or Misguided Idea?

[DBT]

A few nights ago, as I was trying to fall asleep, I asked my brain to give me some CEVs, or closed eye visions. My brain refused. I find that when I get those CEVs, I fall asleep more easily, as they charm and distract me from my usually negative thoughts.

Tonight I shall ask my brain to show me an object, an object colored red. But it will refuse.

I wonder why, since I am my brain, I cannot cause my brain to do something it doesn't want to do. I've asked my brain time and time again to stop that ridiculous pounding in my chest, since it keeps me from being able to sleep, but my silly brain refuses.

Do you have a theory for why this is so?

 

[WAB]

A few nights ago, as I was trying to fall asleep, I asked my brain to give me some CEVs, or closed eye visions. My brain refused. I find that when I get those CEVs, I fall asleep more easily, as they charm and distract me from my usually negative thoughts.

Tonight I shall ask my brain to show me an object, an object colored red. But it will refuse.

I wonder why, since I am my brain, I cannot cause my brain to do something it doesn't want to do. I've asked my brain time and time again to stop that ridiculous pounding in my chest, since it keeps me from being able to sleep, but my silly brain refuses.

Do you have a theory for why this is so?

Nope.

 

[ruby sparks]

It is a lie to say you can have awareness without both something capable of being aware and things it is capable of being aware of.

Indeed. Just as there has to be a thing called life and the thing capable of having it. Two separate things.

 

[Subsymbolic]

It is a lie to say you can have awareness without both something capable of being aware and things it is capable of being aware of.

This dichotomy cannot be overcome.

To say it can is a lie.

Indeed. Just as there has to be both life and the thing living it. Two separate things. Oh look, I accidentally overcame a dichotomy.

Huh, I was going to use Everest(s). This is better. Nice work.

 

[ruby sparks]

Huh, I was going to use Everest(s). This is better. Nice work.

I'm hoping that both Um's brain and his mindsoul, or at least one of them, can appreciate the point. After that, I might even try to persuade his pneuma.

 

[untermensche]

The experience of 'red' is being formed and generated by a brain. The experience of red is not separate from the brain or its activity. Brain activity is an aspect of a functional brain.

The brain creates the phenomena of "experiencing".

Experiencing is when one thing (a thing that can experience) experiences another thing (a thing that can be experienced).

The mind is the "thing that can experience".

Not the brain.

The brain is the thing that creates the "thing that can experience".

 

[untermensche]

It is a lie to say you can have awareness without both something capable of being aware and things it is capable of being aware of.

Indeed. Just as there has to be a thing called life and the thing capable of having it. Two separate things.

To have and to experience are two different concepts. Not all concepts are the same thing. If this is news your world will soon get better.

I can have a coat and a tie and shoes, a life. I can have in theory endless things. But what is the "I" that has these things?

To experience means for one thing to experience another thing.

It will always mean that.

To be aware means for one thing to be aware of another thing.

It will always mean that.

This is not grammar. This is definition.

 

[DBT]

The experience of 'red' is being formed and generated by a brain. The experience of red is not separate from the brain or its activity. Brain activity is an aspect of a functional brain.

The brain creates the phenomena of "experiencing".

Experiencing is when one thing (a thing that can experience) experiences another thing (a thing that can be experienced).

The mind is the "thing that can experience".

Not the brain.

The brain is the thing that creates the "thing that can experience".

Your reasoning is flawed. If - as you rightly say - it is the brain that ''creates the phenomena of "experiencing" then it is the brain that is experiencing the phenomena it is creating. Which, without a functioning brain and its mental activity, there is no phenomena of experiencing.

 

[untermensche]

The experience of 'red' is being formed and generated by a brain. The experience of red is not separate from the brain or its activity. Brain activity is an aspect of a functional brain.

The brain creates the phenomena of "experiencing".

Experiencing is when one thing (a thing that can experience) experiences another thing (a thing that can be experienced).

The mind is the "thing that can experience".

Not the brain.

The brain is the thing that creates the "thing that can experience".

Your reasoning is flawed. If - as you rightly say - it is the brain that ''creates the phenomena of "experiencing" then it is the brain that is experiencing the phenomena it is creating. Which, without a functioning brain and its mental activity, there is no phenomena of experiencing.

Your reasoning is flawed.

What experiences is a creation of the brain.

The brain does not experience.

It creates that which experiences.

The mind experiences.

We know this beyond doubt.

And it does not experience the brain at work. It experiences the finished products.

The mind does not experience the creation of red. It experiences red. A finished product.

If it were the brain experiencing it would also experience the creation of red.

It would experience what it was doing.

 

[DBT]

Your reasoning is flawed. If - as you rightly say - it is the brain that ''creates the phenomena of "experiencing" then it is the brain that is experiencing the phenomena it is creating. Which, without a functioning brain and its mental activity, there is no phenomena of experiencing.

Your reasoning is flawed.

What experiences is a creation of the brain.

The brain does not experience.

It creates that which experiences.

The mind experiences.

We know this beyond doubt.

And it does not experience the brain at work. It experiences the finished products.

The mind does not experience the creation of red. It experiences red. A finished product.

If it were the brain experiencing it would also experience the creation of red.

It would experience what it was doing.

Brain activity is not something external to the brain that the brain 'creates' in the form of experience, activity which then 'experiences' red or whatever. It is the activity that becomes an experience.

You still try to assign autonomy to mind when in fact it is the brain that is forming mind and experience.

 

[ruby sparks]

The brain does not experience.

It creates that which experiences.

The mind experiences.

Yes. Or the brain experiences. One or the other. Or something else.

We know this beyond doubt.

By 'we' I'm guessing that you mean you and the other believers. But since none of them appear to be forum members here, do you have any objective evidence to help convert us heathens?

 

[Subsymbolic]

I confess that UMs done me a favour. I’d never taken the time to grasp the mechanism by which God is inserted into the gap of quantum effect by the desperate faithful. However, I do wish that covert Christians would be honest about their faith claims. At least now I realise why UM is so sure he’s right.

 

[ruby sparks]

It took me a while to understand it too. Now I see that it's an elegant modern reworking of at least one ancient belief system. There is the creator brain (the 'father'), its creation, the mind ( the brain's 'son') which the creator endows with free will, and the things the mind experiences (the 'holy ghosts'). And yet at the same time, it incorporates aspects of eastern spirituality. One big question is whether mind is really one 'thing', or are reasoning, emotion, intelligence, ego separate 'things' also. Further clinical, faith is needed I think, to obtain additional objective evidence beyond that which reveals the separateness of the 'mindthing' itself. Theology never stands still. It is always moving forward towards an absolute truth.

As for being covert, I think, in hindsight, that the writing of posts in a blend of hymnal and commandment formats was a bit of a giveaway.

 

[untermensche]

The brain does not experience.

It creates that which experiences.

The mind experiences.

Yes. Or the brain experiences. One or the other. Or something else.

Everything you have or could experience you experienced with your mind.

It is what you use to experience.

You have something that the brain goes to a lot of trouble to create that experiences.

There is no need for anything else.

And no evidence at all that anything but a mind experiences.

We know this beyond doubt.

By 'we' I'm guessing that you mean you and the other believers.

I mean the rational people that know when they are experiencing red they are experiencing red. They know beyond doubt they are not experiencing something else.

 

[ruby sparks]

Everything you have or could experience you experienced with your mind.

Yes, possibly. Or it could be my brain which is doing the experiencing. It's more parsimonious, and gets around having to explain how, in your 'trinity', a non-material 'thing' can experience other non-material 'things', but I guess you are just about to explain how that works.

 

[untermensche]

I confess that UMs done me a favour. I’d never taken the time to grasp the mechanism by which God is inserted into the gap of quantum effect by the desperate faithful. However, I do wish that covert Christians would be honest about their faith claims. At least now I realise why UM is so sure he’s right.

Yes of course.

To question your delusions is really a religion. How convenient for you and your delusions. So protected from questioning in this way.

You have no model that explains how the phenomena of consciousness arises.

You have no objective knowledge of the phenomena.

The only religion here is your delusion you have some.

- - - Updated - - -

Everything you have or could experience you experienced with your mind.

Yes, possibly. Or it could be my brain which is doing the experiencing.

What evidence do you have of that thin speculation?

Has your brain told you about it's experiences?

Why should anybody think it is not pure fantasy?

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes, possibly. Or it could be my brain which is doing the experiencing.

What evidence do you have of that thin speculation?

Has your brain told you about it's experiences?

Why should anybody think it is not pure fantasy?

For starters, in order to have a 'thing' which can experience something, then according to you, there has to be an experiencing 'thing' in the first place, and the brain is demonstrably and objectively a 'thing'. This is not the case for a mind (unless you have some objective evidence for what a mind is made of that you've been keeping from us). Ergo, the brain is arguably a better candidate for being the experiencer. One could even say that it literally has a head start.

Iow, instead of your brain-thing creating a mind-thing which then experiences thought-things in some sort of holy trinity, your brain could be experiencing. Much simpler.

I must admit though. It's tricky for me to decide for sure. On the one hand, there's the vast majority of non-god bothering experts, and then there's you, some anonymous amateur dogmatist on the internet with an odd posting style who seems to be trying to win this year's Dunning-Kruger Award and who doesn't even read the relevant clinical material enough to know what's in it.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Yes, possibly. Or it could be my brain which is doing the experiencing.

What evidence do you have of that thin speculation?

Has your brain told you about it's experiences?

Why should anybody think it is not pure fantasy?

For starters, in order to have a 'thing' which can experience something, then according to you, there has to be an experiencing 'thing' in the first place, and the brain is demonstrably and objectively a 'thing'. This is not the case for a mind (unless you have some objective evidence for what a mind is that you've been keeping from us). Ergo, the brain is a better candidate for being the experiencer. One could even say that it has a head start.

Iow, instead of your brain creating a mind which then experiences thoughts in some sort of holy dulaology trinity, your brain could be experiencing both.

I must admit though. It's tricky for me to decide for sure. On the one hand, there's the vast majority of non-god bothering experts, and then there's you, some guy on the internet who doesn't even read the relevant clinical material enough to know what's been done in it. It's a tough one to decide on, that's for sure..

Come on Ruby, you heard him, he’s absolutely sure. There can be no other way. He’s dismissed Dennett and Wittgenstein without even having to argue the point. When someone has this much faith they must be right. Face it, everyone else needs verifiable, objective evidence. He only needs to be absolutely sure and consistency be damned.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, possibly. Or it could be my brain which is doing the experiencing.

What evidence do you have of that thin speculation?

Has your brain told you about it's experiences?

Why should anybody think it is not pure fantasy?

For starters, to have a 'thing' which can experience something, you have to have an experiencing 'thing' in the first place, and the brain is demonstrably and objectively a 'thing'. This is not the case for a mind.

Ruby, I think that this kind of language is what concerned Sean Carroll. Minds have experiences, and they clearly do exist. You don't have to think too hard to know that is the case. All you have to do is think. However, we use metonymy all the time in language. We do it effortlessly and unconsciously. So it is possible to substitute "brain" for "mind" as the subject of the verb "experience", even though that leads to rather absurd statements about minds and thoughts being just illusions. Even physical objects can be construed as illusions, if you want to play the eliminatavist game. Every concept depends on the ontology it is embedded inside of.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It is a lie to say you can have awareness without both something capable of being aware and things it is capable of being aware of.

This dichotomy cannot be overcome.

Then how do you account for dreams? Rather, how do you account for the experiences of the first person observer (aka, the “I”) within dreamscapes?