Daniel Dennett: Stop Telling People They Don't Have Free Will

I never switched. You are incorrect. I have carefully used the word "produced" throughout. The only attempt right now to change the topic of discussion here is by Malf. Who has yet to show a single fact demonstrating how the brain produces the experience of the redness of red, and instead appears to want to switch the debate with the endless Skeptic's rhetoric of bullshit regarding the evidentiary values of NDE research.

My Best,
Bertha

The difference was not in the word produced. You started off by asking for evidence THAT conciousness is produced by the brain, you switched it to asking HOW consciousness is produced by the brain.

I've quoted your exact words Bertha...
 
The difference was not in the word produced. You started off by asking for evidence THAT conciousness is produced by the brain, you switched it to asking HOW consciousness is produced by the brain.

I've quoted your exact words Bertha...

?? You are making no sense here at all. The key word here is produced. How consciousness is produced. Or that consciousness is produced by the brain. Or how the perception of the experience of the color red is produced. It is a simple question and I await a rational scientific answer rather than the usual avoidance and attempts to change the discussion to something else.

My Best,
Bertha
 
?? You are making no sense here at all. The key word here is produced. How consciousness is produced. Or that consciousness is produced by the brain. Or how the perception of the experience of the color red is produced. It is a simple question and I await a rational scientific answer rather than the usual avoidance and attempts to change the discussion to something else.

My Best,
Bertha

The bolded are two different questions.

Let me give an example to demonstrate what I mean.

Let's take the proposition that applying polysporin to a small cut speeds up healing. I could do a controlled study where one group uses polysporin, and the other group doesn't, and track whether there is a difference between speed of healing of the wound.

With such an experiment I could produce evidence as to whether we should consider it likely that polysporin speeds up healing of small wounds or not.

However, nothing in that experiment would help me figure out HOW the medicine actually goes about speeding up the healing.

They are two separate propositions.



The answers that Paul and Malf were giving you were related to evidence supporting the proposition THAT consciousness is produced by the brain.

However, those examples offer little help in answering the question of HOW consciousness is produced by the brain.

Do you see the difference?
 
How consciousness is produced. Or that consciousness is produced by the brain. Or how the perception of the experience of the color red is produced. It is a simple question and I await a rational scientific answer rather than the usual avoidance and attempts to change the discussion to something else.

Is it simple, though? What do you mean by "the perception of the experience of the color red"? I presume it's something a lot more involved than assessing the wavelength of the light and assigning it to one of several ranges of wavelengths within the spectrum.
 
The answers that Paul and Malf were giving you were related to evidence supporting the proposition THAT consciousness is produced by the brain.
Please demonstrate one scientific fact HOW consciousness is a product of the brain, or as an alternative (since you apparently fail to understand plain english), THAT consciousness is a product of the brain. Simple question. So far, I've heard nothing substantial on either count.

My Best,
Bertha
 
I never switched. You are incorrect. I have carefully used the word "produced" throughout. The only attempt right now to change the topic of discussion here is by Malf. Who has yet to show a single fact demonstrating how the brain produces the experience of the redness of red, and instead appears to want to switch the debate to the endless Skeptic's rhetoric of uninformed bullshit regarding the evidentiary values of NDE research.

My Best,
Bertha
Well you brought up the NDE research to prop up a model for non brain redness. It seemed fair to ask for the papers that support that.
 
Is it simple, though? What do you mean by "the perception of the experience of the color red"? I presume it's something a lot more involved than assessing the wavelength of the light and assigning it to one of several ranges of wavelengths within the spectrum.

My question is simple. I am not saying the answer is simple. But Malf and his friend Paul here have made the claim they have the answer. So I'm asking a simple enough question regarding their claim.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Please demonstrate one scientific fact HOW consciousness is a product of the brain, or as an alternative (since you apparently fail to understand plain english), THAT consciousness is a product of the brain. Simple question. So far, I've heard nothing substantial on either count.

My Best,
Bertha

My claim (that you challenged) wasn't about (the poorly defined) concept of consciousness, it was about the concept of "redness".

There is a vast amount of scientific research aligning colour perception with brain processes and brain activity. I'll grant you that correlation does not indicate causation, but it certainly doesn't rule it out either and can be very suggestive (in fact correlation and causation are often the same thing).

For you to claim correlation, and argue against causation, it is reasonable to assume that you have evidence of "redness" outside this physical realm, or at least outside of the brain. Is this the case?


I brought it up because you asked. But you still haven't answered my original question. Please do.

My Best,
Bertha
So you have no papers to quote/reference? It would be very helpful to your position.
 
My claim (that you challenged) wasn't about (the poorly defined) concept of consciousness, it was about the concept of "redness".

There is a vast amount of scientific research aligning colour perception with brain processes and brain activity. I'll grant you that correlation does not indicate causation, but it certainly doesn't rule it out either and can be very suggestive (in fact correlation and causation are often the same thing).
Yes you are correct, correlation does not indicate causation. This was the first problem I had with your initial response. A radio acting as a transceiver of radio signals, one can correlate the radio with the radio signals, but the two are not the same. Just as we know the brain, acting as a transceiver of photons entering the brain via the eye, the neuronal impulses in the brain are not the same as the photons, the two are not the same. In fact, transmission is a commonly observed phenomena in nature.

But the second problem I have with your reply, is you even fail to demonstrate how there is any kind of correlation between the qualia of red, the actual experience of perceiving red in the brain, with any known scientific facts extant. It is well known in consciousness studies and even in neurology that this question is still an open question. There are some hypothesis, but there is no known facts demonstrating the qualia of consciousness. We simply scientifically don't know enough about the brain right now to know even how direct correlation occurs between neuronal electrical/chemical impulses and consciousness i.e. how do the unaware molecules in our brain correlate with conscious awareness, how do colorless neurons in our brain correlate with the experience of the redness of red? We don't even know how these even correlate with brain functions. And causation is yet another step above our current scientific knowledge base. Nobody knows causation of consciousness, not even Stephen fucking Hawkings.

For you to claim correlation, and argue against causation, it is reasonable to assume that you have evidence of "redness" outside this physical realm, or at least outside of the brain. Is this the case?

So you have no papers to quote/reference? It would be very helpful to your position.

Myself, Alex and many others here have pointed to scientific work that demonstrates consciousness is not a localized product of the brain. As I stated before, in the last two decades, there have been 65 scientific peer reviewed studies in NDEs, that obviously bear some consideration regarding the nature of consciousness. In addition, you have the entire field of parapsychology, which is still an ongoing area of scientific inquiry - despite the name calling of "woo" and "pseudo-science" - which is an infantile and denigrating response to the very serious work involved by credible scientific men in parapsychology. In addition, what is not as often mentioned, has been the psychological research of the unconscious by men like Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, Adler, Gerhard, Hollis, etc.

I asked you to provide a summary of your conclusions regarding NDE research, as I questioned your knowledgeability on the subject. Arouet for example here, apparently knows all about the subject, and yet I doubt he has even met a medium in person, or has been involved in any kind of parapsychological or NDE research. So his opinion is pretty much based on his materialistic faith and nothing more. (Unless he surprises us here and actually provides an account of him speaking to an authentic medium - but I doubt this will be the case.)

So I am asking about your knowledge regarding the 65 studies conducted in the last two decades in NDE research. We can narrow it to that field. And since you already apparently have an opinion, I asked you what your summary of that opinion was. Now, since you have yet to provide a single fact regarding what causes consciousness, nor have you seriously addressed the hypothesis that the brain may act as a transceiver for consciousness, which is what I established early on here on this thread as an alternative hypothesis to the materialistic and unproven insistence that consciousness must be only a product of the brain - I am not really sure whether I wish to engage in a discussion with someone who bases his knowledge on faith like Arouet (not science) and who possesses very little knowledge or experience with science related to NDEs or well established attributes of consciousness demonstrated by parapsychology or the well known psychology of the unconscious.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
Yes you are correct, correlation does not indicate causation. This was the first problem I had with your initial response. A radio acting as a transceiver of radio signals, one can correlate the radio with the radio signals, but the two are not the same. Just as we know the brain, acting as a transceiver of photons entering the brain via the eye, the neuronal impulses in the brain are not the same as the photons, the two are not the same. In fact, transmission is a commonly observed phenomena in nature.

But the second problem I have with your reply, is you even fail to demonstrate how there is any kind of correlation between the qualia of red, the actual experience of perceiving red in the brain, with any known scientific facts extant. It is well known in consciousness studies and even in neurology that this question is still an open question. There are some hypothesis, but there is no known facts demonstrating the qualia of consciousness. We simply scientifically don't know enough about the brain right now to know even how direct correlation occurs between neuronal electrical/chemical impulses and consciousness i.e. how do the unaware molecules in our brain create awareness, how do colorless neurons in our brain correlate with the experience of the redness of red? We don't even know how these even correlate with brain functions. And causation is yet another step above our current scientific knowledge base. Nobody knows causation of consciousness, not even Stephen fucking Hawkings.



Myself, Alex and many others here have pointed to scientific work that demonstrates consciousness is not a localized product of the brain. As I stated before, in the last two decades, there have been 65 scientific peer reviewed studies in NDEs, that obviously bear some consideration regarding the nature of consciousness. In addition, you have the entire field of parapsychology, which is still an ongoing area of scientific inquiry - despite the name calling of "woo" and "pseudo-science" - which is an infantile and denigrating response to the very serious work involved by credible scientific men in parapsychology. In addition, what is not as often mentioned, has been the psychological research of the unconscious by men like Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, Adler, Gerhard, Hollis, etc.

Having first challenged me on the concept of redness you seem very keen to switch to the concept of consciousness. I can only assume that is because you have no basis to your claim that the notion of colour can exist extracranially. Even a correlation would be something ;) (tweak something remotely and alter colour perception)

Clearly "redness" and "consciousness" aren't the same thing and I'm not sure moving on to consciousness is helpful. But before we do, you may want to define precisely what you mean by consciousness so that we avoid talking past each other.



I asked you to provide me a summary of your conclusions regarding NDE research, as I question your knowledgeability on the subject. Arouet for example here, apparently knows all about the subject, and yet I doubt he has even met a medium in person, or has been involved in any kind of parapsychological or NDE research. So his opinion is pretty much based on his materialistic faith and nothing more. (Unless he surprises us here and actually provides an account of him speaking to an authentic medium - but I doubt this is the case.)

So I am asking about your knowledge regarding the 65 studies conducted in the last two decades in NDE research. We can narrow it to that field. And since you already apparently have an opinion, I asked you what your summary of that opinion was. Now, since you have yet to provide a single fact regarding what causes consciousness, nor have you seriously addressed the hypothesis that the brain may act as a transceiver for consciousness, which is what I established early on here on this thread as an alternative hypothesis to the materialistic and unproven insistence that consciousness must be only a product of the brain - I am not really sure whether I wish to engage in a discussion with someone who bases his knowledge on faith like Arouet (not science) and who possesses very little knowledge or experience with science related to NDEs or well established attributes of consciousness demonstrated by parapsychology or the well known psychology of the unconscious.

My Best,
Bertha

This is becoming hilarious... Surely you have to find your own research to back up your claims. Please consider this an opportunity to educate me. I linked to a skeptiko thread where we discussed the best studies and their conclusions and there appeared to be a general feeling that the conclusions were guarded.
 
Yes you are correct, correlation does not indicate causation.

More precisely "correlation does not necessarily indicate causation". Correlation is an important part in determining causation. However, care must be taken, There are several possibilities when A and B appear correlated.
  • A causes B or B causes A
  • There is no actual correlation between A and B, the apparent correlation is coincidental, or
  • A and B are both caused by C
(there may be others, that's just off the top of my head).

The key is, to determine if there is a true correlation, you have to test specifically for that, and there are various methods designed to do that. In a case where A does cause B - there is going to be a very close correlation.

In the case of the brain causing conciousness, one manner to test whether the correlation is direct is to manipulate one and see if it changes the other. You can do so in various ways, and track the results. The more manipulating one variable affects the subject, the more confident one can be that there is a true correlation.

When it comes to the brain, there is a very close correlation.

Now- you may argue that that correlation can't definitively answer the question. That's true of almost any scientific correlation. But it is unquestionably evidence in support of the proposition being examined.

The question then becomes does it also provide evidence in support of the proposition that manipulating the brain actually influences some C and that that C always, and consistently causes the conscious sensation (or variations of that proposition). I think we'd be hard pressed to make that argument.

What is possible, though, is that while it is not evidence in support of that proposition, it may be evidence that is consistent with that proposition. That is: it doesn't help us figure out whether that C is there, but it might be consistent with that C being there.

That's where the evidence from parapsychology comes in.

There is certainly evidence from parapsychology that has the potential of providing sufficient and reliable evidence of C. But as JCearley and I were discussing in the other thread, the evidence of parapsychology, for various reasons, is still largely at the exploratory stage. There is very little that has reached the high quality confirmatory stage. That's not to say that it can't get there. Only that it hasn't yet.

So what we have so far is a very very close and highly reliable correlation between brain manipulation and consciousness experience in humans. Strong, though albeit not determinative, evidence. On the other hand we have some intriguing, exciting, but so far mostly exploratory evidence for something else being involved. Evidence that should seriously evaluated, kept in mind, and kept in the running, but currently not as a leading contender at this stage.

We should continue to reevaluate this assessment as the evidence continues to develop across the board. We should support further parapsychological research to give us the best chance at finding reliable evidence of C, but also continue the course of exploring the mind/brain connection.


I asked you to provide me a summary of your conclusions regarding the NDE research, as I question your knowledgeability on the subject. Arouet for example here, apparently knows all about the subject, and yet I doubt he has even met a medium in person, or has been involved in any kind of parapsychological or NDE research.

So his opinion is pretty much based on his materialistic faith and nothing more. (Unless he surprises me and actually provides me an account of him actually speaking to an authentic medium - but I doubt this is the case.)

Well, I've already demonstrated the lie to your personal accusations of my declaring myself an expert in the other thread (unsurprising that you haven't acknowledged it).

That said, I'd like to address the proposition that going to a medium is necessary if one's aim is to draw reliable conclusions about mediumship. Now, I'm not going to suggest that it is a negative thing to go to a medium as part of a study of mediumship - it can be helpful to have some personal experience of the context of the topic. However, in terms of obtaining reliable information, unless one is going to take the trouble to develop a solid, low risk of bias protocol, and properly carry it out, the chance of being able to draw reliable conclusions about the visit is relatively low. Even then, the best you will have is one set of data points to study - likely a very small sample size.

We're talking about a lot of work, including finding a medium willing to participate who is of sufficient quality, and still have limited results.

Doesn't sound like an efficient use of resources.

Second is the contentention that one must actively be a practicing parapsychologist. Also, hopefully for reasons that are clear, not a very practical solution.

There are a vast number of topics out there that have been studied, over the years, and across the planet. We recognise that it is not possible for every person to actively participate in every one. We have developed methods of sharing information, funnelling it down the chain from the people who study it up close out into the general public. Empirically, I think we can say that people have had a great amount of success in learning about the work of others by studying the reports, etc. that the scientists produce. With the advent of the internet the lay person is exposed to more sources than every before. The methods of information sharing are broader than ever. The ivory tower has been replaced with one of glass.

The upshot is that we don't have to do our own research in order to draw conclusions. We can look at the research of others. And we can utilise techniques to evaluate that research and draw the best conclusions that we can.

In terms of my conclusions - I generally try to state as clearly as I can what I base my conclusions on. When it comes to my views on parapsychology I've documented those opinions in this forum and the old one. I can't recall every citing "materialistic faith".
So I am asking about your knowledge regarding the 65 studies conducted in the last two decades in NDE research. We can narrow it to that field. And since you already apparently have an opinion, I asked you what your summary of that opinion was. Now, since you have yet to provide a single fact regarding what causes consciousness, nor have you seriously addressed the hypothesis that the brain may act as a transceiver for consciousness, which is what I established early on here on this thread as an alternative hypothesis to the materialistic insistence that consciousness must be only a product of the brain - I am not really sure whether I wish to engage in a discussion with someone who bases his knowledge on faith like Arouet (not science) and who possesses very little knowledge or experience with science related to NDEs or now well established attributes of consciousness demonstrated by parapsychology or the psychology of the unconscious.

My Best,
Bertha

I can't tell you if I've read all 65 of the studies you've referred to. I've read a lot of studies over my time with skeptiko. If an NDE study was posted on this forum, you can be sure I read it, plus I've read some that were not posted. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some you are thinking of that I haven't read. (I can't recall if you've posted the list. If not, then do so, I'll read any that I don't have to pay for).

But in terms of discussing the research, why don't you read my analysis of the Lancet NDE study and the posts that follow, then make your contribution to the discussion: http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/the-van-lommel-lancet-nde-paper.110/
 
Back
Top