Correlation vs Causation

So, as your were on the Skeptiko forum, you are joining Steve001 on ignore for me.

Thank you!

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

It amazes you that I respond to unprovoked attacks? I didn’t start any of this. I could ignore it, I suppose.  Most of the time I do.

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?

Sure, it could be. But I don’t run in to these misunderstandings with most people. Or rather, if something I say isn’t clear, it just gets clarified.

The problem isn’t that something is misunderstood - that happens to everyone. It’s the reaction that a few have when they’ve misunderstood something I’ve said.

i should ignore it? Probably I can.

Linda

[Laird]

Hoping to draw more attention to this, but I've long pondered the use of "correlation" over "causation" in the case of discussing neuroscience, and the motives behind making such alternative explanations? One author seems to think it's almost out of desperation

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’

The source of the quote - https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Afterlife-ag...op?ie=UTF8

Rather, the source of the quote appears to be a 21 November, 2016 post by Robert McLuhan reviewing that book: Myth of an Afterlife?

It is hard to believe that you got that wrong accidentally. Googling isn't all that difficult.

And I think most researchers, including proponents of "mind", accept this [that 'we have moved into "causation" (for example, studies on anaesthetics)']. Even idealists try to take this into account with the "brain as a filter" idea, for example.

Right, but that acceptance is limited to the proposition that physical interventions (can) cause effects in or to consciousness. The further claim that the physical causes the existence of consciousness itself is not supported empirically - indeed, as Chris writes in a later post, it is hard to imagine how it could be empirically tested. Moreover, it is philosophically unjustified - see, e.g., the arguments[1][2] presented by Titus Rivas in our Philosophical Discussions forum.

Too, there is sufficient empirical evidence, as well as worthy philosophical argument, to support the converse: that consciousness (can) cause physical effects.

This is dualism in a nutshell - the acceptance of both causal claims: that matter affects mind as well as that mind affects matter.

Don't feel my question has really been answered, especially by proponents of dualistic/idealist models of consciousness? Maybe I'm just missing something here

Maybe the above will help. Also, please reference your sources when providing quotes.

One final comment: the contention that life is understood to the point that we can discard the idea of some sort of élan vital, potentially in the form of an inhabiting soul/consciousness, seems utterly misguided and unsupportable to me.

[1] http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-an...hysicalism
[2] http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-wh...anpsychism

Lambs seem to be able to see pretty well from the moment of birth...

I’ve was intrigued about this and have been looking into the (relatively rare) studies in this field. 

It appears that a healthy lamb can recognise its mother (visually) from a distance after 3 days, with vision becoming well developed after 1 week. 

This rate is impressive when compared to that of the human neonate. It makes sense that the sacrifice of our slower learning curve allows for more complex interconnections and pathways leading to an (ultimately) richer visual representation of our environment. 

One can only speculate as to what the implications of this are on ‘sensory experience’, ‘awareness’ and ‘consciousness’ more generally. In particular with respect to the differences in these phenomena between species.

Rather, the source of the quote appears to be a 21 November, 2016 post by Robert McLuhan reviewing that book: Myth of an Afterlife?

It is hard to believe that you got that wrong accidentally. Googling isn't all that difficult.


Right, but that acceptance is limited to the proposition that physical interventions (can) cause effects in or to consciousness. The further claim that the physical causes the existence of consciousness itself is not supported empirically - indeed, as Chris writes in a later post, it is hard to imagine how it could be empirically tested. Moreover, it is philosophically unjustified - see, e.g., the arguments[1][2] presented by Titus Rivas in our Philosophical Discussions forum.

Too, there is sufficient empirical evidence, as well as worthy philosophical argument, to support the converse: that consciousness (can) cause physical effects.

This is dualism in a nutshell - the acceptance of both causal claims: that matter affects mind as well as that mind affects matter.


Maybe the above will help. Also, please reference your sources when providing quotes.

One final comment: the contention that life is understood to the point that we can discard the idea of some sort of élan vital, potentially in the form of an inhabiting soul/consciousness, seems utterly misguided and unsupportable to me.

[1] http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-an...hysicalism
[2] http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-wh...anpsychism

In heeding to your advice directed to me above, I'll definitely double check to next time. As for my opinion on the whole thread, I agree with your point pretty well. Looking at the threads linked, I can say I'm not as concerned about the rise of panpsychism because of the holes in it numerous philosophers have pointed out and if it's a new holding ground for former materialists, so be it. I'm not totally convinced of any single current popular philosophical model of mind, but something dualististic fits the bill so far to me.

Rather, the source of the quote appears to be a 21 November, 2016 post by Robert McLuhan reviewing that book: Myth of an Afterlife?

It is hard to believe that you got that wrong accidentally. Googling isn't all that difficult.

I did find McLuhan's review using Google, and was originally going to link to it. But I was worried that it may give the misleading impression that it was McLuhan who supported the idea (that had been my impression when I first googled the quote and saw, surprisingly, that it led to his blog). I didn't want McLuhan to be blamed for what I figured would be an unpopular idea. I thought that linking to the book that McLuhan was quoting would make it easier to see who was the source of the idea.  

Right, but that acceptance is limited to the proposition that physical interventions (can) cause effects in or to consciousness.

Agreed.

Linda

[Laird]

I did find McLuhan's review using Google, and was originally going to link to it. But I was worried that it may give the misleading impression that it was McLuhan who supported the idea (that had been my impression when I first googled the quote and saw, surprisingly, that it led to his blog). I didn't want McLuhan to be blamed for what I figured would be an unpopular idea. I thought that linking to the book that McLuhan was quoting would make it easier to see who was the source of the idea.

That is, in my view, pure dissembling, and I call you on it. Anybody who followed the link (to Robert's blog post) and read it would realise that Robert didn't support the idea. Thus, there was no need to hide it. Linda, you claim that you don't play games, but hiding the actual source of a quote behind one more palatable to your own worldview speaks volumes to the contrary.

Anybody who followed the link (to Robert's blog post) and read it would realise that Robert didn't support the idea.

Agreed. I was thinking about those who do not follow and read links - an unfortunately common occurrence.

Thus, there was no need to hide it.

No need to hide that McLuhan had offered an opinion on Augustine's book? It hadn't occurred to me that that was important. I apologize that I missed this.

Linda

[Laird]

Agreed.

And how about the rest? Are you just going to skip over it with no comment?

[Laird]

Agreed. I was thinking about those who do not follow and read links - an unfortunately common occurrence.

And how would somebody who didn't follow the link know that it had anything to do with Robert McLulan? And even if the reader did so deduce, who are you to judge that s/he is incapable of determining that Robert didn't support Keith Augustine's book, such that Robert requires your (insincere) protection?

No need to hide that McLuhan had offered an opinion on Augustine's book?

No need to hide the source of the quote. Honesty is important, right? So, you'd need a good reason to be dishonest about the source of the quote, right? You haven't presented one so far.

It hadn't occurred to me that that was important. I apologize that I missed this.

What nonsense. Your "apology" is a mere rhetorical stratagem. You're not fooling anybody. What you should apologise for is presenting a false source for a quote.