Poll: What's causally effective?

[Speakpigeon]

Ok, so perhaps we can (nearly) all agree that the activity of the brain which is somehow responsible for our having this so vivid impression of subjective experience is causally effective.

Or is this even too much?

Poll: Which do you prefer?

A. The activity of the brain which is somehow directly related to our impression of subjective experience is causally effective

B. The part of the brain which is somehow directly related to our impression of subjective experience is causally effective

C. Something else

D. Not a clue. I'm not even here!

I can always try...
EB

 

[fast]

Brain activity is a necessary condition for subjective experience.

I think that's what you're saying.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Oh, that was fast!

No.

I can live with the idea of subjective experience without a brain. Brains would still provide a specific kind of experience. A vacuum would provide a very different one.

I'm trying to leave out the issue of whence come "bare consciousness", i.e. consciousness irrespective of qualia. I'm sure the brain is somehow responsible for the logic of our qualia. I doubt it is for bare consciousness, or even for our qualia. Though I might be wrong here.
EB

 

[Angra Mainyu]

All of the above, and something else. The brain is causally effective, part of the brain is causally effective, brain activity of any kind is causally effective; our desires, intentions, etc., are causally effective (note: there is significant overlap here!); I don't think there is any actual concreta that isn't causally effective.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's why I left open the possibility of voting for several options.

It's not about any other part of the brain, though. Sure, even the moon perhaps is causally effective, but you're not going to select "something else" just because of the moon!

The point is to see if there's a view as to brain v. activity of the brain.

For example, if you see the mind as an activity of the brain, selecting option one should lead you to say that the mind is causally effective.

Now, if you select both option 1 and 2, you may want to clarify how the causality of the brain doesn't conflict with the causality of the activity of the brain, or how one relate to the other.

And Subsymbolic may even choose to explain how the mind as an activity of the brain perhaps can do things the brain couldn't.
EB

 

[fast]

That's why I left open the possibility of voting for several options.

It's not about any other part of the brain, though. Sure, even the moon perhaps is causally effective, but you're not going to select "something else" just because of the moon!

The point is to see if there's a view as to brain v. activity of the brain.

For example, if you see the mind as an activity of the brain, selecting option one should lead you to say that the mind is causally effective.

Now, if you select both option 1 and 2, you may want to clarify how the causality of the brain doesn't conflict with the causality of the activity of the brain, or how one relate to the other.

And Subsymbolic may even choose to explain how the mind as an activity of the brain perhaps can do things the brain couldn't.
EB

The notion that the mind is the activity of the brain doesn't sit quite right with me. Combustion isn't the activity of the engine (and certainly not the engine itself either) but rather a function or consequence of the activity. I've always said that the brain gives rise to the mind, and to expound further, I would say that the brain's activity gives rise to the mind.

PS; are you saying that there can be subjective experience without a brain?

 

[fast]

All of the above, and something else. The brain is causally effective, part of the brain is causally effective, brain activity of any kind is causally effective; our desires, intentions, etc., are causally effective (note: there is significant overlap here!); I don't think there is any actual concreta that isn't causally effective.

I'm confused. What does causally effective mean?
A) x has a cause
B) x causes y
C) both A and B
D) something else such as causal link a causes b and influences c and then d, like the butterfly effect
You seem to deny E:
E) lacking sufficiency

For instance, letting loose a butterfly is causally insufficient and thus causally ineffective to cause a hurricane--even if there is a pathetically negligible trace.

Based on your last note, it seems anything that can be caused or actually be a cause is what is meant by causally effective thereby broadening the scope such that I'm left thinking it's a technical term (a complex term) and not readily understood by combining the respective constituent words.

 

[Politesse]

I'm not even clear what you mean by "causally effective" here. Could you explain?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

All of the above, and something else. The brain is causally effective, part of the brain is causally effective, brain activity of any kind is causally effective; our desires, intentions, etc., are causally effective (note: there is significant overlap here!); I don't think there is any actual concreta that isn't causally effective.

I'm confused. What does causally effective mean?
A) x has a cause
B) x causes y
C) both A and B
D) something else such as causal link a causes b and influences c and then d, like the butterfly effect
You seem to deny E:
E) lacking sufficiency

For instance, letting loose a butterfly is causally insufficient and thus causally ineffective to cause a hurricane--even if there is a pathetically negligible trace.

Based on your last note, it seems anything that can be caused or actually be a cause is what is meant by causally effective thereby broadening the scope such that I'm left thinking it's a technical term (a complex term) and not readily understood by combining the respective constituent words.

Yeah, it seems to me I didn't understand what he was getting at. Still, I would say the brain is causally effective, part of the brain is, and brain activity is. So are our intentions, desires, etc. But our intentions and desires are also the intentions and desires of the brain, which is causally effective - just as we are.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm not even clear what you mean by "causally effective" here. Could you explain?

Here's a not bad explanation...

causal efficacy
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/37wlqi/what_is_causal_efficacy/

causal efficacy refers to something's ability to be a causal agent or to exert causal influence (in simpler terms, to cause something). For instance, if two billiard balls collide, their respective mass and velocity are causally effective, their colors presumably are not.

The concept comes up in eg. epiphenomenalism, in which physical states have causal efficacy with respect to mental states but mental states have none.

I would say myself that something is causally effective if its existence (objects) or occurrence (events, activities) leads, inevitably in at least one specific set of circumstances, to any effect at all.

So, here colours may be said to be causally effective if you think that in any set of circumstances that includes a spectrometer, or anything equivalent, you'll have its measures as one effect.

Now, depending on your philosophical view of the world, you may still regard colours as causally effective or not. For instance, if you see colours as epiphenomena, in which case you may want to say that what is causally effective is something like the fundamental physics behind the epiphenomenon of colours, and not the colours themselves.

Your choice.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's why I left open the possibility of voting for several options.

It's not about any other part of the brain, though. Sure, even the moon perhaps is causally effective, but you're not going to select "something else" just because of the moon!

The point is to see if there's a view as to brain v. activity of the brain.

For example, if you see the mind as an activity of the brain, selecting option one should lead you to say that the mind is causally effective.

Now, if you select both option 1 and 2, you may want to clarify how the causality of the brain doesn't conflict with the causality of the activity of the brain, or how one relate to the other.

And Subsymbolic may even choose to explain how the mind as an activity of the brain perhaps can do things the brain couldn't.
EB

The notion that the mind is the activity of the brain doesn't sit quite right with me. Combustion isn't the activity of the engine (and certainly not the engine itself either) but rather a function or consequence of the activity. I've always said that the brain gives rise to the mind, and to expound further, I would say that the brain's activity gives rise to the mind.

First, the poll question doesn't use the word "mind" at all.

Instead, it's asking about "the activity of the brain which is somehow directly related to our impression of subjective experience". So, it's not even assuming that subjective experience is caused by an activity of the brain, only that the two are "somehow directly related", which is probably accepted by all here (save one, perhaps ).

Second, I think that the most common notion of mind is a mix between subjective features (qualia, subjective experience...) and objective features (information, logic...). So, using the word "mind" in the poll would just make interpretation more difficult, if not impossible.

PS; are you saying that there can be subjective experience without a brain?

I couldn't possibly know that but I don't see how that could be rationally excluded. A washing machine might have some kind of subjective experience, although one that wouldn't be very interesting. That would be something very near what I would call 'minimal subjective experience'. Now, saying you can't rationally exclude that possibility isn't like saying this is what you believe.
EB

EDIT
Also, my post talked of "mind as an activity of the brain", not as the activity of the brain.