(2018-02-04, 12:01 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]And how about the rest? Are you just going to skip over it with no comment?
Excuse me? You post a series of increasingly abrasive and defamatory posts accusing me of dishonesty (and this is not the first time), and you expect me to want to engage with you?
Linda
(2018-02-04, 12:35 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sorry. Like I said, I was under the impression that Desperado was interested in discussing correlation vs. causation with respect to what Augustine presented in his book. If I missed that what he wanted discussed was McLuhan's opinion, then I apologize.
Please. Desperado presented a quote from Robert's blog post. There is no cause to hide or misrepresent the source of that quote - at the very least, you have not presented one. Your "apology" is ridiculous.
(2018-02-04, 12:38 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Excuse me? You post a series of increasingly abrasive and defamatory posts accusing me of dishonesty (and this is not the first time), and you expect me to want to engage with you?
Linda, that was my very first response to you in this thread. You had the choice to respond in full or to ignore relevant points. You chose the latter.
(2018-02-04, 12:53 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Please. Desperado presented a quote from Robert's blog post. There is no cause to hide or misrepresent the source of that quote
Agreed. It's completely unimportant with respect to discussion on the topic at hand.
Quote:Linda, that was my very first response to you in this thread. You had the choice to respond in full or to ignore relevant points.
A response which started with you accusing me. And as I said, this is not the first time. Rather, it's another in a long line of defamatory posts from you.
My choice was between whether or not to give your 'sincerity' the benefit of the doubt. I chose the latter, and was proven right, yet again. If you want to engage with me, start with being civil.
Linda
(2018-02-04, 01:20 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ] (2018-02-04, 12:53 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Please. Desperado presented a quote from Robert's blog post. There is no cause to hide or misrepresent the source of that quote
Agreed.
And yet you
did hide and misrepresent it. What, then, does your "agreement" represent?
(2018-02-04, 01:20 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]It's completely unimportant with respect to discussion on the topic at hand.
Honest sourcing is important to
any discussion. There is no justification for dishonest sourcing.
(2018-02-04, 01:20 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ] (2018-02-04, 12:53 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Linda, that was my very first response to you in this thread. You had the choice to respond in full or to ignore relevant points. You chose the latter.
A response which started with you accusing me.
An accusation that was valid. You accept that the source that you provided was inaccurate. What more is there to say?
(2018-02-04, 01:20 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]If you want to engage with me, start with being civil.
If you want to be be taken seriously, then don't mislead us, and then refuse to engage with relevant points.
(2018-02-04, 01:31 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]And yet you did hide and misrepresent it. What, then, does your "agreement" represent?
Honest sourcing is important to any discussion. There is no justification for dishonest sourcing.
An accusation that was valid. You accept that the source that you provided was inaccurate. What more is there to say?
I agree that in retrospect, I should have just given the link to McLuhan's blog post.
The accusation that I was dishonest, that I was hiding or misrepresenting the source of the quote is not valid. It was a minor, split-second decision to make it clear who had raised the idea, rather than any intent whatsoever to somehow misrepresent or hide McLuhan's role in bringing it to our attention. I apologize for focussing on the idea and not thinking it through with respect to what someone like you would make of it. It is uncharacteristic of me not to provide strictly accurate links, so it is good that you jumped on my first failure to do so. I may not have learned my lesson otherwise.
Quote:If you want to be be taken seriously, then don't mislead us, and then refuse to engage with relevant points.
Agreed. I try very hard to do so in all my interactions, with the caveat that I avoid doing so when incivility
gets in the way of engagement. I do engage with people who are uncivil if that doesn't lead them to deliberately misrepresent what I have said for the purpose of defamatory attacks.
Linda
(2018-02-04, 02:17 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I agree that in retrospect, I should have just given the link to McLuhan's blog post.
OK. I'll let the matter - and the remainder of your somewhat snide response - rest.
(2018-02-03, 08:16 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Sub conscious (or non conscious) processes?
What would you say?
I don’t know the answer to that question, and I presume if we did a lot of our questions would be answered.
Back on target, to the orignal quote
Quote:Thus for instance, ‘correlation is not causation’ is countered by the observation that the effects of other organs – the kidney’s role in filtering toxins, for instance – is not disputed, and that it’s highly selective to apply different reasoning to the brain (p. 102). (Who now continues to resist the implications of the correlation between smoking and lung cancer?) To insist otherwise, is a ‘fallacy called moving the goalposts: an utterly unreasonable person pretends to be reasonable, if only more evidence, impossible to obtain, were available’
Why wouldn't you apply different reasoning to the Brain? We can model most of the basic functions of the kidney ( I think this was stephenw's point).
There are good rationale for believing that the kidney filter the blood and help with homeostasis. Lots of relevant data here, can build good models.
Now, the brain. Certain parts have good data, particularly from when things go wrong. Alcoholic with thymine deficiency? Predictable outcome. Damage Broca's area? Also can predict outcome, with relevant types of data. Maybe someday we can look at an fMRI of someone's brain and say conclusively "Yep, hes definitely going to be thinking about cat testicles in 3 seconds."
But, how would you actually collect data about why there is some perspective in there, instead of it just being an automaton? Will that be another part of the brain? So we could wipe it out, and have what appears to be a functional human being but really they are just a zombie?
"Yeah, that's Jim. I know you spoke with him this morning, but he actually damaged the consciousness portion of his brain, so there's actually no one in there."
Correlation can tell us how things work, and let us make predictions. But how is it scientific to claim we know how consciousness arises? What is the proposed mechanism? At least evolution has that.
If there's no mechanism, its not scientific. That has a negative connotation nowadays, but maybe not everything has to be scientific. Perhaps its better that our current society doesn't understand the nuts and bolts of consciousness anyways.
(2018-02-03, 12:09 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]How does that matter? Some of what we have had to figure out is much more complex than other stuff. So what? It hasn't led us to deny causation in other situations. For example, we used electricity long before we even had an inkling of quantum electrodynamics (which even yet contains deep mysteries).
Linda
I understand your stance on causality much better. I don't think you are aware of the "dimmed status" of declaring formal causality in a system, outside of mechanics (where it is a valid premise but limited in the scale of its validity.) Rather than believing in the causal powers of some substantial object , terms like disposition and propensity are used. Hell; there is a big debate about teaching whether there is causality in QM, let alone in QED! Causality in physics is now expressed in informational terms, such as events linked in the light-cone of other events.
Here is a statement that I think is a common perception in scientific circles:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.100...-9845-2_10
Quote: Quantum mechanics, even in its early and simple phases, has often been regarded as a non-causal discipline. The argument supporting this view cites the uncertainty principle as prohibiting the ascertainment of complete knowledge concerning physical states upon which causal prediction could be based. Recent developments in atomic physics have added new and puzzling features to the problem of causality insofar as they operate, not only with intrinsically unmeasurable states, but also with time reversals which have been interpreted to mean that the effect can be prior to the cause. Feynman’s theory of quantum electrodynamics is particularly rich in unorthodox suggestions which tantalise philosophers. The purpose of the present paper is to exhibit them, appraise their methodological function and see in what manner they violate the rules of causal description. This purpose, it seems, is best achieved by a sequential discussion of three questions: What does causality mean in physics? What is the new method of quantum electrodynamics? Is this new method compatible with the causal doctrine in some satisfactory form?
In the modern world, data correlations produce results for science and engineering, which are predictive. This follows from a clearly defined model and data array that enable computation of the prediction. They are better than a scientist declaring that "such and so" causes any abstract concepts like mind or its psychic aspects .
Measuring declarations from data-interpretation is qualitative; and measuring the sigma value of a well-formed theory carries much more quantitative weight.
(2018-02-02, 03:47 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I’m still not getting what you are talking about. Help me out by taking one of my examples and explaining where the “solid data model and computationally backed findings and conclusions” comes in to it, like my H. pylori example.
The science “meat” is that I don’t have a stomach ulcer, nor can H. pylori be demonstrated in my stomach.
Linda
Any one data point cannot be scientific meat. By "meat" I meant analysis of well-formed data that have been backed by experimental or natural setting observations, just as you have been pointing out.
I read article yesterday about a new conjecture asserting causality, that was occurring some 66 million years ago. It appeared to me to illustrate the general view of science analysis I have been suggesting. The idea formulated in a paper is that when the earth was hit by a 7 mile long rock from space, did it cause increased magma outflow in the Indian Ocean seabed, as well as the extinction event.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018...cean-floor
There is an accepted science theory that the Chicxulub crater in the Yucatan, was an indirect cause of a biological event. Mechanically, the impact caused a change in the environment and the weather patterns from it. This mechanical effect is linked to drastically lower reproductive rates in the following years, due to a harsh environment.
Science doesn't say this is the only cause of the extinction of biological organisms, just that there is a significant statistical correlation between impact event and extinction. The article's take is that there was another mechanical effect, that of major sea bed eruptions - half a world away.
Want to pursue? The analytical methods sorting the issues would apply to the mind - brain conundrum.