Correlation vs Causation

“Partly responsible” can be precipitated in a beaker, when you add the crystal seed to the supersaturated solution. Sigma values are meaningless when collected in low validity environments. Science papers are blown up because they are performed under low-validity/high-risk-of-bias conditions, not because they aren’t backed by data-dredging endeavours. It’s data dredging which is meaningless unless you go on to back it up with good-quality experimental research, not the other way around.

Linda

Catalysts are not measured to be "partly responsible".  They are measured as to how capable they accelerate a chemical solution from current equilibrium to a targeted reaction.  All catalytic chemistry fits the model and known processes of biophysics and is computational.  There is no magic stuff in chemistry.

Sigma values for low-validity experimental conditions are not meaningless - they are low because of the lack of measurable certainty in the methods.  Sigma values reflect the reliability of the organization of the information - not the other way around.

I am in not taking anything from the data-gathering aspects of science.  They should be the most respected.  That is where the wonderful unsung work resides.  Rosiland Franklin has as much contribution to DNA discovery as W&C.  She did the damn work to get the pictures!

But that said - we have solid science about how bioinformation is transmitted because we have both the physical process model  and the information transformation model (DNA/RNA/Ribosome/Protein) working together in lock-step.  Both have working models and the models dove-tail.  We can predict accurate propensity of outcomes on both pathways of analysis.


I understand the science of kidneys, as a filter.  I can look up how the systems in the kidney work together and then break-down the organic chem step by step.  Fully simulated functionality of kidney processes are available. 

Can you refer me to how the brain abstracts a logical conclusion?  This is what the brain's evolution adapted to achieve on the abstract level.  Can you refer me to the model of how the brain supplies an excretion of 10 ml of understanding?  Is there a special formula of peptides, which indicates confusion between concepts?

Comparing the information output with mind to the flow of excretions has been commented on before.

V. Computing Machines and the Nervous System. p. 121.

• The mechanical brain does not secrete thought "as the liver does bile," as the earlier materialists claimed, nor does it put it out in the form of energy, as the muscle puts out its activity. Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day. - N. Weiner

I think it's based on a difference in function. Kidneys produce one thing. Brains something different. If you're lucky.  

I think it's because, unlike filtering toxins, it's not understood how physical processes in the brain produce consciousness, and some people find it unbelievable that they can.

A perceived difference. I think there's more existential importance underpinning to this brain vs kidney thing even though both are just organs. It's a very interesting question arising in your statement. Why I wonder?

Wait.  Do Kidney's know what it is to feel the color red?

I stand corrected never the less a facetious question.

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1933-01110-001

https://www.osapublishing.org/josaa/abst...-5-12-2059

https://www.osapublishing.org/josaa/abst...-5-12-2059

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...2805800609

Normally, when someone on here is accused of making 'an unevidenced assertion' the accuser quotes evidence to support that claim... Not complain about 'not having time to google it'.

Normally, when someone on here is accused of making 'an unevidenced assertion' the accuser quotes evidence to support that claim... 

Sorry, malf, but if you can't provide evidence for an assertion when asked, you really shouldn't whinge about people describing it as "unevidenced". That is what the word means, after all.

And a sceptic is the last person I'd have expected to try to shift the burden of proof on to someone questioning an assertion, rather than making an assertion. Isn't questioning assertions what sceptics are supposed to do?

Now you have provided some evidence for the assertion. Fair enough. Thank you. My next question would have been what conclusion you draw from the fact that colour-perception takes time to develop. But I think I'll leave that to those with more stamina.

Sorry if I'm not following this discussion very well but I'm left wondering if it all boils down to Chalmers' hard vs easy problem? I get a bit lost when I see phrases like:

Sigma values for low-validity experimental conditions are not meaningless  ...

There is surely, by Chalmers' definition, an "easy" part to colour perception: the physical properties of the light and the physiology of the perceiving equipment (eye, optic nerve, brain) - all this can be studied and defined. Then there is the "hard" part: how does that colour make me feel? What creates that subjective appreciation? We don't ask for a subjective assessment of the perception of the kidney as it filters out toxins. We don't wonder whether it enjoys one toxin over another or whether it makes choices based on a subjective preference.

I hark back to the TV analogy. We know precisely how a picture is encoded, transmitted, decoded and displayed on a screen. But that picture on the screen means nothing to the hardware involved in displaying it. The hardware doesn't have a single thought about it. The hardware merely performs the specific task it was designed to do repeatedly and without judgement. Only the observer has a care about the picture being displayed on the screen. The observer doesn't see it for what it is (physically): an array of LEDs making up a screen full of individual pixels. The observer sees an image of a sunset and is moved to feel something by that image. 

Hardware = brain = easy problem. Observer = mind = hard problem.

Sorry, malf, but if you can't provide evidence for an assertion when asked, you really shouldn't whinge about people describing it as "unevidenced". That is what the word means, after all.

And a sceptic is the last person I'd have expected to try to shift the burden of proof on to someone questioning an assertion, rather than making an assertion. Isn't questioning assertions what sceptics are supposed to do?

Now you have provided some evidence for the assertion. Fair enough. Thank you. My next question would have been what conclusion you draw from the fact that colour-perception takes time to develop. But I think I'll leave that to those with more stamina.

Not sure about 'conclusions'. My first thought is that all perception and awareness takes time to develop (from foetus onwards, the bulk of it post-natal). I think there is widespread agreement that the structural changes in the infant brain reflect and support this (google it ).

Is that developing conscious awareness a different thing from what folk refer to as 'consciousness'? Given that a definition of the later is elusive, I'm not sure... But I'll repeat my refrain that clues to it's nature are more likely to be found by studying the beginning of life, than stories about compromised brain states in later life.

 The observer sees an image of a sunset and is moved to feel something by that image. 

Excuse the hypothetical question, but if the observer had had no previous experiences at all before that observation, what feelings could that sunset provoke.

Excuse the hypothetical question, but if the observer had had no previous experiences at all before that observation, what feelings could that sunset provoke.

Wonder? Awe? Fear?

Wonder? Awe? Fear?

I enjoy the romance in your answer, but I think you might underestimate the impact of total sensory deprivation up to that point... Vision would be almost hopeless in any event, and I'm not sure human sensations like those could occur, formed without any prior reference points.

I suspect the best we could hope for is something akin to confusion, which is probably why newborns have that look on their faces  .

I enjoy the romance in your answer, but I think you might underestimate the impact of total sensory deprivation up to that point... Vision would be almost hopeless in any event, and I'm not sure human sensations like those could occur, formed without any prior reference points.

I suspect the best we could hope for is something akin to confusion, which is probably why newborns have that look on their faces  .

That's the point though. All we can do is suspect because we can't know. We cannot measure or quantify or observe directly what another human feels.

Also, there is a difference between human baby development and animals. Lambs seem to be able to see pretty well from the moment of birth. They can also walk with absolutely no previous experience of walking. I'm not really sure where you are going with your argument.