Quote:
Originally Posted by Venom  Ok, we all know, correlation is not causation. But according to Occam's Rasor, the logical conclusion must be that consciousness is a by-product of the brain. |
I'm not sure that is a
logical conclusion. Lets take the well known analogy of the radio set (which I'm not a fan of by the way).
Let's say I fiddled about with the insides of a radio and found that the sound became distorted. I then fiddle away further and find that the sound disappears. Assume that I don't have any mechanistic theory about how the radio works. All I am doing is fiddling with some internal bits and seeing what happens.
From my observations, would it be logically correct to conclude the pattern of sound waves that I hear do not have an external source?
Don't we need a
theory of how consciousness could be a by product of the brain, that makes predictions just like other scientific theories, before we can make your logical conclusion?
It seems to me, from reading neuroscience literature, that all we really have right now is some fiddling about (pretty intricate fiddling nonetheless).
Yet most neuroscientitst make the working assumption that the mind is indeed a by product of the brain. Double standards?