• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Philosophy, Science, & The Unexplained - Main Thread

henris42

Skilled Investigator
This is all very curious. But, if the phenoma is caused only by conciousness - why the photo and physical evidence?

The fact that there is real evidence, I'm not that fancy on all this co-creation conciousness stuff. The answer just cannot be that simple. My take is that there are actually many, many phenomenons. Maybe some of them are real, maybe some not.

That would also mean that there is simply not one answer. We probably cannot simply conceive the intricacies of the universe.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
This is all very curious. But, if the phenomena is caused only by consciousness - why the photo and physical evidence?
I guess it depends on what phenomena exactly we're referring to. Certainly the phenomena we call qualia are a product of consciousness. I'm not so sure about "physical evidence", because there's no way to be sure it's not also something subjective. However, personally, my views tend to fall into the general category of metaphysical realism as outlined here: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The fact that there is real evidence, I'm not that fancy on all this co-creation consciousness stuff. The answer just cannot be that simple. My take is that there are actually many, many phenomenons. Maybe some of them are real, maybe some not.
I guess that depends on how we define "real". If by "real" we mean that which exists, then surely the images we see in our dreams are real images. However the objects that those images represent, may or may not correspond to objects outside our dreams. So reality can be subjective or objective or a combination of both.
That would also mean that there is simply not one answer. We probably cannot simply conceive the intricacies of the universe.
The older I get, the more I tend to share that sentiment.
 
Last edited:

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Correlation & Causation

We sometimes hear the argument that correlation doesn't imply causation. However, if we're using the primary definition of "imply", meaning to "suggest" ( as opposed to "equate to" ) then this addage is false. More correctly, correlation doesn't equal causation. However when one considers the standards by which we attribute causes and effects, correlation can certainly imply causation, especially when it is supported by a statistical model based on repeated observation.

Part of the reasoning for this is that all causes and effects are 100% correlative, and in science, when something is directly correlative in all cases where it is tested, it is not simply dismissed as sheer coincidence. It is also as much a logical fallacy to conclude that because causation hasn't been proven, that the correlation implies something else is the cause.

In fact, when correlations under controlled circumstances are the same 100% of the time, there is a very strong scientific argument for causation. With respect to brain states and mental states, the following paper covers this debate in some further detail and should be required reading for anyone wanting to take sides on this particular issue.

Cognitive Neuroscience and Causal Inference: Implications for Psychiatry
 


Top