> someone2 wrote:

>> 1Z wrote:

>>> someone2 wrote:

>>>> 1Z wrote:

>>>>> someone2 wrote:

>>>>>> 1Z wrote:

>>>>>>> someone3 wrote:

>>>>>>>> 1Z wrote:

>>>>>>>>> someone3 wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> 1Z wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> someone3 wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> 1Z wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone3 wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1Z wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone3 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why couldn't the behaviour of a human be explained in terms of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> biological mechanism and the laws of physics with the assumption that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the subject had no conscious experiences (if the materialist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective were correct)?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why couldn't it be explained in terms of conscious experiences without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appealing to the laws of physics? After all, that is what someone who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knew no science would do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to be assuming that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) different accounts mean different things (rather than different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspectives on the same thing)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) If one account succeeds, the other automatically fails.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it could then the conscious experiences themselves wouldn't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influential, it would just be a rhetorical device that had been used to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redefine the term 'conscious experiences' so as to convolute the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious experiences with the neural activity, and the objection
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding purely the conscious experiences themselves would still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it couldn't, then surely the consciousness and what it experiences
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would have to be regarded as an influential entity in its own right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with this from the materialist perspective would be how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does the conscious entity influence the behaviour, and furthermore how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does this influence/force appear and disappear. It would also be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retreat from the conception that we were simply a biological mechanism
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following the laws of physics.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless we could answer the "how" question with some kind of identity

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have answered above the paragraph that highlighted the importance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the question, and snipped the objection that would still stand:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The objection would be that it wouldn't make any difference what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious experiences themselves were.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if consciousness is identical to brain activity, it has causal powers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since brain activity has casual powers, and two things which are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical share all their properties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus no evolutionary advantage
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to them. Thus no reason for a correlation between the behaviour of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism, and the conscious preferability of the experiences, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be required to create the illusion that our conscious experiences
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves were influential. While it can't be proved, we all know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ourselves that it does indeed seem that we can consciously influence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the behaviour of the human we experience being. So while it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledged that our conscious experiences could in theory be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coincidental deception, it is suggested that this is implausible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Just to restate, the coincidence would be that the universe just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened to be such that the neural activity which evolved uninfluenced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by any conscious experiences, just happened to correlate to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate conscious experiences such that the illusion that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciously influenced our behaviour was created)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have not demonstrated that. You are just assuming consciousness is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> epiphenomenal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you can see, if you can understand the objection, that it is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coincidence that makes the perspective implausible, it is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question of the perspective lacking a how.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The assumption of coincidence rests on the assumption of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> epiphenomenality. I am not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about occasionalism, I am talking about identity theory.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not assuming consciousness is epiphenomenal (a secondary
>>>>>>>>>>>> phenomenon), I am just pointing out that if the behaviour of a human be
>>>>>>>>>>>> explained in terms of the biological mechanism and the laws of physics
>>>>>>>>>>>> with the assumption that the subject had no conscious experiences (if
>>>>>>>>>>>> the materialist perspective were correct), then what influence can the
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual conscious experiences themselves be thought to have?

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> if C.E. is identical to neural activity, then it has whatever causal
>>>>>>>>>>> powers
>>>>>>>>>>> neural activity has. The are just two description so of the same
>>>>>>>>>>> activity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You can't conclude that the commander-in-chief is performing no
>>>>>>>>>>> activity from the fact that the president is jogging.
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>They could
>>>>>>>>>>>> have not existed, or been anything at all.

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You need to distinguish between natural and logical possibility,. The
>>>>>>>>>>> CIC and the POTUS need not logically have been the same person, but
>>>>>>>>>>> they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Your perspective seems to rely on the neural activity which evolved
>>>>>>>>>>>> uninfluenced by any conscious experiences,

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That only makes sense ig you assume they are two different things. You
>>>>>>>>>>> are begging the
>>>>>>>>>>> question against identity.
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> just happenening to
>>>>>>>>>>>> correlate to the appropriate conscious experiences such that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> illusion that we consciously influenced our behaviour was created.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or are you giving any reason for why the appropriate conscious
>>>>>>>>>>>> experience should be linked to the neural activity.

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes: identity.

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think you are missing the point. Neural activity, is not an
>>>>>>>>>> experience presumably from your perspective, therefore it is different
>>>>>>>>>> from conscious experiences, even if only in the sense that the latter
>>>>>>>>>> are conscious experiences.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, there is an apparent difference. But then the evening star appears
>>>>>>>>> in the evening
>>>>>>>>> and the morning star appears in the morning, and they are the same
>>>>>>>>> planet.
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> I presume you think that the behaviour of the organism could be
>>>>>>>>>> explained in terms of the organism following the laws of physics, even
>>>>>>>>>> with the assumption that it had no conscious experiences.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is logically possible.
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> If so, then
>>>>>>>>>> you must be able to see that the organism would have acted the same,
>>>>>>>>>> regardless of whether it had conscious experiences or not,

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are switching from logical possibility to physical possibility.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is logically possible that gravity could have been repulsive, but
>>>>>>>>> that does not mean it
>>>>>>>>> is actually possible that objects falls upwards. In our universe, it is
>>>>>>>>> impossible.
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> or whatever
>>>>>>>>>> they may have been. Perhaps given this, you could explain why identity
>>>>>>>>>> would be important, or in any way influence whether the appropriate
>>>>>>>>>> conscious experiences were experienced.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there is identity between the appropriate neural activity and
>>>>>>>>> consciousness then the CE must be experienced.
>>>>>>>>> A relationship as loose as "influence" hardly comes into it.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you say I am switching from a logical possibility to physical
>>>>>>>> possibility and then use the example of it being logically possible for
>>>>>>>> gravity to have been replusive, but that it not actually phsysical
>>>>>>>> possible that objects fall upwards (as that is not the case in our
>>>>>>>> universe), I presume this is purely in reference to whether the
>>>>>>>> organism did have conscious experiences or not, and not in regards to
>>>>>>>> its behaviour being explainable without reference to them from your
>>>>>>>> perspective.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is logically possible that the organism was a zombie, but here is no
>>>>>>> reason to think it
>>>>>>> is physically possible in our universe.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Just to be certain, could you confirm whether you accept or reject that
>>>>>>>> human behaviour could be explained purely in terms of the physical
>>>>>>>> organism following the laws of physics (i.e. without reference to
>>>>>>>> conscious experiences) from your perspective (as you only acknowledged
>>>>>>>> it as a logical possibility in the same regards as gravity being
>>>>>>>> repulsive).

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It could be explained purely in terms of the physical
>>>>>>> organism following the laws of physics, but that does not
>>>>>>> exclude other explanations. Hence, it does not lead to the conclusion
>>>>>>> that consciousness is
>>>>>>> causally inactive in our universe.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> If, from your perspective, human behaviour could be explained purely in
>>>>>> terms of the physical organism following the laws of physics (i.e.
>>>>>> without reference to consciousness, or the conscious experiences
>>>>>> themselves), then how can the consciousness or the conscious
>>>>>> experiences themselves be causally active if not required in the
>>>>>> explanation?

>>>>>
>>>>> By being identical to the physics in some way. so that the two
>>>>> descriptions are
>>>>> descriptions of the same thing.
>>>>>

>>>>>>Consider that the first explanation (physical organism
>>>>>> following the laws of physics) could have had the added assumption that
>>>>>> there was no consciousness or conscious experiences,

>>>>>
>>>>> Not possible in our universe.
>>>>>

>>>>>> yet from your
>>>>>> perspective it would still explain the behaviour.

>>>>
>>>> You are not disagreeing that the first explanation (physical organism
>>>> following the laws of physics) could have had the added assumption that
>>>> there was no consciousness or conscious experiences, yet from your
>>>> perspective it would still explain the behaviour. You seem to have just
>>>> avoided acknowledging it to be true.

>>>
>>> I am not acknowledging it it is the only explanation.
>>>

>>>> You say that from your perspective that it wouldn't be possible for
>>>> there to have been no conscious experience given the universe we are
>>>> consciously experiencing, as it is the way you suggest it is. The point
>>>> is though, that your explanation is implausible, for it would mean that
>>>> it was just a coincidence

>>>
>>> No ,it is the laws of the universe, which are not logically necessary,
>>> but which determine what is
>>> possible and impossible in our universe anyway.
>>>

>>>> that the universe just happened to be such
>>>> that the neural activity which evolved uninfluenced by any conscious
>>>> experiences,

>>>
>>> That's your claim. I don't agree at all.
>>>

>>>> just happened to correlate to the appropriate conscious
>>>> experiences such that the illusion that we consciously influenced our
>>>> behaviour was created.

>>>
>>> If there is identity, correlation is irrelevant. The POTUS does not
>>> "just coincidentally happen" to correlate
>>> with the C-I-C.

>>
>> When I said:
>> ----------------
>> You are not disagreeing that the first explanation (physical organism
>> following the laws of physics) could have had the added assumption that
>> there was no consciousness or conscious experiences, yet from your
>> perspective it would still explain the behaviour. You seem to have just
>> avoided acknowledging it to be true.
>> ----------------
>>
>> and you replied:
>> ----------------
>> I am not acknowledging it it is the only explanation.
>> ----------------
>>
>> Are you agreeing that from your perspective it could still explain
>> human behaviour, or are you disagreeing. For if it can, how does your
>> earlier statement regarding your perspective:
>>
>> ----------------
>> Hence, it does not lead to the conclusion that consciousness is
>> causally inactive in our universe.
>> ----------------
>>
>> still hold, given that you think that the behaviour could be explained
>> with the assumption that there were no conscious experiences.
>>
>> Also given your answer to the mid sentance extraction from what I had
>> written of:
>> ----------------
>> ...that the universe just happened to be such that the neural activity
>> which evolved uninfluenced by any conscious experiences,...
>> ----------------
>>
>> to which you stated:
>> ----------------
>> That's your claim. I don't agree at all.
>> ----------------
>>
>> How can you disagree if you are saying that the behaviour could be
>> explained with the assumption that there were no conscious experiences
>> at all, how could they be conceived to be an evolutionary advantage, if
>> they can be assumed not to exist in the explanation?

>
> If conscious experience is identical to neural activity, it has
> whatever evolutionary advantages neural activity has.
>

>> If you think they
>> couldn't be assumed not to exist, please explain how it would alter the
>> explanation of the biological mechanism following the laws of physics.

>
> The "C-I-C is mowing the lawn" doesn't alter "the President is mowing
> the lawn".
>

>> I doubt you will, but it might be an idea to answer fully underneath
>> this, after reading it and understanding the point, and give your
>> reasoned answer to it.

>
> Identity is the simplest of relationships. why does it need a long
> explanation?