Does the brain really "cause" consciousness?

[Magical Realist]

The perception of witnessing thoughts arise is also a thought, one which cannot perceive it's own origin. The origin must then be more basic than thought, some kind of physical process of computation. The process gives rise to the feeling of control, but I don't think it is actual control. I think it's a hierarchy of filters or post-processing of spontaneous connections of meaning or stream of consciousness. This stream is something you can perceive when all the filters are removed by something like LSD. In all this process of data manipulation, what can we point to that aligns with the concept of a coherent, persistent self?

A person in the process of lucid rational thought is nothing like the spontaneous phantasmagoria of an LSD trip. The self we point to is the thinker of the thoughts, which we all have a direct and self-evident experience of. At least I think we all do. Are YOUR thoughts just the spontaneous accidents of unintended neural firings? Why should they be taken seriously then?

 

[Sarkus]

Who or what is doing the directing then? Are you seriously ascribing chains of electrochemical reactions with telic intent?

No, I am not ascribing anything with telic intent, any more than I would ascribe it to water that merely obeys the law of gravity as it runs downhill. Any notion of intent is from the point of view of being caused by consciousness - and thus we can not look to such actions as evidence that consciousness is the cause... as it is an a priori assumption in the very term.
If your brain has convinced "you" that you have made a decision... to choose X over Y... then "you" will be convinced that it was "your" choice, even though your brain might well have made the choice without reference to "you".

An alternative view to yours is that the way our brains work is so complex that the way it reaches some decisions requires activity that has given rise to consciousness. It is impossible to separate the decision-making from being conscious, but that does not mean that consciousness is the cause, only that the same activity that gives rise to the decision-making also gives rise to consciousness... I.e. it is a matter of shared cause rather than one being the cause of the other.

Yes I can. Duh..I'm doing it right now. And if they hooked up cat scan to my brain they'd be able to record the brain activity responding to what I decide to think. IOW, we do indeed cause our actions. It's simply ridiculous to claim otherwise.

actually tests have been done that show decisions can be made several seconds before the consciousness makes the decision. While those tests are rather specific, they allude to the fact that consciousness ay well just be a tipping point... made aware of decisions as they are decided upon, and the consciousness is under the illusion that the consciousness itself made the decision.
It is further complicated, I think, by some of the decision-making routines only being available while the person is conscious, further enforcing the illusion.

But it is a complex beast, and given what we know of the underlying activity at quantum and molecular levels, it is foolish to dismiss the notion with a hand wave that consciousness is merely an illusion... unless one wishes to stick to the idea that consciousness is somehow a non-material thing yet somehow interacts with matter without leaving a trace.

 

[hansda]

What's the evidence for a soul?

Life is the evidence for a soul.

Soul is the difference between "a living body" and "a dead body".

Soul is the know-er and do-er in a living body.

We don't fall because our brains coordinate information from the inner ear and our muscles to prevent it.

A dead body has "a brain", "inner ear" and "muscles". Why "a dead body", inspite of having all the organs necessary to prevent a fall; can not prevent a fall?

What you are calling a soul is just the effect of a functioning body.

Why a dead body can not function?

And as for the "authentic account of reincarnation by Paramhansa Yogananda"... without supporting evidence, the only thing that can be stated as authentic is that he is claiming his recollection of events to be true. But since he has a vested interest in the story being true, it is unwise to take it as truth merely because he claims it to be so.
Rather like saying the Bible stories are true merely because they claim to be true.

Paramhansa Yogananda mentioned about a secret yoga technique, through which soul can be percepted. Soul can not be percepted through the normal mechanism of perception because the "soul" itself is the perceptor of all our perceptions.

The main ones would be Newton´s laws which require a force to make every atom change its movements, and fact that "souls" produce no detectible force so can not "do anything."

Can you explain why the apple(when not ripe) remains attached to the tree and why it falls(when ripe) from the tree under gravitational force?


When you move your hand or any limb, isn't this an interaction between soul and atom?

 

[Magical Realist]

No, I am not ascribing anything with telic intent, any more than I would ascribe it to water that merely obeys the law of gravity as it runs downhill. Any notion of intent is from the point of view of being caused by consciousness - and thus we can not look to such actions as evidence that consciousness is the cause... as it is an a priori assumption in the very term.
If your brain has convinced "you" that you have made a decision... to choose X over Y... then "you" will be convinced that it was "your" choice, even though your brain might well have made the choice without reference to "you".

An alternative view to yours is that the way our brains work is so complex that the way it reaches some decisions requires activity that has given rise to consciousness. It is impossible to separate the decision-making from being conscious, but that does not mean that consciousness is the cause, only that the same activity that gives rise to the decision-making also gives rise to consciousness... I.e. it is a matter of shared cause rather than one being the cause of the other.
actually tests have been done that show decisions can be made several seconds before the consciousness makes the decision. While those tests are rather specific, they allude to the fact that consciousness ay well just be a tipping point... made aware of decisions as they are decided upon, and the consciousness is under the illusion that the consciousness itself made the decision.
It is further complicated, I think, by some of the decision-making routines only being available while the person is conscious, further enforcing the illusion.

But it is a complex beast, and given what we know of the underlying activity at quantum and molecular levels, it is foolish to dismiss the notion with a hand wave that consciousness is merely an illusion... unless one wishes to stick to the idea that consciousness is somehow a non-material thing yet somehow interacts with matter without leaving a trace.

That's precisely what I'm sticking to--to the abundantly evidenced fact, indeed a priori intuition in the Kantian sense, that a non-material mind interacts with matter leaving traces in the brain of its interactions. Your argument entirely rests on your personal incredulity regarding this fact. The mind does exist and is non-material. It's simply one among a number of non-material phenomena like space, time, energy, scientific laws, virtual particles, attractors, etc. And all the evidence exists for its effects on the brain. But you blind yourself to it with your own assumption that only material things are real. Such an assumption is not warranted by the evidence.

 

[spidergoat]

Life is the evidence for a soul.

Soul is the difference between "a living body" and "a dead body".

Soul is the know-er and do-er in a living body.




A dead body has "a brain", "inner ear" and "muscles". Why "a dead body", inspite of having all the organs necessary to prevent a fall; can not prevent a fall?



Why a dead body can not function?

Dead bodies are physically different from alive ones. A non-working car generally has all the parts there it needs to run, it's just that there is a defect in one of a chain of things that has to go right for the thing to work. This is the most blatant form of argument from ignorance that I've ever heard.

A soul is not necessary to explain how an alive body works either.

 

[Magical Realist]

No, I am not ascribing anything with telic intent, any more than I would ascribe it to water that merely obeys the law of gravity as it runs downhill. Any notion of intent is from the point of view of being caused by consciousness - and thus we can not look to such actions as evidence that consciousness is the cause... as it is an a priori assumption in the very term.
If your brain has convinced "you" that you have made a decision... to choose X over Y... then "you" will be convinced that it was "your" choice, even though your brain might well have made the choice without reference to "you".

I see. So now the brain makes choices for us for its own mysterious and probably unknowable reasons? That certainly sounds like "direction" to me. How do chains of electrochemical reactions, occurring entirely by the strict laws of chemistry, suddenly get to "choose" which actions will occur next and which actions won't. Does the brain pre-exist the synapses that make it up? Indeed is it anything separate from the sum of those law-abiding sequences of events?

An alternative view to yours is that the way our brains work is so complex that the way it reaches some decisions requires activity that has given rise to consciousness. It is impossible to separate the decision-making from being conscious, but that does not mean that consciousness is the cause, only that the same activity that gives rise to the decision-making also gives rise to consciousness... I.e. it is a matter of shared cause rather than one being the cause of the other.

So the brain goes thru the trouble of generating actions for its own mysterious reasons while somehow generating the illusion that we consciously intended them at the same time? That's a lot of work for a brain to go thru just to move an arm. Does the brain also generate the illusion that we are conscious of our perceptions while we are perceiving the world? That we are speaking when words come out of our mouths? That we are remembering events when memories surface in our minds? How much more of consciousness can be dismissed as illusory based on this epiphenomenal dictum.

actually tests have been done that show decisions can be made several seconds before the consciousness makes the decision. While those tests are rather specific, they allude to the fact that consciousness ay well just be a tipping point... made aware of decisions as they are decided upon, and the consciousness is under the illusion that the consciousness itself made the decision.
It is further complicated, I think, by some of the decision-making routines only being available while the person is conscious, further enforcing the illusion.

Let's put it this way. I decide to raise my arm. And my arm rises. I say my decision made my arm rise. What does your theory claim is the cause of my arm rising? Surely actions still have causes. Only your explanation leaves us mystified as to all the true causes of human behavior. People are walking about doing things they have no control over for entirely unknown reasons. But an explanation that leaves things even more mysterious than before is not a very good explanation in my opinion. Think I'll stick with the conscious intent paradigm.

 

[Sarkus]

I see.

I doubt it.

So now the brain makes choices for us for its own mysterious and probably unknowable reasons? That certainly sounds like "direction" to me.

Not mysterious in most cases... in many "we" become aware of them and are consciously aware and appear to take part in the decision making.
As for "direction" - even water knows to flow downhill.

How do chains of electrochemical reactions, occurring entirely by the strict laws of chemistry, suddenly get to "choose" which actions will occur next and which actions won't.

Through a process of evolution, those molecules, groups of molecules, that have managed to react appropriately to changing conditions have generally survived, whether they were aware of it or not. Couple that to incredible levels of complexity... et voila.

Does the brain pre-exist the synapses that make it up? Indeed is it anything separate from the sum of those law-abiding sequences of events?

The synapses need a substrate in which to react, and it is a matter of definition whether you refer to a working brain as a "brain" but not a dead one.

So the brain goes thru the trouble of generating actions for its own mysterious reasons while somehow generating the illusion that we consciously intended them at the same time? That's a lot of work for a brain to go thru just to move an arm.

Yes. If all we did was move arms.
But once you get to a certain level of complexity, to a point via evolution where we become conscious, and that consciousness pervades much of the gross decision-making processes of the brain, it is difficult to separate consciousness from our actions - at least when we are conscious - as the same activity in the brain that gives rise to the motions also give rise to illusion of consciousness - and it is your a priori assumption that consciousness precedes action, rather than there possibly being a common cause to both.

Does the brain also generate the illusion that we are conscious of our perceptions while we are perceiving the world? That we are speaking when words come out of our mouths? That we are remembering events when memories surface in our minds? How much more of consciousness can be dismissed as illusory based on this epiphenomenal dictum.

All of it can be understood as an illusion. But do not for one iota suggest that that is to dismiss it. That is your folly, your bias. You seem to think that considering something an illusion is to belittle it, but it is merely to understand it as something other than which it appears.

Let's put it this way. I decide to raise my arm. And my arm rises. I say my decision made my arm rise. What does your theory claim is the cause of my arm rising?

At a gross level you could trace it back to your conscious "decision" to raise your arm... that is at least how far you are tracing it back.
But what caused you to make that decision? Was it the words that your ears heard / your eyes saw that prompted you?
If you think your "consciousness" is more than an illusion, and makes "decisions" - i.e. guides matter - then how does it do it? Where is the observable trace on the matter? Or do you perhaps think snooker balls suddenly alter direction by 90-degrees with no apparent physical means?

Surely actions still have causes.

Indeed - all the way to the molecular level and below.

Only your explanation leaves us mystified as to all the true causes of human behavior.

Well, self-preservation is a key driver - evolution has instilled that within us. But I don't claim to have the answers to such questions - but I follow the science, the evidence, rather than cling to a catch-all answer merely to satisfy the need for an answer other than "I don't know".

People are walking about doing things they have no control over for entirely unknown reasons.

This is a view borne from misunderstanding. The person, the "I", has as much control over their body as everyone else - whether you hold to the illusory nature of consciousness or not. The "I" IS the person - it is their actions, their processing of inputs and delivery of outputs. The "I" is their conscious portrayal of what they are. On a conscious level everyone appears to have control of themselves and are responsible for themselves, and we are all trapped by that illusion and can do nothing else but abide by that illusion. Are the true reasons of actions unknown? Yes - but "we" (i.e. the consciousness) usually attributes actions it has decided upon to the reasoning it is aware of.
Why did you lift your arm when you did? Your consciousness will say one thing... but there is always a purely physical causal chain that operates far beneath the level of consciousness such that "we" are not aware of it, and so "we" conclude, due to the illusion, that "we" are the cause. And as far as "we" are concernced, "we" are.

But an explanation that leaves things even more mysterious than before is not a very good explanation in my opinion. Think I'll stick with the conscious intent paradigm.

Okay - God did it. Simple.
"Conscious intent" does not answer the question, though - it merely limits the enquiry to matters that we are aware of... i.e. you trap yourself by the limitations you put upon yourself.
It does not answer any question such as "what is consciousness"... and you can create an answer to paper over the gap... such as "it is non-material" - but that is an order of magnitude more mysterious than any answer proposed from the purely material, even if the answer is limited to "I don't know, but it is material in nature".

 

[Syne]

actually tests have been done that show decisions can be made several seconds before the consciousness makes the decision. While those tests are rather specific, they allude to the fact that consciousness ay well just be a tipping point... made aware of decisions as they are decided upon, and the consciousness is under the illusion that the consciousness itself made the decision.

No, further actual tests have been done since those that show the "readiness potential" is likely no more than the brain "paying attention".

 

[Magical Realist]

I doubt it.

Such a simple statement in my universe where people actually do intend their own thoughts and words and actions. "I doubt it." IOW, you truly doubt what I said. I believe you. But see, in YOUR universe doubting must be some sort of illusion generated by your brain. So let's see..we must therefore doubt that you are actually doubting. But wait a second. Descartes showed us we can't do that. We can doubt everything BUT our act of doubt. Ergo..cogito ergo sum. oops!

Not mysterious in most cases... in many "we" become aware of them and are consciously aware and appear to take part in the decision making.

So we are simultaneously aware that the brain is just equalizing electrical potentials with no intent at all while also believing we are intending our own thoughts and actions? I don' think so. That doesn't even make sense.

Through a process of evolution, those molecules, groups of molecules, that have managed to react appropriately to changing conditions have generally survived, whether they were aware of it or not. Couple that to incredible levels of complexity... et voila.

Voila is right..Aware molecules? Are you some kind of animist?

The synapses need a substrate in which to react, and it is a matter of definition whether you refer to a working brain as a "brain" but not a dead one.

I have no idea what you're saying here. Do you?

Yes. If all we did was move arms.
But once you get to a certain level of complexity, to a point via evolution where we become conscious, and that consciousness pervades much of the gross decision-making processes of the brain, it is difficult to separate consciousness from our actions - at least when we are conscious - as the same activity in the brain that gives rise to the motions also give rise to illusion of consciousness - and it is your a priori assumption that consciousness precedes action, rather than there possibly being a common cause to both.

A priori only in the sense that I logically know firsthand that I'm really conscious and do consciously intend my own actions. The fact that I cannot even infer other existences without assuming my own consciousness entails that it must be true. Otherwise we are left in your zany world where everything is an illusion since consciousness itself is an illusion.

All of it can be understood as an illusion. But do not for one iota suggest that that is to dismiss it. That is your folly, your bias. You seem to think that considering something an illusion is to belittle it, but it is merely to understand it as something other than which it appears.

Calling consciousness an illusion does more than belittle it. It completely nullifies it. If something is an illusion then it means it isn't real, and therefore does not exist as what it is. Consciousness for you is therefore reduced to a state of non-conscious illusion in which nothing is real anymore. You might as well be a solipsist living inside his own self-created hallucination.

At a gross level you could trace it back to your conscious "decision" to raise your arm... that is at least how far you are tracing it back.
But what caused you to make that decision? Was it the words that your ears heard / your eyes saw that prompted you?

What caused my decision? I did. A decision that is caused is no longer free and therefore not a decision. I really do make decisions. And I am the cause of the actions of my own body. All my experience confirms this.

If you think your "consciousness" is more than an illusion, and makes "decisions" - i.e. guides matter - then how does it do it? Where is the observable trace on the matter? Or do you perhaps think snooker balls suddenly alter direction by 90-degrees with no apparent physical means?

Who knows? Just because we don't know how our minds cause our own thoughts or actions doesn't mean we don't know THAT they do. I decide to raise my arm and it happens. That's good enough evidence for me. To deny it is to be reduced to absurdities.

Indeed - all the way to the molecular level and below.

Well gee why stop there? Why not trace the causal process all the way back to the Big Bang. That would certainly invalidate all the other causes that happened between now and then wouldn't it?

Well, self-preservation is a key driver - evolution has instilled that within us. But I don't claim to have the answers to such questions - but I follow the science, the evidence, rather than cling to a catch-all answer merely to satisfy the need for an answer other than "I don't know".

No you don't follow the evidence. You make the groundless assumption that only material things are real and then dismiss all evidence for immaterial things as illusions generated for no reason whatsoever. That isn't science by any stretch. It's more akin to dogmaticism.

This is a view borne from misunderstanding. The person, the "I", has as much control over their body as everyone else - whether you hold to the illusory nature of consciousness or not. The "I" IS the person - it is their actions, their processing of inputs and delivery of outputs. The "I" is their conscious portrayal of what they are. On a conscious level everyone appears to have control of themselves and are responsible for themselves, and we are all trapped by that illusion and can do nothing else but abide by that illusion. Are the true reasons of actions unknown? Yes - but "we" (i.e. the consciousness) usually attributes actions it has decided upon to the reasoning it is aware of.

Here we go again with the semantic vagaries. The "I" has control and yet it only appears to have control. The "I" is a real representation and it is also an illusion. We know the reasons for our actions and yet are deluded about them. If only words had set and agreed upon meanings that we ALL could understand and communicate with.

Why did you lift your arm when you did? Your consciousness will say one thing... but there is always a purely physical causal chain that operates far beneath the level of consciousness such that "we" are not aware of it, and so "we" conclude, due to the illusion, that "we" are the cause. And as far as "we" are concernced, "we" are.

If conscious intent is an illusion then we are NOT the cause of our actions. Something else is. There is no zen here of being the cause and not being the cause at the same time.

Okay - God did it. Simple.

I have a logical explanation for my own behavior. I am the fruition of intentions, motives, reasons, purposes, decisions, and goals all reasonably accounting for my own actions. You have nothing of the sort. Your actions are the results of unknowable and unpredictable processes deep inside you brain tissue. You call my explanation believing in God. You don't even have anything to believe in. You are trapped inside a perfect illusion like a fish in a bowl. Hell, how do you even know I exist. Perhaps I'm an illusion too.

"Conscious intent" does not answer the question, though - it merely limits the enquiry to matters that we are aware of... i.e. you trap yourself by the limitations you put upon yourself.

You confine yourself to an illusory existence and I'M the one putting limitations on myself?

It does not answer any question such as "what is consciousness"... and you can create an answer to paper over the gap... such as "it is non-material" - but that is an order of magnitude more mysterious than any answer proposed from the purely material, even if the answer is limited to "I don't know, but it is material in nature".

Nonmaterial entities are only mysterious and magical in your universe where only material things are predefined as real. In my universe, the one I actually live in everyday, nonmaterial things like minds are passe and run of the mill. I accept them as given facts of my experience. Whether they can be explained or are even explainable is another matter.

 

[spidergoat]

...If conscious intent is an illusion then we are NOT the cause of our actions. Something else is. There is no zen here of being the cause and not being the cause at the same time....

That's correct. The body is the cause, not the illusory sense of self.

Your actions are the results of unknowable and unpredictable processes deep inside you brain tissue.

Now you're getting it!

 

[Syne]

That's correct. The body is the cause, not the illusory sense of self.


Now you're getting it!

So there is no personal responsibility or morality? That sounds convenient. Have you ever seen studies on how a sense of responsibility can effect behavior? http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2008/04/22/changing-belief-in-free-will-c/

 

[spidergoat]

So there is no personal responsibility or morality? That sounds convenient. Have you ever seen studies on how a sense of responsibility can effect behavior? http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2008/04/22/changing-belief-in-free-will-c/

Of course there is still personal responsibility, that's a necessary social value.

 

[Syne]

Of course there is still personal responsibility, that's a necessary social value.

Seems you either mean that personal responsibility is only the punitive enforcement of culpability upon the individual by society or that it is as illusory as you claim the sense of self. Either way, there is no real personal responsibility. Both place cause external to the individual, which then cannot truly be vested with any real sense of culpability. Any guilt could only be accrued to coincidence, not cause.

 

[spidergoat]

All moral, spiritual, and ethical values are false. Your moral outrage is a conditioned response to stimuli on the part of a physical organism.

 

[Billy T]

Seems you either mean that personal responsibility is only the punitive enforcement of culpability upon the individual by society or that it is as illusory as you claim the sense of self. Either way, there is no real personal responsibility. Both place cause external to the individual, which then cannot truly be vested with any real sense of culpability. Any guilt could only be accrued to coincidence, not cause.

I´m not sure, but you seem to think any personal responsibility is due to fact society can (and does sometimes) punish those who violate its norms. I think it has other origins, when most effective (as if chance of being punished was all there is to it, many would think they are too clever and careful to get caught, and threat of punishment would not be very effective at making “personal responsibility.”)

This would tend to imply no personal responsibility could be installed by “God” unless you also believe some of the Bible´s quaint stories, like Lot´s wife was turned into a pillar of salt because she violated God´s instructions to not look back towards their old home, etc. Bad things do happen to both the “just” and the “evil” with no evident bias indicating God is handing out punishment to the evil (like Hitler) or rewarding the just (like making Beethoven deaf).

I do however, think, that parents make certain actions be understood as “bad” and others as “good” in early years of life and the are usually quite successful in this effort for most. Often there is a rational and socially beneficial result of what is instilled in the child so well he fells at least “uncomfortable” when violating these norms.

For example a brother and sister were touring Europe together, and for economy, sleeping in the same room (and same bed if there was only one). She was “on the pill” and he had condoms in case he got “lucky” with some local girl. The talked about it and correctly concluded that there was no rational reason why they should not have sex together, and so they did one night. – Only that one time as both felt very bad afterwards. – Brother and sister not having sex together was a personal responsibility too deeply instilled to be violated.

 

[hansda]

Dead bodies are physically different from alive ones.

What are the physical differences between 'a dead body' and 'a living body'? Are there any weight mismatch? or, Is there any physical organ missing?

A non-working car generally has all the parts there it needs to run, it's just that there is a defect in one of a chain of things that has to go right for the thing to work.

A 'non-working car' can be repaired to 'a working condition'. Can 'a dead body' be cured to make it 'a living body'?

This is the most blatant form of argument from ignorance that I've ever heard.

Ignorance of what? The following link says, there is no 'death'. See http://www.robertlanza.com/does-death-exist-new-theory-says-no-2/.

A soul is not necessary to explain how an alive body works either.

If a single 'term/word' can be designed/coined to define the difference between 'a living body' and 'a dead body'; what should be it?

 

[Magical Realist]

All moral, spiritual, and ethical values are false. Your moral outrage is a conditioned response to stimuli on the part of a physical organism.

Do you live out this amoral creed? Do you treat people like crap and think only of yourself? I doubt it. Once again the epiphenomalist touting a creed that not only can't be lived but can't even be believed in. Ofcourse since all thought is unintended neural firings that means there's no truth either, including your own. What a dark little world you are left stranded in. Humans as mere robots with no real consciousness or moral dignity.

 

[kx000]

All moral, spiritual, and ethical values are false. Your moral outrage is a conditioned response to stimuli on the part of a physical organism.

We're abstract! Morality is not up to you!

 

[Sarkus]

Such a simple statement in my universe where people actually do intend their own thoughts and words and actions. "I doubt it." IOW, you truly doubt what I said. I believe you. But see, in YOUR universe doubting must be some sort of illusion generated by your brain. So let's see..we must therefore doubt that you are actually doubting. But wait a second. Descartes showed us we can't do that. We can doubt everything BUT our act of doubt. Ergo..cogito ergo sum. oops!

You continually fail, throughout your responses, to understand the implications - or lack thereof - of the difference in the understanding we have as to the nature of free-will. You fail to realise that, from a practical point of view, there is zero difference.
If consciousness / free-will et al are illusions, as I consider them to be, then they are illusions that are so pervasive, so perfect, that we can not escape from them.
You don't seem to understand the implications of things being illusory: that just because we understand them to be other than they consciously appear, we don't necessarily treat them, react to them, differently.

For example, take this example[/ur] of an optical illusion.
We know it is an illusion.
In many cases we even understand why we observe it the way we do.
But that can't stop our brain working the way it does, and our observing it the way we do.
I.e. our understanding of an illusion does not mean we experience it any differently.

In some cases - such as magical illusions - we understand that "magic" doesn't exist and that it is all illusion.
But we are still often baffled by the way things appear to disappear - and we can't stop ourselves observing those things seeming to disappear.
I.e. the illusion remains as it always has done. Things work the way they always have done.
But our understanding remains.

Now imagine, if you can, an illusion that is not merely optical, but all pervasive, and perfect, such that we can not escape from it. We can understand it, but that can not alter how it affects us or how we react to it.

So we are simultaneously aware that the brain is just equalizing electrical potentials with no intent at all while also believing we are intending our own thoughts and actions? I don' think so. That doesn't even make sense.

It makes sense - we are aware of the illusory nature, but can not break through the illusion - just as we can not observe the example I linked to above any differently by merely understanding it to be an illusion.

Voila is right..Aware molecules? Are you some kind of animist?

I have not said anywhere that I consider molecules to be aware. But thanks for the straw man.
I consider consciousness / free-will et al to be emergent properties that only have meaning from that higher level upward.

I have no idea what you're saying here. Do you?

Yes thanks. I was making the distinction between the meanings of "brain" - between a functioning and non-functioning one.

A priori only in the sense that I logically know firsthand that I'm really conscious and do consciously intend my own actions. The fact that I cannot even infer other existences without assuming my own consciousness entails that it must be true. Otherwise we are left in your zany world where everything is an illusion since consciousness itself is an illusion.

You are making unwarranted implications with regard things being illusions. They remain as they always had done - only our understanding of their underlying nature is different: they are not as they appear to be - but that does not mean (as explained and demonstrated above) that we can behave any differently with regard them.
Further, noone is doubting your consciousness - nor mine - nor anyone elses.
And it is a priori (or at least appears so) simply because you appear to have made the assumption and then work toward proving it, rather than merely following rationally where the evidence leads.

Calling consciousness an illusion does more than belittle it. It completely nullifies it. If something is an illusion then it means it isn't real, and therefore does not exist as what it is. Consciousness for you is therefore reduced to a state of non-conscious illusion in which nothing is real anymore. You might as well be a solipsist living inside his own self-created hallucination.

Far from belittling it, it puts it at the highest level. The only thing it nullifies is the need for concepts that rely on an unproven, unevidenced concept of "non-material".
Far from reducing consciousness, it promotes it to the pinnacle of complexity that it has given rise to something so wonderful.
And as for "nothing is real anymore" - this is your misunderstanding of the implications - in that nothing is anymore real or unreal than if you hold consciousness to be "non-material". It may change our understanding of what "reality" is, but from a practical point of view we are no less conscious, no less responsible for our actions, than if we hold an alternative view. To think otherwise is flawed.

What caused my decision? I did. A decision that is caused is no longer free and therefore not a decision. I really do make decisions. And I am the cause of the actions of my own body. All my experience confirms this.

Indeed - as I am the cause of my actions. But that only takes things back to the level of consciousness - i.e. what we are aware of. Medical examination can possibly highlight causes below that, but when they do you become aware of them... but they can not make you aware of each and every of the vast complex array of causes that lead to any and every decision you make.
But from a conscious point of view (at which we all operate) there is no difference in the way we understand things. The difference is only in what drives our consciousness... what causes it (or at least where it emerges from). You are reading too much into that difference, but since we both operate at the level of consciousness, such causes beneath that are irrelevant to the way we think we operate.

Who knows? Just because we don't know how our minds cause our own thoughts or actions doesn't mean we don't know THAT they do. I decide to raise my arm and it happens. That's good enough evidence for me. To deny it is to be reduced to absurdities.

And this is the difference between us: you settle upon a conclusion and then fit your understanding of the evidence to fit - and where it doesn't you invent some additional concept (i.e. "non-materiality"). I (and others) make no conclusion but follow the evidence - i.e. what we do know - and try to theorise how that evidence can lead to the observed conclusions.
You look at conscious activity and limit your enquiry/understanding back to the level of conscious thought - and so think that consciousness causes conscious activity.
Noone is actually denying that - from a conscious point of view.
But you don't look beneath the level of conscious activity and try to understand what is actually going on. Instead you invent some "non-material" layer between the micro and the macro. I find that irrational.

Well gee why stop there? Why not trace the causal process all the way back to the Big Bang. That would certainly invalidate all the other causes that happened between now and then wouldn't it?

We probably could trace causes all the way back, certainly they exist - if one holds that all effects have causes (or are uncaused but random within a probability function). Or are you suggesting that somehow there are uncaused non-random effects? It seems to be what you are proposing with the "non-material".
But while it is theoretically possible to trace the causal chain back to the BB (or at least until our understanding of physics breaks down when we investigate the first few moments after the BB), from a conscious practical level we only trace the causes or our actions back to what we are consciously aware of. And in that you are no different from me.

No you don't follow the evidence. You make the groundless assumption that only material things are real and then dismiss all evidence for immaterial things as illusions generated for no reason whatsoever. That isn't science by any stretch. It's more akin to dogmaticism.

You confuse evidence with your interpretation of the evidence.
The evidence, at its simplest level, is that we are complex arrangements of atoms/molecules and are conscious (whatever that means), and that individual molecules are not conscious.
Whereas you insert a layer of "non-materiality" between the two levels (between single molecules and complex arrangements thereof) to explain the difference in properties we observe between the complex arrangement and the single molecule, I (and others) take the approach that the observations of the higher complexity are driven entirely by the lower levels without the need for some additional and non-evidenced layer.
So please do not confuse your interpretation of evidence for the actual evidence.

Here we go again with the semantic vagaries. The "I" has control and yet it only appears to have control. The "I" is a real representation and it is also an illusion. We know the reasons for our actions and yet are deluded about them. If only words had set and agreed upon meanings that we ALL could understand and communicate with.

Given that we are talking of different natures of "I" (even if they are appear to operate from a practical pov in the same way) it is natural that one needs to be semantically precise.

If conscious intent is an illusion then we are NOT the cause of our actions. Something else is. There is no zen here of being the cause and not being the cause at the same time.

"We" are the cause of "our" actions, regardless of whether we hold consciousness to be an illusion or not. We can not be otherwise, the same way that you can not observe the optical illusion any differently even once you understand it to be an illusion. When we are talking about morals, ethics, responsibility and other such matters, these operate at the same level as consciousness... so it is irrelevant what we consider consciousness to actually be.
But ultimately "we" are not the ultimate cause of the actions performed... but "we" take responsibility for all actions that we are consciously aware of taking... because both "we" and "responsibility" operate at the level of consciousness - i.e. below the level of consciousness there is no "we" and there is no concept of "responsibility".

I have a logical explanation for my own behavior. I am the fruition of intentions, motives, reasons, purposes, decisions, and goals all reasonably accounting for my own actions. You have nothing of the sort. Your actions are the results of unknowable and unpredictable processes deep inside you brain tissue. You call my explanation believing in God. You don't even have anything to believe in. You are trapped inside a perfect illusion like a fish in a bowl. Hell, how do you even know I exist. Perhaps I'm an illusion too.

As stated at the start of this post, you misunderstand the implications of the alternative position. All the causes that you have to explain your own behaviour are things that operate at the same level as consciousness. And since we all do, there is little to dispute - until you claim that I have nothing of the sort.
So again - we all operate at the level of consciousness - so all those matters that also do are relevant, and those items that operate beneath that level are relegated to irrelevance (from a conscious point of view) until such time as they are brought to our awareness (e.g. one might start acting differently due to pain without a consciousness awareness of the cause of the pain).

You confine yourself to an illusory existence and I'M the one putting limitations on myself?

Not on the way you operate - just on your understanding. And I don't confine myself to any sort of existence - my existence is confined by what it is (as do you).

Nonmaterial entities are only mysterious and magical in your universe where only material things are predefined as real. In my universe, the one I actually live in everyday, nonmaterial things like minds are passe and run of the mill. I accept them as given facts of my experience. Whether they can be explained or are even explainable is another matter.

Non-material things are only "run-of-the-mill" in fantasy stories. As far as I am aware there has never been any evidence that has logically or rationally led to the conclusion that non-material things exist. Although do feel free to show where I am in error with this.
Just don't confuse your interpretation with the actual evidence.

 

[Billy T]

To Sarkus Thanks for trouble of making the exceptionally clear post 339 analysis showing that Magical Realists’ fundamental problem is confusing his interpretation of facts with the actual evidence. I.e. as evidence that they prove the existence of what he assumes is their cause.

Your use of an illusion that all must experience is a good idea to show that just because all have the illusion of being conscious or having free will (neither of which seem to be possible even for a very complex set of interconnected "switches" (like transistors or neurons). This "it ain´t possible felling" is not necessarily a valid basis to postulate (and certainly does not prove) the reality of some "non-material" agent acting. Your choice of illustrations is, however, not the best as the effect is not strong for many and not easy to explain why it occurs.

IMHO a better choice that is very strong and understood in detail is the Sheppard’s "turning the tables" illusion here:
http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/sze_shepardTables/index.html

Our brains, specifically the visual system of it, ONLY have 2D images on the retina, yet we automatically construct a 3D understanding of what we are seeing, and not always consistent with the real 3D world - I.e. illusions do exist and that is what we directly experience as "real."

It is impossible to see / experience these two tables as having identical tops, even when then one of them slowly moves to cover the other after you hit the "run button."

See more fantastic illusions, many fully explained at: http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/ Or just click thru the forward and reverse buttons in the top left of this illusion to step thru many, in the order listed at this site.