4 ms·
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_caus... EDIT: Why the downvote? Did I
by robmclarty 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_caus...
EDIT: Why the downvote? Did I not write enough? My point is, simply, that observing consciousness in correlation to matter does not imply that consciousness is caused by matter. The provided link is to the Wikipedia article that explains this basic statistical principle.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- saraid216 13y agoThe downvote is probably for the straw man. No one is saying that consciousness is caused by matter.
- robmclarty 13y agoI guess I didn't see it as a straw man. "Are you made of matter? Are you concious? If so then the matter you are made of is concious"... implying that if you are both made of matter and conscious then it is the matter that you are made of that makes you conscious. In other words, consciousness is caused by matter. I don't believe that we have sufficient empirical evidence to determine a causal relationship, only a correlation. EDIT: I realize I mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that the parent was implying matter caused consciousness when all that was said was that "conscious matter is conscious". I just wanted to further explain what I was thinking. Straw man or not, whether my argument was sound or not, I thought I had a valid point to make to contribute to the conversation and I don't feel that it should have been downvoted.