epiphenomenalism and dual aspect theory

[Wyman]

1) why don't you look it up youself?!?
2) do you really think anyone would be able to convey the information 100%??
3) there's always a tiny loss in the quality of information.
4) now you pose the risk of conveying wrong information.
5) this is why cozy chatters fail at jobs, as they want everything served to them, instead of looking for info themselves.

1) Your first point is valid. Although sometimes it is interesting to get other people to put things in their own words in order to get a conversation started. I could have presented it differently, but where's the harm?
2) If the fact that someone did not convey information '100%' precluded conversation, then we would never ask anyone anything.
3) Same as 2. In addition, it's a false statement, as sometimes there is a gain of information, as when you are talking to an intelligent, original person.
4) So what. No risk, no glory.
5) I'll give you this one, in so far as I'll give you number 1.

By the way, what job do you hold?

Here are my guesses:

Drill sargeant
Principal of a boarding school for disruptive boys (As in 'How can you have any pudding, if you don't eat yer meat!!')
Government Safety Inspector
Director of Argument Clinic: www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[HexHammer]

By the way, what job do you hold?

Retired 14 years ago, was a in the administration then quality department in a big newspaper, I was like a bulldog often messing with the entire staff of chiefs and directors, even the CEO, but I kept my head, because I was intelligent, reducing tasks with many hours, changing hardware like PC and ancient terminals from 1977 into new, tho the CEO wanted to save money I explained in really simple terms: ..U'R NOT SAVEING MONEY ..U'R LOSING MONEY!!! ..that got his attention, then I pointed out that those ancient terminals would least 3 times a day spontanieously shut down and take 10 min to restart, in all that time the user isn't doing shit, and that equals lost money! So in all it's 100 waste hours per year!!!!
..he promptly changed his terminals to new terminals, and it couldn't go fast enough, and all the smart IT guys had failed and I didn't know shit about IT.

I'm the ONLY person to be called back 3 times and given offers I couldn't refuse, because I'm smarter that most of the highly educated staff and employees.

..so year..

[Greylorn Ell]

...
As for Epiphenominalism, I see the distinguishing characteristic of ep(it's such an obnoxious word, it needs abbreviation) is not so much that the brain causes consciousness, but that consciousness, in turn, has no causal efficacy whatsoever. The causation is a one way street.

That the brain causes consciousness is fairly uncontroversial (except to certain spiritual types). The brain is a platform for consciousness, as Imp points out.

Materialism requires that everything have a physical cause. So far, so good, since the brain is the physical cause of consciousness.

From here, I get confused. Do they think consciousness is 'not physical' or 'physical'? What does 'physical' mean here? Are they dualists?

I can't help but think of Plato's analogy of the soul to the harmony produced by the lyre in the Pheado. When the lyre is destroyed, so is the music it produces.

But music can be thought of as physical sound waves which are certainly causally efficacious. Or, it can be thought of as the 'qualia' - or finished product - of the interpretive, percipient listener. And then round the circle we go - for then do the sound waves 'cause' the listener to hum along and think happy thoughts, or does the qualia? In the brain/qualia context, do the neural firings tell the whole causal story?

Does ep break this circle, or even attempt to?

Classical Buddhism as conceived by Siddhartha Guatama does not include a God-concept. The Buddha was an atheist who would have been delighted with modern Darwinism and Big-Bang theory. However, he acknowledged the reality of the soul and accepted its reincarnations. He regarded the soul as an epiphenomenon brought into existence by the complex workings of the human brain, powerful enough to exercise control over the brain-body system.

At death, the soul is effectively abandoned by the original body that gave birth to it. Soul does not belong in this universe, and there is nothing for it to do but find its way into another brain, initiating a perpetual cycle. Because it does not belong, the soul will be forever discontent, a state worsening with each incarnation cycle.

The Buddha taught that the only way to escape this perpetual cycle of discontent was for the soul to achieve awareness of its true nature and situation, practice meditation to isolate itself from its current brain as much as possible, and reach a level such that upon the body's demise, the soul can extinguish itself. The uncorrupted meaning of "nirvana" is extinguishment. (The Oxford Dictionary has the full, classical definition, unlike most others.)

That word ought to make you happier with "epiphenomenon." Why not learn to pronounce and spell both words, if only to impress your friends?

Obviously, the notion that an epiphenomenon cannot affect the thing that generated it does not apply to mind.

However, this question is moot. Epiphenomenalism explains nothing about consciousness, and the Buddha was wrong. My opinion, of course. Nonetheless, Buddhist meditation techniques can have a positive effect upon those who practice them. I also accept his notion that meditation allows the "soul," (beon, is my word for it) to distinguish its workings from those of the brain.

The notion that the brain is not the cause of consciousness is also shared by those who have taken the trouble to study the plethora of good parapsychological research, particularly regarding OBEs and the "cross-correspondence" evidence for the survival of consciousness, post-death.

Beon Theory treats the brain as the facilitating mechanism for beon-level consciousness, not as the source of consciousness in its own right. However, some evidence from the study of abnormal psychological states suggests that if there is an epiphenomenon involved in mind, it is the brain's ability to act autonomously.

The questions you ask and the confusion you acknowledge are the inevitable consequences of attempts to make sense out of a base theory that really does not work.

Greylorn

[Wyman]

Obviously, the notion that an epiphenomenon cannot affect the thing that generated it does not apply to mind.

Obviously?!

You gloss over the crux of the problem. That's like saying, in an abortion debate, 'Obviously, life begins at conception...'

[Greylorn Ell]

1) why don't you look it up youself?!?
2) do you really think anyone would be able to convey the information 100%??
3) there's always a tiny loss in the quality of information.
4) now you pose the risk of conveying wrong information.
5) this is why cozy chatters fail at jobs, as they want everything served to them, instead of looking for info themselves.

1) Your first point is valid. Although sometimes it is interesting to get other people to put things in their own words in order to get a conversation started. I could have presented it differently, but where's the harm?
2) If the fact that someone did not convey information '100%' precluded conversation, then we would never ask anyone anything.
3) Same as 2. In addition, it's a false statement, as sometimes there is a gain of information, as when you are talking to an intelligent, original person.
4) So what. No risk, no glory.
5) I'll give you this one, in so far as I'll give you number 1.

By the way, what job do you hold?

Here are my guesses:

Drill sargeant
Principal of a boarding school for disruptive boys (As in 'How can you have any pudding, if you don't eat yer meat!!')
Government Safety Inspector
Director of Argument Clinic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Wyman,

I herewith apologize for my snippy remarks to the unruffled gentleman with a keen sense of humor. And thanks for the Monty Python skit!

Greylorn

[Wyman]

No problem.

Isn't the insult guy in the first room just like hexhammer? LOL

[Gee]

Wyman;

You ask interesting questions. I will admit that I know nothing about epiphenomenalism or dual aspect theory, so I waited for others to respond in order to figure out what was being discussed. But I do know a little about consciousness. Please consider my following thoughts:

As for Epiphenomenalism, I see the distinguishing characteristic of ep(it's such an obnoxious word, it needs abbreviation) is not so much that the brain causes consciousness, but that consciousness, in turn, has no causal efficacy whatsoever. The causation is a one way street.

This is necessary. If science stated that the mental affects the physical, then they would be admitting to the possibility of "God" and opening the doors to religious interpretations. They would never willingly do that even if reality dictated it.

So the materialist views on this issue has led to some crazy ideas. Some try to deny subjectivity altogether, except mine, which leads to solipsism -- and the mental wins. Some try to say that all things have a mental and physical quality, which leads to ideas that everything is alive -- including the Universe, which leads back to "God" ideas. Lately they have been trying to prove that the mental does not actually exist, that it is just illusion. The brain is the producer of consciousness, so when we die, there is no consciousness -- that makes science the winner!

So most of these theories are just a game of trying to prove "Who's the Boss?" between science and religion. The motivations behind these theories make me distrust them, and beside that, religion is talking about "God", science is talking about the brain, and no one is discussing consciousness.

That the brain causes consciousness is fairly uncontroversial (except to certain spiritual types). The brain is a platform for consciousness, as Imp points out.

But Imp is wrong for the following reason: All life is sentient. This is not disputed by science or philosophy. Sentient means that life can sense it's surroundings, so it is aware of it's environment. Being aware of it's environment means that it is conscious of it's environment. All life possesses some consciousness -- yes, that means trees and crabgrass. All life forms do not have a brain.

If you want some circular thinking, consider this: The human brain produces consciousness; our consciousness then anthropomorphises "God"; "God" then creates the heavens and the Earth; life evolves on the Earth and eventually produces humans; then our brains produce consciousness so we can create "God". It's a cycle!! (chuckle)

I don't often agree with Henry Quirk, but his following statement was the first to "nail" the issue in this thread.

Seems to me: mind (a recursive process) only happens in material of a particular composition and complexity (a brain embedded in a body).

As Henry notes, we are talking about "mind", not consciousness. So aren't mind and consciousness the same things? Well, I don't know, are you willing to state that daffodils and crabgrass have minds? They are conscious.

The immune system in your body has the ability to recognize an alien intruder, remember past intruders, compare the past experiences to the new intruder, and plan an attack to dispose of the new intruder. This is why vaccines work. So the immune system is aware, knows, remembers, and learns -- does this mean that it has a mind? Every cell in our bodies is aware, so do they all have mind?

Either we agree that mind and consciousness are the same thing, which means that every cell in every life form possesses mind; or we say that mind and consciousness are different things, which means that consciousness is not produced by the brain -- the conscious rational aspect of mind may be produced by the brain. Any other explanation leads to the circular thinking that I noted above.

So I don't think that the above theories are about consciousness at all. They are mostly designed to prove "Who's the Boss?" Science's ideas of mind, or religion's ideas of soul. same same

From here, I get confused. Do they think consciousness is 'not physical' or 'physical'? What does 'physical' mean here? Are they dualists?

No idea of what they think. I think that consciousness has properties and reacts to temperature, water, chemistry, and something to do with magnetic fields (I don't understand magnetic fields, but there have been studies). So I am voting that it is physical, or at least some degrees of it are physical.

G

PS Greylorn has some good ideas on consciousness and is a source for original thinking, so don't mind his initial reaction. He is a lot like a mad dog and always snarls and barks until he gets to know you. (chuckle chuckle)

[Wyman]

Thanks for the interest, Gee. I've been awfully (probably annoyingly) active today here and I'm going to bed. But I will consider what you wrote tomorrow.

[Impenitent]

But Imp is wrong for the following reason: All life is sentient. This is not disputed by science or philosophy. Sentient means that life can sense it's surroundings, so it is aware of it's environment. Being aware of it's environment means that it is conscious of it's environment. All life possesses some consciousness -- yes, that means trees and crabgrass. All life forms do not have a brain.

If you want some circular thinking, consider this: The human brain produces consciousness; our consciousness then anthropomorphises "God"; "God" then creates the heavens and the Earth; life evolves on the Earth and eventually produces humans; then our brains produce consciousness so we can create "God". It's a cycle!! (chuckle)

your anthropomorphic fallacy goes both ways...

but the motion detector sensed movement in its surroundings, so it is aware of it's environment. Being aware of it's environment means that it is conscious of it's environment. All life possesses some consciousness -- yes, the motion detector is alive.

-Imp

[Greylorn Ell]

Obviously, the notion that an epiphenomenon cannot affect the thing that generated it does not apply to mind.

Obviously?!

You gloss over the crux of the problem. That's like saying, in an abortion debate, 'Obviously, life begins at conception...'

Wyman,

Well, how about "obviously" in the context of the concepts that I was trying to explain? In this instance that would be classical Buddhism.

Perhaps you'd consider a perusal of that entire post? You might find good conversation fodder therein, and I think that you and I might engage in a productive conversation. Dealing with the cruxes of problems is my favorite thing, but it is difficult to find someone who even knows what "crux" means. Or perusal. I'm confident that you do.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

No problem.

Isn't the insult guy in the first room just like hexhammer? LOL

Decades ago I visited a university biotech lab in the early days of cloning research, and accidentally sneezed into a petri dish that a technician had left open. (Buffet sneeze-guards had yet to be invented.)

Hex-- please forgive this. My only social failing is that I cannot pass up a good straight-line.

The turkey behind door #1 is not quite "just like" Hex, but we seem to share similarities. I appreciate HexHammer and understand his style and attitude, that of the under-appreciated over-achiever; hope to engage both of you in honest conversations, if that works out.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

PS Greylorn has some good ideas on consciousness and is a source for original thinking, so don't mind his initial reaction. He is a lot like a mad dog and always snarls and barks until he gets to know you. (chuckle chuckle)

Gee,
Appreciation-deprived people normally have the grace to accept even underhanded compliments, and I'm a pretty good catcher. so thank you!. Nonetheless I object to the "mad dog" part. While I've been bitten by a variety of critters including humans, both literally and figuratively, none of them have given me rabies. Ranting and foaming at the mouth are not always the same thing.

Instead of "mad dog," would you consider the politically-correct euphemism, "ornery old son-of-a-bitch who often writes public posts well after his bedtime?" Probably not; it is insufficiently pithy to be used in sentences. Perhaps, "ornery asshole?" The three extra syllables sound so much more erudite, while being more succinct.

If you review our conversations objectively, you might find my comments to you to be fairly consistent in terms of attitude. The differences that you perceive are a function of changes at your end of the conversation. You know the difference between a challenge and an affront.

More of those challenges will come your way later when I address the non-personal aspects of this post. Bedtime nears.

Aarp, aarp!
Greylorn

[Ginkgo]

As for Epiphenominalism, I see the distinguishing characteristic of ep(it's such an obnoxious word, it needs abbreviation) is not so much that the brain causes consciousness, but that consciousness, in turn, has no causal efficacy whatsoever. The causation is a one way street.

I'll go along with that.

From here, I get confused. Do they think consciousness is 'not physical' or 'physical'? What does 'physical' mean here? Are they dualists?

Definitely not dualists. They are monists, everything derived about consciousness is derived from one single physical substance.

Closely related to this idea is property dualism. They seems similar but they are not the same. Property dualism claims ( like monism) there is one physical substance, but consists of two kinds of properties. A physical property and a mental property. Dennett feels as though he has to keep making the point that he is not a property dualist.

I can't help but think of Plato's analogy of the soul to the harmony produced by the lyre in the Pheado. When the lyre is destroyed, so is the music it produces.

But music can be thought of as physical sound waves which are certainly causally efficacious. Or, it can be thought of as the 'qualia' - or finished product - of the interpretive, percipient listener.

And then round the circle we go - for then do the sound waves 'cause' the listener to hum along and think happy thoughts, or does the qualia? In the brain/qualia context, do the neural firings tell the whole causal story?

Does ep break this circle, or even attempt to?

Consider this though experiment as a possible answer:

Jane is a brilliant scientist, she specializes in acoustics. There is absolutely nothing she doesn't know about sounds; how they are produced, frequency, pitch, the lot. The only problem is that Jane is as deaf as a post, she was born deaf, so she has never heard a single sound in her life. All Jane can do is analyze sound by looking at the data- like a computer does.

One morning a miracle happens, Jane wakes up to the sound of her husband rattling pots and pans in the kitchen trying to prepare breakfast. She rushes into the kitchen to tell him the good news. Her husband turns around knocking a glass to the floor and smashing it. Upon seeing the glass hit the floor Jane immediately recalls all the relevant data that goes with such an event, but the difference this time is she actually hears the sound of smashing glass.

The important question can be divided into two possible outcomes. Firstly, the sound of smashing glass is nothing new to Jane, she knew it would make that sound all along. Secondly, is the belief that Jane actually learns something new about sound that she didn't know before.

(a) If you belief the former than you are a physicalist who believes that a materialist explanation for sound is all that is necessary.

(b) If you believe the latter then you believe in qualia and reject physicalism, because there exists something over and above the physical.

Materialists and physicalists believe in (a), while property dualists would argue for (b)

[Wyman]

That's actually better than the Mary/sight scenerio in my opinion.

I was thinking that ep was an attempt to admit that there are qualia, but that they are physical, just not 'effective/efficacious.' An attempt to bridge a) and b).

In that case, Jane gains something after she gains her hearing. But this something is inert. Philosophers like to talk about it, but science can ignore it without loss.

My take on Jane would be that she would experience something new and not know at all what it was (supposing she wasn't told it was coming). When blind people regain sight, they must learn to see. At first, they just see a mishmash of indecipherable colors.

Why would this lead to the conclusion that 'there exists something over and above the physical?' She just acquired a new physical experience due to regaining a sense organ.

I think the problem here is with 'There is absolutely nothing she doesn't know about sounds.' And I think I remember Dennett saying the same thing (that this is where the experiment breaks down.)

What in the world could it mean to 'know absolutely everything about sound?' If it is supposed that it includes experiencing sound first hand (a physical process to the materialist), then Jane obviously does not know everything about sound, and never can due to her disability. Thus, the thought experiment is circular.

[Wyman]

Gee:

This is necessary. If science stated that the mental affects the physical, then they would be admitting to the possibility of "God" and opening the doors to religious interpretations. They would never willingly do that even if reality dictated it.

So the materialist views on this issue has led to some crazy ideas. Some try to deny subjectivity altogether, except mine, which leads to solipsism -- and the mental wins. Some try to say that all things have a mental and physical quality, which leads to ideas that everything is alive -- including the Universe, which leads back to "God" ideas. Lately they have been trying to prove that the mental does not actually exist, that it is just illusion. The brain is the producer of consciousness, so when we die, there is no consciousness -- that makes science the winner!

So most of these theories are just a game of trying to prove "Who's the Boss?" between science and religion. The motivations behind these theories make me distrust them, and beside that, religion is talking about "God", science is talking about the brain, and no one is discussing consciousness.

I agree with all of this. I am particularly interested in the consciousness as illusion theory. I think talk of mental and physical properties doesn't pass the straight face test.

The immune system in your body has the ability to recognize an alien intruder, remember past intruders, compare the past experiences to the new intruder, and plan an attack to dispose of the new intruder. This is why vaccines work. So the immune system is aware, knows, remembers, and learns -- does this mean that it has a mind? Every cell in our bodies is aware, so do they all have mind?

I like your point that (and tell me if I paraphrase incorrectly) consciousness as awareness is different from mind. Worms are aware, motion detectors, as Imp says, are aware in a way. So not all 'conscious' things have brains. Therefore, consciousness does not depend upon the brain, meaning it does not necessarily reside in the brain. It could still be said to reside in the organism as a whole, no?

Aside from consciousness as awareness, there are higher functions that include conceptualization, self awareness, will/desire, belief (noninclusive list). I would be willing to basically accept a Rylean notion that most of these things can be explained as material 'processes' - per Quirk - or dispositions - per Ryle.

However, the one area where my materialist intuition pauses is at conceptualization and inductive knowledge. I'll stop here, because I doubt you would agree with my 'higher functions' analysis and conversations are only productive, when at all, when the parties agree or reach understanding at each step.