"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message

At the following link is a discussion of some factors of scientific
evidence of causation vs correlation.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/pdf/correlation.pdf

1. The two factors are associated (association) +

My television displays television programs.

2. The factors have been found to be associated in several studies
(consistency) +

My television manages to display television programs consistently
(even if they're crap).

3. The association between the two factors is strong (specificity) +

Neither the fridge, microwave oven or washing machine ever get a good
reception in my house, but the television does great.

4. The "causal" factor preceded the dependent factor (temporality) +

I've noticed the reception improves when I turn on the television and
deteriorates when I turn it off.

5. As the magnitude of the causal factor increases, there is an
incremental change in the dependent factor (gradient) +

If I keep pressing the buttons on the remote control the programs keep
changing!

6. There is a plausible scientific explanation for the causal factor
to cause the dependent factor (plausibility) +

There's a thing called an arial on top of the television but it
doesn't seem to do much except from just sit there - but I have
observed that television only ever displays programs when the plug is
in. I've heard it said that if you open up a television and don't
know what you're doing you can get a nasty electric shock.... I think
electricity might be involved.

7. Individual observations are consistent with the hypothesis that
the causal factor causes the dependent variable (coherence) +

Yup, plug in - plug out. Television displays images every time.
Electricity must be involved here!

8. Causality is demonstrated under controlled conditions in which the
investigator applies exposureand monitors the dependent factor
(experiment) [cannot do, unethical]

I made absolutely certain the the only wall socket the television was
plugged into was the power socket ran a few trials and it worked very
time.

9. There are examples of analogous relationships to support this
relationship under investigation
(analogy) + [e.g. coal gas, catalytic converters and suicide]

I've noticed that neither the fridge, microwave oven and washing
machine don't ever work unless they're plugged in either.

Well, I'm convinced. Television programs are beamed down the power
line. I didn't know the power companies did that but it must be true
since all the above conditions are satisfied.

You have already agreed that neural activity is correlated with
consciousness, thus 1 thru 3 are immediately satisfied.

Actually, I only really agree that neural activity is clearly
associated with information processing, perception, memory (long-term,
short-term, declarative and prospective), spacial awareness, emotion,
behaviour, self-reference, etc., - which is to say phenomenon that
appear in consciousness.

For items 4 and 5, we have specific studies of nerve impulses and
their perception by experimental subjects. Increase the stimulus and
the perceived effect is increased.

Alcohol molecules manage to get by the blood brain barrier and become
part of our neurochemistry altering many of our cognitive faculties in
various ways - even to the extent of making us pass out. So what? No
memory of the night before doesn't always mean there was no
consciousness involved.

Items 6 thru 9 are satisfied by the science of neurophysiology as a
whole.

Neurophysiology is definately very important in information
processing, etc.,. But neither that, nor anything above even come's
close to explaining a causal factor or how one order of reality
(cells) give rise to another order of reality (thoughts and the
conscious awareness of thoughts)

This is about 'materialistic atheism'. The type of atheist who
believes that "when you're dead, you're dead" (which one imagines is
the category that 99.9% of atheists (or, at least, a huge majority)
fall into). If being a materialist or empiricalist atheist means
anything intelligible it means that someone believes in materialism
and emprical causation, surely? Subsequently, that means that said
'materialistic atheist' believes, has faith or conviction in or
claims knowledge that consciousness is directly caused by neural
activity. As soon as said matericalist atheist produces evidence
I'll accept their philosophy as 'evidence based' rather than 'faith
based'.

Done.

Don't be silly, Fred. If you demonstrated neural activity directly
forming thoughts or consciousness it would be time to look out the Tux
for the Nobel Ceremony.

Okay, so stimulate this bit and you'll think about your seventh
birthday. Stimulate that bit and you'll feel euphoric. Yes, we can
cause thoughts to appear in consciousness (and we've been manipulating
thoughts with drugs like anti-depressents for a long time now).
There's a clear link between the brain and thoughts. But how do
isolated action potentials become a reliving of a seventh birthday?
Who is the I that relives the seventh birthday? Even if we tinker
around with memories and the area(s) of the brain associated with our
sense of self we still have nothing to explain why consciousness is
consciousness, which is to say why we're experiencers and thinkers
rather than just biochemical automatons.

As far as I'm concerned you've all painted yourselves into a corner
with your own logic. I'm just describing your predicament -
something atheists relish doing with theists.

Our "predicament" is not a problem for us at all.

But the belief in the "emergence" model of consciousness is no
different than the Christian belief in "transubstantiation". There's
no evidence for emergence just like there is no evidence for
transubstantiation. Pot... Kettle?

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 06:46:46 -0500, Mark K. Bilbo wrote (in article
<tYOdnYKwS6S7KMbfRVn-pg@megapath.net>):

In our last episode <ghD6e.16569$JO6.7892@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>,
HypnoSteve pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

In our last episode HypnoSteve wrote:

Assuming you don't believe in a "soul", show me how you reduce
consciousness to brain cells and/or produce consciousness from brain
cells? Where's the evidence that brain cells produce consciousness?

That's irrelevant to the issue of whether there is evidence for the
existence of any gods.

It's irrelevant in the case of an atheist who will state categorically
that they lack any belief, conviction, faith or claim to knowledge that
conscious awareness is produced by neural activity. It's not so
irrelevant in the case of a materialist/empiricalist who believes
conscious awareness is produced by nerual activity, "when you're dead,
you're dead", etc.,. (Unless they happen to be a theist who maybe just
thinks "God" doesn't want us back or something.)

Either way, let's settle the point right now: I'm only saying that
materialistic atheists who believe that consciousness is produced by
the brain are following a 'faith based' philosophy. (Unless, that is,
they can provide evidence of causation rather than simple correlation
between nerual activity and consciousness.)

Face it Mark, atheism is just another faith. And it's not just about
having faith in things about consciousness, it's the faith that the
universe is either infinately cyclical, infinately reductionist or
somehow
sprang into existence itself.

No, you're claiming people have "faith" in something that isn't
atheism.

This is about 'materialistic atheism'. The type of atheist who
believes that "when you're dead, you're dead" (which one imagines is
the category that 99.9% of atheists (or, at least, a huge majority)
fall into). If being a materialist or empiricalist atheist means
anything intelligible it means that someone believes in materialism and
emprical causation, surely? Subsequently, that means that said
'materialistic atheist' believes, has faith or conviction in or claims
knowledge that consciousness is directly caused by neural activity. As
soon as said matericalist atheist produces evidence I'll accept their
philosophy as 'evidence based' rather than 'faith based'.

Where's the "wiggle room" here? A materialist believes in materialism
and empirical regularity and not in the supernatural or metaphysical,
yes? In which case they either produce clear evidence that neural
activity causes consciousness or accept that 'materialistic atheism' is
just another 'faith based' philosophy.

As far as I'm concerned you've all painted yourselves into a corner
with your own logic. I'm just describing your predicament - something
atheists relish doing with theists.

You mean you enjoy playing with your strawman creation...

Talk about mental masturbation.

"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote:

You seem to be assuming that every single person on the planet must
have an opinion about the nature of consciousness, regardless of how
much they know abour neuroscience.

What I've observed is that very many atheists seem to assume that theists
have given their idea of God considerable in-depth thought from all possible
angles and delight in every opportunity to point out to them the
shortcomings of the definitions and attributes that are offerred up.
Admittedly, where the Christians are concerned (the Fundamentalists in
particular) if they'd just say the Bible is a kind of 'guidebook' rather
than the infallible word of God they wouldn't get so much stick.

You have already made your mind up about it, which is a typical
religious stance.

I'm not part of any religion. I'm just a guy who believes there's something
behind it all - the Universe, our sentience and our reason for living. That
'something' I term "God". I am a member of no theistic groups and follow no
rituals. How then am I religious?

Religion tells you how it is, you believe it, and
even when 90% of the evidence on front of you points to physical cause
you will still not believe it.

My panentheism is nothing more than my own resoning. Nobody has told me
"how it is" and when I'm presented with a physical explanation for a
phenomena I accept it. I even accept (on faith) that there is a physical
explanation for things I don't know the explanation for. For example, I
don't know much about car mechanics but I trust they don't run on ectoplasm.

You have too much at stake to look
openly and honestly at the evidence.

There is no evidence at all that neural activity transfigures into
consciousness or that neural activity itself is consciousness.