Are Qualia Real? Debate & Discussion

[loseyourname]

Not necessarily. If we find that B always accompanies C, it could be because there is some sort of causitive link between the two. However, it could also be that they are both caused by A. In that case, although they are always correlated, one does not cause the other.

That's why it is inconclusive evidence. It is, nonetheless, evidence. Seeing someone at the scene of a crime is evidence that he committed the crime. Scanty evidence, but still evidence.

Chalmers proposes that phenomenality is an aspect of information, and Rosenberg proposes that phenomenality is the intrinsic basis of the physical. In both cases, phenomenality does not arise from the physical, but (in some sense) sits along side it. Surely, both accept that the structure and function of the physical brain conditions the nature of a system's p-consciousness, but I don't think either view can be fairly portrayed as saying that consciousness arises from, or is a product of, the brain.

What you are saying doesn't make any sense to me. Phenomenality is an aspect of information. Information, in humans, is stored in and processed by the brain. The information that has phenomenality as an aspect is a product of the brain. In what sense can we say that the brain is not here a cause of consciousness. There is no case in which a brain can process the information that it does and not produce consciousness. Again, strictly speaking, information processing devices other than the brain may produce consciousness. In this case, a brain is not necessary. A brain is, however, necessary for human consciousness, at least until we are able to transfer our selves into information processing machines that can carry out the same functions as a brain.

In the case of Rosenberg's framework, again, is it not the intrinsic base of the physical makeup of the brain that results in human consciousness? If no brain is present, there is nothing that we recognize as consciousness. He is simply postulating properties of the substance of which the brain (indeed, all physical things) is made that are not physically detectable. They are nonetheless, properties of the substance of which the brain is made. We never experience what happens in the non-physical parts of our lymph nodes.

In fact, insofar as both accept the logical possibility of zombies, both would claim that we could have a physical brain (in a world distinct from ours in its non-physical aspects, but identical to ours in its physical aspects) but still not have p-consciousness.

I don't know about Rosenberg, but I remember Chalmers explicitly stating in a paper that you linked to that zombies are an empirical impossibility granted that they have the same brains we have. Logical possibility only means that no contradiction arises. By the same token, no contradiction arises if we imagine that the Earth had no gravitational field. Nonetheless, you are never going to find a person jump at a velocity less than escape velocity and fail to come back down.

So perhaps Chalmers and Rosenberg might say that the physical brain causes p-consciousness to take the particular form it does, but neither would say that the physical brain produces p-consciousness, in the sense that the latter supervenes on the former.

I'm only claiming that what the brain causes is human consciousness. It may not be necessary to all forms of subjective experience, but it is certainly necessary for my subjective experience. Without the brain, my ego, my personality, the world-line of subjective experience that is Adam Acosta, would cease to exist (again, unless Chalmers and Dennett are right and we devise a means of transferring the necessary information-stream into a machine).

 

[hypnagogue]

Actually, Rosenberg's view of causation, and the manner in which he ties this into the mind/body problem, allows us to make a more definite claim here. On Rosenberg's view, the physical is nothing but the pattern of relationships in which the intrinsic phenomenal carriers engage. So Rosenberg's view on the mind/body relation would actually be much closer to an identity relation than one of causal responsibility. That is, on this view, the firings of certain neural assemblies do not produce or otherwise cause us to see a red patch of color; rather, those neuron firings literally are the effective patterns of relationships engaged upon by our intrinsic, phenomenal patch of red in the wider causal nexus.

 

[loseyourname]

Is there any kind of evidential backing for that being the case (other than explanatory elegance)? I'll have to get back into that book when I get a chance. I've been studying causation for several months now and should have a good basis from which to evaluate his claims.

 

[hypnagogue]

I don't know about Rosenberg, but I remember Chalmers explicitly stating in a paper that you linked to that zombies are an empirical impossibility granted that they have the same brains we have. Logical possibility only means that no contradiction arises. By the same token, no contradiction arises if we imagine that the Earth had no gravitational field. Nonetheless, you are never going to find a person jump at a velocity less than escape velocity and fail to come back down.

Right, that's why I added this caveat: "in a world distinct from ours in its non-physical aspects, but identical to ours in its physical aspects." The point is not to argue that we could have a physical replica of me or you in our world, such that it would not be conscious (I don't think anyone really argues for that). The point is to try to demonstrate that the physical aspects of the brain could exist without any attendant p-consciousness; this only works if we suppose 1) there are non-physical aspects of our world that are necessary for the existence of p-consciousness, and 2) in a zombie world physically identical to our own, these non-physical aspects are different in such a way that p-consciousness does not exist.

I'm only claiming that what the brain causes is human consciousness. It may not be necessary to all forms of subjective experience, but it is certainly necessary for my subjective experience. Without the brain, my ego, my personality, the world-line of subjective experience that is Adam Acosta, would cease to exist (again, unless Chalmers and Dennett are right and we devise a means of transferring the necessary information-stream into a machine).

That's a claim for the necessity of the human brain for human consciousness, which I don't think many people argue against (I certainly don't). My point of contention has been the further claim that the physical human brain is a sufficient condition for the existence of human p-consciousness. Obviously, an anti-physicalist is committed to contesting that claim. There are also subtler issues, e.g. whether we should think of the mind/body relation as one of cause and effect or as one of identity. But on the whole, I don't think we disagree too substantially here. I suspect a lot of this discussion is just turning on different ways we interpret the word "cause."

 

[hypnagogue]

Is there any kind of evidential backing for that being the case (other than explanatory elegance)?

Not that I'm aware of (but then, I'm not sure what kind of evidence could discriminate here between identity and cause/effect). However, I think just the sheer explanitory power over such a wide range of problems that Rosenberg's framework has is grounds for taking it seriously. He does propose a sketch of how we might empirically ascertain the existence of natural individuals in chapter 14, I believe, though I'm fuzzy on the details right now. But it does seem that for much of his framework, the only evidence we'll ever be able to get is circumstantial evidence from its ability to explain existing phenomena. Perhaps we might be able to generate novel predictions with it down the line that differentiate it empirically from other theories of consciousness, but that's an open issue, and even then it seems likely that we could only test it via first person verification (and ultimately, verbal report).

I'll have to get back into that book when I get a chance. I've been studying causation for several months now and should have a good basis from which to evaluate his claims.

Please do. We're set to begin the chapter on his theory of causal significance some time over the next few days.

 

[learningphysics]

The same can be said of the heart, yet we have a constant flow of blood. No mystery there. The same can be said of the Amazon, yet we have one river. No mystery there. There is a problem of personal identity that has always been tricky in philosophy, but it is not necessary to postulate a permanent, immaterial source of identity for the bloodstream or the Amazon. Same thing for the brain and any effects associated with the brain.

Yes, I was referring to the problem of personal identity. How do we account for a constant identity through time?

The difference between the case of a river, and a brain, is that associated with the brain... there is something that is having an experience. Now if there was no experience then there would be no problem. Referring to a river would be perfectly analogous to referring to a brain.

"Something" is having the experience associated with a particular human being. Is this "something" going to be the same "something" tomorrow that has an experience associated with a particular human being?

We can't just say the "human being" is experiencing. Then I'd ask... what exactly is being referred to by "human being".

Suppose you learned that a river was "experiencing". All the water of the river is constantly being replaced... wouldn't you ask yourself, what is experiencing? Is it the water? If it is the water then we have the experiencers constantly living and dying as the water is replaced.

By the way, the brain is the only part of the body that never regenerates any cells once it is fully developed. It is the single most permanent part of the human body.

I see. But the atoms that form our brain are replaced regularly aren't they?

 

[hypnagogue]

learningphysics, the point is that what is relevant is not the individual constituent parts, but the higher-order pattern they produce. To that end, functionalism seems to solve your dilemma. Loosely stated, functionalism is the view that what the brain does is relevant for consciousness, rather than the identity of its constituent parts over time. Of course, functionalism comes with its own host of problems, such as interest relativity (different people can slice up the brain into different functional parts; who is correct?) and the problem of what constitutes the proper level of abstraction (should we count neural activity as the fundamental functional unit? Is what happens in the cells important?). But, these problems are not necessarily fatal; for instance, Rosenberg's view incorporates some of the attractive features of functionalism while resolving its drawbacks.

 

[moving finger]

You're claiming that the brain/mind link is evidence of correlation, but you're also claiming that it's not evidence of causation.

No. To be precise, I am claiming that "what was presented in post #183” is not evidence of causation (as requested in the question in #183). What was presented is at most evidence of correlation.

Let’s be clear here – I am NOT saying that “there is no evidence that the brain causes consciousness”, I am saying that “the content of post #183 does not constitute (in my book) evidence that the brain causes consciousness”.

Agreed, but insofar as you refute that claim, you must have your own interpretation of what it means, upon which you base your refutation.

The poster in #183 seems to claim(by implication) that :
The observation that consciousness disappears when the brain is removed somehow is evidence that the brain “causes” consciousness. I disagree. I believe at most it is evidence that there is a correlation between brain and consciousness.

My analogy with the flea in post #184 is similar. Remove the flea’s legs, and observe that the flea no longer jumps at the sound of a gun – are you going to suggest that this is then “evidence” that the flea’s legs are somehow responsible for (ie cause) the flea’s sense of hearing? No, of course not. Then why should the “example” given in post #183 be any different?

Bear in mind that I'm not taking any stance on your view by asking these questions; I'm just asking you to make your reasoning more explicit. It would be very clarifying if you could present an example of something that could, in your view, count as evidence for causation. Perhaps you deny that anything could count as evidence for causation? I can't tell from what you've said here thus far.

How much more explicit can I be?

If someone wishes to claim that post #183 is indeed evidence of causation then (with respect) the onus is on them to show why it is evidence of causation rather than of correlation.

MF

 

[Tournesol]

What kind of evidence of causation is there, besides correlation ?

 

[moving finger]

What kind of evidence of causation is there, besides correlation ?

I hope you are not suggesting that every correlation (eg a correlation observed between A & B) is also evidence of direct causation (ie a direct causative link between A and B)?
MF

 

[Tournesol]

No. It may well be the case that a) there is no evidence but correlation
and b) correlation is not adequate and sufficient.

Which leaves us with the conclusion that we can be *as* sure that consc. is caused
by the brain *as* we are about any other causal relation.

 

[learningphysics]

learningphysics, the point is that what is relevant is not the individual constituent parts, but the higher-order pattern they produce. To that end, functionalism seems to solve your dilemma. Loosely stated, functionalism is the view that what the brain does is relevant for consciousness, rather than the identity of its constituent parts over time. Of course, functionalism comes with its own host of problems, such as interest relativity (different people can slice up the brain into different functional parts; who is correct?) and the problem of what constitutes the proper level of abstraction (should we count neural activity as the fundamental functional unit? Is what happens in the cells important?). But, these problems are not necessarily fatal; for instance, Rosenberg's view incorporates some of the attractive features of functionalism while resolving its drawbacks.

Hypnagogue. The problem remains. Yes, the brain produces a pattern... But again "what is having the experience?"

Is it the pattern that is having the experience? I'd say this is impossible. A pattern is an information entity... not a substance or "thing" of any kind.

What is a pattern? Loosely (I apologize for my rough use of philosophical terms) I'd call it a set of relationships between constituent parts. If each of the constituent parts themselves exhibit no properties of "experience"... then the pattern cannot exhibit any properties of "experience" as it is just the set of relationships between the constituent parts. By definition, the pattern does not experience (if the constituent parts don't)... Also, as I mentioned earlier... it is just an information entity... it is just a bookkeeping tool for the behavior of the consittuent parts.

It makes just about the same sense to say... the geometric arrangement of flowers on a lawn is experiencing... or the set of relative velocities of cars on a race track is experiencing...

What would make sense to me is that when a pattern is formed... the "something" that has experience interfaces with the brain/body.

 

[loseyourname]

I hope you are not suggesting that every correlation (eg a correlation observed between A & B) is also evidence of direct causation (ie a direct causative link between A and B)?
MF

Every correlation is evidence of causation. It isn't necessarily strong evidence, however. Even taking of the flea's legs, though very poor and even more poorly interpreted evidence, is evidence. It looks like you're going ignore my post about Mill's methods, but according to the strongest theory we have of how to determine causation, what was presented here does constitute strong evidence that the brain is causally linked to consciousness. The flea example fails some of Mill's methods and so can be dismissed as evidence of causation.

 

[hypnagogue]

Hypnagogue. The problem remains. Yes, the brain produces a pattern... But again "what is having the experience?"

I can sympathize with your reservations. I don't think a 'pure' functionalism is enough either; but, when supplemented with a rich ontological backing, it seems to do the job. Rosenberg's framework explains subjective experience in terms of causation, which dovetails nicely with functionalism. On his view, intrinsically phenomenal aspects of nature form the basis for the extrinsic relationships described by physics. Furthermore, in his theory of causation, causal connections form inherently individuated systems in nature. It is these natural individuals that are 'having the experience.'

It makes just about the same sense to say... the geometric arrangement of flowers on a lawn is experiencing... or the set of relative velocities of cars on a race track is experiencing...

Sure, it might seem arbitrary; but then again, when we try to make sense of the empirical evidence we have, some sort of functionalism seems to be a strong candidate for explaining p-consciousness. Rosenberg would say that a certain geometric arrangement of flowers is not a natural individual because it does not have the proper sort of causal connections, and thus cannot be a subject of experience. A more traditional, 'pure' functionalist would say that the flowerbed does not experience because it does not perform the right kind of functions.

 

[moving finger]

Every correlation is evidence of causation

I disagree.

The point is - one cannot blindly take every correlation and put it forward as evidence of causation. That is bad science.

But use a scientific method to try and first rule out simple correlation (ie do experiments to demonstrate that what is being observed is perhaps more than "just correlation") and it then becomes acceptable to put this forward as evidence of causation. That is good science.

The specific post that I was referring to was an example of correlation only, claiming to be an example of causation, but no attempt was made in that post to demonstrate it was anything other than correlation. Hence bad science.

MF

 

[hypnagogue]

But use a scientific method to try and first rule out simple correlation (ie do experiments to demonstrate that what is being observed is perhaps more than "just correlation") and it then becomes acceptable to put this forward as evidence of causation. That is good science.

You still haven't specified exactly what such a procedure might be. Can you offer us what you think are the general principles by which we can rule out simple correlation, or at least provide an example (real or hypothetical) where mere correlation is ruled out?

 

[moving finger]

You still haven't specified exactly what such a procedure might be. Can you offer us what you think are the general principles by which we can rule out simple correlation, or at least provide an example (real or hypothetical) where mere correlation is ruled out?

Hi Hypnagogue,
With respect, why should the onus be on MF to specify such a procedure? I'm happy calling post #183 (and let's be clear, my reference was to post #183) simply evidence for a correlation. If others wish to call post #183 evidence for causation then let them first please propose a procedure to distinguish between correlation and causation.

My point is simply this : That in absence of any such procedure, calling post #183 "evidence that brains cause consciousness" is equivalent to calling my joke "evidence that fleas hear through their legs".

That's all.

MF


(ps - sorry, I am not deliberately trying to be obstructive, but with all honesty I do not see why the onus should be on MF to do what the poster of post #183 should have done).

 

[Paul Martin]

I see. But the atoms that form our brain are replaced regularly aren't they?

Feynman called the brain "last week's potatoes".

 

[Paul Martin]

Hypnagogue. The problem remains. Yes, the brain produces a pattern... But again "what is having the experience?"

Exdellent question, learningphysics. Hang in there and don't accept any answers that don't make sense to you.

What would make sense to me is that when a pattern is formed... the "something" that has experience interfaces with the brain/body.

I agree. That is exactly what would make sense to me also.

At the risk of leading you astray, or contaminating your thinking, let me describe how I reached my present position from your starting point.

I posited a "something" that has experience and which interfaces with the brain/body and tried to deduce the consequences. So far I am convinced that those consequences are completely consistent with what we experience as conscious beings and with what we seem to perceive as an external world. I am currently actively soliciting opinions indicating errors in my conclusions.

I think an analogy can be made between your sensible description and the music emanating from a radio. The analogs are: experience : music :: brain/body : radio :: interface : EM radiation :: "something" : radio transmitting station :: "has experience" : "produces music" :: "pattern that is formed" : "audio signal superimposed on an RF carrier signal flowing in a specific set of circuits containing electronic components".

 

[moving finger]

The problem remains. Yes, the brain produces a pattern... But again "what is having the experience?"

Exdellent question, learningphysics. Hang in there and don't accept any answers that don't make sense to you.

I know - Maybe there is a little man in the brain who is “having the experience”?

Hmmmm, but that means there must be another little man inside him, “having his experience”….and another…. And another…… ohhhhh dear…….
(3rd person objective scientist's problem)

I wonder if it could be possible that rather than “something having the experience”, maybe it is instead the “experience which creates the something”?
(1st person subjective solution)

MF

 

[learningphysics]

Exdellent question, learningphysics. Hang in there and don't accept any answers that don't make sense to you.

I agree. That is exactly what would make sense to me also.

At the risk of leading you astray, or contaminating your thinking, let me describe how I reached my present position from your starting point.

I posited a "something" that has experience and which interfaces with the brain/body and tried to deduce the consequences. So far I am convinced that those consequences are completely consistent with what we experience as conscious beings and with what we seem to perceive as an external world. I am currently actively soliciting opinions indicating errors in my conclusions.

I think an analogy can be made between your sensible description and the music emanating from a radio. The analogs are: experience : music :: brain/body : radio :: interface : EM radiation :: "something" : radio transmitting station :: "has experience" : "produces music" :: "pattern that is formed" : "audio signal superimposed on an RF carrier signal flowing in a specific set of circuits containing electronic components".

Hi Paul. Glad someone agrees with me.

Using your analogy... I'd say the physical world is the "radio transmitter", and the "something having the experience" is the "radio receiver".

Meaning the content of experience is determined by the physical world... but for experience to happen there needs to be something that experiences the content... a radio receiver.

 

[learningphysics]

I know - Maybe there is a little man in the brain who is “having the experience”?

Hmmmm, but that means there must be another little man inside him, “having his experience”….and another…. And another…… ohhhhh dear…….
(3rd person objective scientist's problem)

I don't understand the above. My position is that "something" is experiencing. There's no infinite regress or anything like that.

I wonder if it could be possible that rather than “something having the experience”, maybe it is instead the “experience which creates the something”?
(1st person subjective solution)

MF

Well, what is the "something having the experience". There is "something" right? Whether or not it is created by experience or not, doesn't change the fact that this something exists. Tell us what this "something" is.

The notion of experience existing independent of an experiencer seems unintelligible to me. It is simply the nature of experience, that there is something that is experiencing, and something that is experienced.

 

[moving finger]

I don't understand the above. My position is that "something" is experiencing. There's no infinite regress or anything like that.

Then what is wrong with the idea that "I am having the experience"?

Once you start to insist there must be something inside "I" that is having the experience (let us call it "J") then you must also ask "what is inside "J" having the experience?" - is it "K"? In which case, what is inside "K" having the experience?

The only way to break the regress is to accept that there is "nothing inside having the experience" but the experience actually creates the being that is "having it", all in one loop. Not easy to grasp, I know, but it's the only consistent solution (unless you want to get mystical).

Well, what is the "something having the experience". There is "something" right? Whether or not it is created by experience or not, doesn't change the fact that this something exists. Tell us what this "something" is.

The experience is "one" with the "being that is having" the experience. You cannot understand it if you insist on 3rd person objectivism (ie that there is an experience and a separate "thing" having the experience), because this leads either to spiritualism or to infinite regress.

The notion of experience existing independent of an experiencer seems unintelligible to me.

And as long as you think like this you will be forced into either spiritualism (which is actually not an answer), or an infinite regress. You must try to let go of 3rd person objectivism.

It is simply the nature of experience, that there is something that is experiencing, and something that is experienced.

What you describe is the nature of intuition, because all of your life you have looked at the world as if there was an "observer" and an "observed". But consciousness cannot operate like this (unless as I say you accept an infinite regress, or spiritualism), hence accept instead that your intuition is wrong.

MF

 

[loseyourname]

I disagree.

I'm not entirely certain that you do.

The point is - one cannot blindly take every correlation and put it forward as evidence of causation. That is bad science.

Then it is not scientific evidence. That does not mean it isn't evidence. Take the guy at the scene of the crime again. His placement is evidence that he committed the crime. As such, he becomes a suspect. It is, however, very poor evidence that requires a good deal of corroborating evidence to even come close to establishing causation beyond a reasonable doubt. You can call it 'bad forensic science.' That doesn't mean it isn't evidence. It's one small piece in a larger puzzle.

But use a scientific method to try and first rule out simple correlation (ie do experiments to demonstrate that what is being observed is perhaps more than "just correlation") and it then becomes acceptable to put this forward as evidence of causation. That is good science.

Sure. That's exactly what Mill's methods do. In fact, they were formulated as part of a scientific epistemology.

The specific post that I was referring to was an example of correlation only, claiming to be an example of causation, but no attempt was made in that post to demonstrate it was anything other than correlation. Hence bad science.

That is wrong. It did not claim to be an example of causation. It claimed to be evidence of causation. That it is. Hearing voices come out of a radio is evidence that the radio is speaking. Again, very bad evidence, but it is evidence. You seem to be of the school of Canute that nothing is evidence unless it at least approaches being conclusive. That just isn't the case. A great deal of what we call 'evidence' is scanty and circumstanial. Heck, even expert testimony is evidence.

 

[moving finger]

Then it is not scientific evidence. That does not mean it isn't evidence. Take the guy at the scene of the crime again. His placement is evidence that he committed the crime. As such, he becomes a suspect. It is, however, very poor evidence that requires a good deal of corroborating evidence to even come close to establishing causation beyond a reasonable doubt. You can call it 'bad forensic science.' That doesn't mean it isn't evidence. It's one small piece in a larger puzzle.

I'll say it once again - the post referred to was not presenting it as "a piece in a larger puzzle", the post was presenting it as stand-alone evidence pure and simple.

As I said, if you accept this logic then you also accept the logic of my joke as evidence fleas hear through their legs. I wonder why people find this absurd if it is supposed to be so logical?

That's exactly what Mill's methods do. In fact, they were formulated as part of a scientific epistemology.

And that's exactly why I said what I did. This has no bearing at all on post #183.

Hearing voices come out of a radio is evidence that the radio is speaking.

And my joke is evidence that fleas hear through their legs.
MF

 

[hypnagogue]

With respect, why should the onus be on MF to specify such a procedure?

Because it's not entirely clear what MF means when MF says "this is not evidence for causation" but refuses for some reason to tell us what he (she?) thinks would count as such evidence. Perhaps MF and the author of post #183 have different things in mind when they say "evidence for causation." It would be very helpful if they would offer their thoughts on the matter. loseyourname has admirably spoken for the author of post #183 after taking up his cause, but I'm still waiting on MF.

 

[learningphysics]

Then what is wrong with the idea that "I am having the experience"?

Please explain what is being referred to by "I". The body? the brain? what is it? I have no clue what you are referring to.

What I'm suggesting is that there is a soul that is having an experience. I don't see any infinite regress. The soul is not made up of any parts.

Once you start to insist there must be something inside "I" that is having the experience (let us call it "J") then you must also ask "what is inside "J" having the experience?" - is it "K"? In which case, what is inside "K" having the experience?

The only way to break the regress is to accept that there is "nothing inside having the experience" but the experience actually creates the being that is "having it", all in one loop. Not easy to grasp, I know, but it's the only consistent solution (unless you want to get mystical).

Well, my position is that of there being a soul that experiences. So do you agree that I avoid the infinite regress?

You seem to be taking two different positions. 1) Nothing experiences. 2) Some being is created by experience, and that being is having the experience.

I'm not sure which is your position.

What you describe is the nature of intuition, because all of your life you have looked at the world as if there was an "observer" and an "observed". But consciousness cannot operate like this (unless as I say you accept an infinite regress, or spiritualism), hence accept instead that your intuition is wrong.

MF

It is strange that you use the words "I", "you" when you in fact believe that these things do not actually exist.

So the options are to say that "nothing experiences" or go with "spiritualism"... Well, given the options I'll definitely go with "spiritualism".

Although it is intuition, I believe it is more than that (I can't articulate it at the moment, but will try in future posts). The strangeness of the notion of "no-self" is apparent when we consider pain and pleasure. If someone is being tortured... does it make sense to say "pain exists here, but no being is experiencing any pain".

 

[hypnagogue]

So the options are to say that "nothing experiences" or go with "spiritualism"... Well, given the options I'll definitely go with "spiritualism".

Those are not the only options-- in my last response to you, I offered an example of a framework that can coherently identify the 'thing' that experiences. I don't know exactly what you mean by 'spiritualism,' but if you mean a view that claims the existence of souls, then Rosenberg's framework is not spiritualism. You certainly don't have to assume that souls exist in order to account for the experiencing subject.

 

[moving finger]

Because it's not entirely clear what MF means when MF says "this is not evidence for causation" but refuses for some reason to tell us what he (she?) thinks would count as such evidence. Perhaps MF and the author of post #183 have different things in mind when they say "evidence for causation." It would be very helpful if they would offer their thoughts on the matter. loseyourname has admirably spoken for the author of post #183 after taking up his cause, but I'm still waiting on MF.

suggest you instead ask the poster of post #183 to justify his/her claim.
in absence of such justification, MF (on the basis of post #183) claims there is evidence that fleas hear through their legs
MF

 

[moving finger]

Please explain what is being referred to by "I". The body? the brain? what is it? I have no clue what you are referring to.

The thing having the experience.

What I'm suggesting is that there is a soul that is having an experience. I don't see any infinite regress. The soul is not made up of any parts.

You can call it a soul if you wish. A name in itself means nothing, only how you define it makes it take on any meaning.

Well, my position is that of there being a soul that experiences. So do you agree that I avoid the infinite regress?

Yes, as long as you do not then try to isolate what you call the soul, or to look inside what you call the soul, and ask how this thing you call soul is experiencing things without there being something inside to do the experiencing.
What you call soul is convoluted with and interdependent on experience.

You seem to be taking two different positions. 1) Nothing experiences. 2) Some being is created by experience, and that being is having the experience.

No, I don’t think I am, why do you say that?

I'm not sure which is your position.

Normal 3rd person objectivism would try to break the problem down into “the experience” and “the thing doing the experiencing”. This does not work, because the experience and the “thing which experiences” are convoluted with and interdependent on each other. It is not possible to separate them and say “here on the left we have an experience, devoid of the thing which experiences” and “here on the right we have the thing which experiences, devoid of experience”.
If you want to cut out “the thing which has the experience” as a separate entity, and study it in isolation from the experiences, you will never succeed, because the “thing that experiences” is part and parcel of the experiences.
That is my position.

It is strange that you use the words "I", "you" when you in fact believe that these things do not actually exist.

I never said that “I” does not exist. Where did you get that idea?
Look clearly at the beginning of post #233, what is my first sentence?

So the options are to say that "nothing experiences" or go with "spiritualism"... Well, given the options I'll definitely go with "spiritualism".

I never said “nothing experiences”. Again you seem to be not reading correctly.
I said

the experience actually creates the being that is "having it", all in one loop

The experience is "one" with the "being that is having" the experience

Although it is intuition, I believe it is more than that (I can't articulate it at the moment, but will try in future posts).

That’s exactly what intuition is.

The strangeness of the notion of "no-self" is apparent when we consider pain and pleasure. If someone is being tortured... does it make sense to say "pain exists here, but no being is experiencing any pain".

I never said there is “no-self”. Again you seem to be reading things that are not there.

MF