Comments for metaburbia http://www.metaburbia.com Tue, 24 Aug 2010 20:07:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Epiphenomenalism by Thinking about the assignment # 1 « experiments in time based media http://www.metaburbia.com/2010/03/19/epiphenomenalism/comment-page-1/#comment-30 Thinking about the assignment # 1 « experiments in time based media Tue, 24 Aug 2010 20:07:49 +0000 http://www.metaburbia.com/?p=13#comment-30 [...] is a blog that discusses a good argument against epiphenomenalism. Categories [...] [...] is a blog that discusses a good argument against epiphenomenalism. Categories [...]

]]> Comment on Epiphenomenalism by admin http://www.metaburbia.com/2010/03/19/epiphenomenalism/comment-page-1/#comment-20 admin Sun, 18 Apr 2010 09:32:09 +0000 http://www.metaburbia.com/?p=13#comment-20 Hi again Norman. You're getting rather close to a homunculus fallacy with that metaphor aren't you? But anyway, you make my point well for me. There would be no reason for the succession of images to have a coherence if consciousness were epiphenomenal. My dreams aren't coherent, after all, and they're presumably caused by brain processes. I think you're making two claims. The first is that, given a sequence of underlying brain processes which are goal-directed, purposeful, and logically sequential; then a conscious representation of them must necessarily be apprehended as logical, purposeful, etc, and that these conscious representations must be consistent over time. The second is that, given the underlying processes, the conscious representations must be, if you will, 'truthful' about the processes. I really can't see any way these two things could be true unless something operated upon the conscious processes to bring them into alignment with the unconscious processes. And that alignment process can only work on a causal consciousness. Hi again Norman.

You’re getting rather close to a homunculus fallacy with that metaphor aren’t you?

But anyway, you make my point well for me. There would be no reason for the succession of images to have a coherence if consciousness were epiphenomenal. My dreams aren’t coherent, after all, and they’re presumably caused by brain processes.

I think you’re making two claims.

The first is that, given a sequence of underlying brain processes which are goal-directed, purposeful, and logically sequential; then a conscious representation of them must necessarily be apprehended as logical, purposeful, etc, and that these conscious representations must be consistent over time.

The second is that, given the underlying processes, the conscious representations must be, if you will, ‘truthful’ about the processes.

I really can’t see any way these two things could be true unless something operated upon the conscious processes to bring them into alignment with the unconscious processes. And that alignment process can only work on a causal consciousness.

]]> Comment on Epiphenomenalism by Norman Bacrac http://www.metaburbia.com/2010/03/19/epiphenomenalism/comment-page-1/#comment-19 Norman Bacrac Sun, 18 Apr 2010 01:14:13 +0000 http://www.metaburbia.com/?p=13#comment-19 David - Just think of a film projector as the brain and the image it produces on the screen as consciousness. The logical sequence of the images we see is determined by the logic inherent in the production of the film. Note that the image does not influence the film. David – Just think of a film projector as the brain and the image it produces on the screen as consciousness. The logical sequence of the images we see is determined by the logic inherent in the production of the film. Note that the image does not influence the film.

]]> Comment on Epiphenomenalism by David http://www.metaburbia.com/2010/03/19/epiphenomenalism/comment-page-1/#comment-12 David Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:03:41 +0000 http://www.metaburbia.com/?p=13#comment-12 I think you're missing the subtlety of the argument Norman. Ask yourself, what would be the reason for our conscious experiences to be so coherent and consistent? If consciousness has no causal power then it would be very much more likely that if conscious experiences needed to exist <em>at all</em> then they would be random and meaningless because nothing would operate upon them to push them into coherence and to keep them coherent. You seem to be in the position of having to assert that the conscious correlates of unconscious mental processes have a coherence and consistency <em>simply by chance</em>. I think you’re missing the subtlety of the argument Norman. Ask yourself, what would be the reason for our conscious experiences to be so coherent and consistent? If consciousness has no causal power then it would be very much more likely that if conscious experiences needed to exist at all then they would be random and meaningless because nothing would operate upon them to push them into coherence and to keep them coherent.

You seem to be in the position of having to assert that the conscious correlates of unconscious mental processes have a coherence and consistency simply by chance.

]]> Comment on Epiphenomenalism by Norman Bacrac http://www.metaburbia.com/2010/03/19/epiphenomenalism/comment-page-1/#comment-11 Norman Bacrac Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:40:11 +0000 http://www.metaburbia.com/?p=13#comment-11 The 'forces of evolution' work on the neural correlates of consciousness, ie the brain processes that underlie it. It is these brain features which are selected for, not their 'epiphenomena' - although we can choose to regard these latter as most important. The ‘forces of evolution’ work on the neural correlates of consciousness, ie the brain processes that underlie it. It is these brain features which are selected for, not their ‘epiphenomena’ – although we can choose to regard these latter as most important.

]]>