Correlation vs Causation

But the only real difference you are alluding to is the extent to which various mechanisms have been elucidated, not the extent to which causation has been established. The process of science manages to uncover finer and finer detail, but the extent to which that detail has been uncovered varies widely. Nowhere else do we see this insistence that until we have uncovered every mechanism which applies, down to Planck length, causation is denied. We don't know exactly how aspirin prevents heart attacks. Does that mean it doesn't? Before we had electron microscopes so that we could see what was actually going on with the cell membrane, did anybody really try to claim that the kidney wasn't filtering toxins? Is anybody claiming that gravity doesn't cause apples to fall from trees because we don't really know exactly how gravity works? The realism we experience is profoundly different from the reality that quantum mechanics entails. How we get from one to the other is a far deeper mystery than consciousness.

Again, I'm not arguing that understanding how the brain works, which respect to producing mind, does not seem more complex than how the kidney works. But so do/did a lot of other things. I'm just trying to move beyond making these sorts of distinctions based on what is intuitively palatable.

Linda

It's not about what is intuitively palatable Linda, and this post just displayed exactly what the issue is. You are somehow trying to focus this whole causative thing on "why do we treat consciousness differently?"

Because we do not understand how on earth matter and the physical makeup of our bodies and the universe as currently understood lead to conscious experience. It seems like you just don't even understand the idea behind the distinction - and why it has plagued and continues to trouble people substantially smarter than you and I.

I don't have a "ploy", and definitely not that one. I say what I mean, so if you want to know what I am saying, read what I said.


Did I say any of that? No? There you go, questions answered.


You can't find it all that frustrating, given the frequency with which you play "let's pretend that Linda said something she didn't and harass her on that basis". I'd rather discuss the topic at hand instead of this nonsense.

Linda

So, still no real answer - just crying victim and avoiding the question. As I expected. 

I'm sorry that there are so few true skeptics willing to engage here but I've had enough of you and your games. So, as your were on the Skeptiko forum, you are joining Steve001 on ignore for me.

I don't have a "ploy", and definitely not that one. I say what I mean, so if you want to know what I am saying, read what I said.

Did I say any of that? No? There you go, questions answered.

You can't find it all that frustrating, given the frequency with which you play "let's pretend that Linda said something she didn't and harass her on that basis". I'd rather discuss the topic at hand instead of this nonsense.

Linda

It amazes me the way you continue to play the victim card. 

There have been at least three or four different proponents who have engaged in a discussion with you, only for you to later turn around and claim that your position has been totally misunderstood and you don't even understand what's it is that's the propoenent seems to thinking the disagreement is about.

Maybe people are actually reading what you said and responding - if on multiple occasions such misunderstandings have occurred, it's reasonable to think that either a) you're not being clear enough, or b) you're acting like everyone intentionally misunderstands you or misrepresents what you've said just to create sideline arguments. 

Either way, somehow you always end up saying you're just trying to have a good faith discussion and not playing any games; might there be something to it other than Kam and others just being out to get you?

I'm going to avoid carrying out this discussion with you any further, because I have little to no doubt that you exhibit the use of critical thinking the least of anyone on this site, by far, skeptic or proponent.

You are utterly dismissive o philosophy in general, and as a result you miss and don't consider important ideas relating to the things you attempt to discuss.

I am aware of the limits of my position. Pot calling the kettle black much? Do you at all recognize the limits of yours? I've never seen you acknowledge anything of the sort.

Oh look! An absurd and totally inaccurate straw man of the proponent position! Bravo steve, you've spent years on these forums and still can't be intellectually honest with yourself about what the actual positions are. 

Completely and entirely agree about trying to figure it out, and indeed that we don't know. I'm willing to wager that the majority of intelligent proponents agree entirely with that sentiment. You accuse proponents of making assumptions that are unwarranted - I think it's equally fair to say that you dismiss good evidence. 

At the very least, it's entirely debatable. The question you just posed - why is the brain treated different - requires an incredible amount of obstinance to attempt to defend as a position.

As has been discussed, the brain is intimately related with one of the most mysterious phenomena in human history, and indeed the most incredible of biology/life. It is the very nature of the physical makeup of the brain that makes the question "what is subjective, conscious experience, how does it arise, and how could something like matter lead to that?" viable and important.

If you do not recognize that obvious and clear distinction, and instead choose to mock and say it's just proponents thinking wistfully, I just can't fathom how you could suggest you've thought hard about it at all - or how you could say you even understand what the issue is from the get go.

I have a feeling you think I'm still wet behind the paranormal ears.

Either way, somehow you always end up saying you're just trying to have a good faith discussion and not playing any games; might there be something to it other than Kam and others just being out to get you?

Don't worry too much about it... I dare she knows exactly what she's doing. Best to just put her on ignore.

You can't change those deep-set in their ways...

Well, of course the strength of the scientific evidence for psi is the whole theme of this site, in a sense.

But what surprises me is that it seems to come as news to some people that others take that evidence seriously, or that it might cause them to put brain function in a different category from kidney function.

You've tiptoed around the question raised in your posts. That implicated question is this. Why is it not enough to explain consciousness entirely by physical operations taking place within the human brain? Saying the strength of the  scientific evidence is not the cause.

 
Consciousness is the very thing which could make something "alive" that you referenced. We do not know. What is certain, is that we do not definitely know (which you seem to just have asserted) what it is that makes that cell "alive all on its own". We understand the mechanisms, we understand the biochemical processes, but we don't know how they started, and we don't know what consciousness is, how pervasive it is, etc.

As we follow this downward into simpler and simpler “cells” and further down into stuff which is no longer a cell (e.g. viruses) but may be alive and then into stuff which isn’t alive (e.g. prions), we don’t find a point where there’s something missing between alive and not alive. We don’t find a qualitative difference. Instead it becomes a matter of offering a definition as to what we are willing to call alive or not. The difference between a virus and a bacterium or a virus and a prion isn’t qualitative so much as quantitative, in terms of how many boxes we want to tick off.

A cell is “alive all on its own” because the mechanisms and biochemical processes (which you concede are not mysterious) are those which we call “life”, when present. I didn’t think I was saying anything contentious when I pointed out that the idea of a “life force” was dropped quite a while ago.

Linda

You've tiptoed around the question raised in your posts. That implicated question is this. Why is it not enough to explain consciousness entirely by physical operations taking place within the human brain?

I've suggested two reasons why people treat may brain function differently from kidney function;
(1) Because the process by which the brain produces consciousness isn't understood, and because some people don't believe it's possible in principle.
(2) Because the evidence for psi suggests that consciousness interacts with matter in ways that aren't explicable in terms of currently understood physical laws, and that suggests that consciousness can't be produced from the brain by the operation of those laws.

I emphasise that I'm answering the question fls asked about why some people think of the brain differently from the kidney. Even if sceptics don't accept the views of those people, they shouldn't be surprised by them, and they shouldn't be surprised by their implications.

It's not about what is intuitively palatable Linda, and this post just displayed exactly what the issue is. You are somehow trying to focus this whole causative thing on "why do we treat consciousness differently?"

Because we do not understand how on earth matter and the physical makeup of our bodies and the universe as currently understood lead to conscious experience. It seems like you just don't even understand the idea behind the distinction - and why it has plagued and continues to trouble people substantially smarter than you and I.

The question posed in the OP was not “do we understand what leads to conscious experience?” The question was about what is correlation vs. causation and are these applied differently when it comes to the brain vs. the kidney.

My posts have been directed at answering the OP.

Linda