Phenomenology doesn’t begin from objective causality, it deconstructs it by grounding it in structures of intentionality, which is is neither objective nor subjective in a traditional sense. — Joshs

I find phenomenology useful to the extent one might start there to reverse engineer the social and biological causes.

So one of my best remembered examples - which started me off in the right direction - was my first psychophysics class where we learnt about Mach bands in visual perception. Then I walked out into the bright light and immediately could see them marking the sharp edges of the surrounding buildings.

That already said almost everything about both the biological and social aspects of consciousness.

The Mach bands existed so my biology would model the world as a pragmatic Umwelt. The contrast lines were designed not to be noticed introspectively. They were a way to simplify my confused impressions to a simple and predictable narrative. The goal of my neurology was to arrive at skilled and unthinking habits.

At the same time, sociology demanded that I take notice of them - add them to my self-narrative as a cultural creature. I could introspect and find these outlines to sharpen grays into blacks and whites. I could learn to see the "illusion" behind my naive phenomenology ... and start to worry about mind~body dualism when I went off to philosophy class.

So sure. Phenomenology is fine if it begins a process of reverse engineering the causes.

And sure, it is neither objective or subjective in the traditional sense. I'm always saying that it is not that, but instead, semiotic. And semiotic on both the biological and sociological levels.

If you unite the eyes and the brain, in this way, you cannot say that it is the brain which produces eyesight, because it cannot be done without the eyes. And if you separate eyes from the brain, then you need to account for how an eye can see without a brain: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130227183311.htm#:~:text=2-,Eyes%20work%20without%20connection%20to%20brain%3A%20Ectopic%20eyes,without%20natural%20connection%20to%20brain&text=Summary%3A,neural%20connection%20to%20the%20brain.

Either way, you are wrong to say that eyesight is produced by the brain. — Metaphysician Undercover

Blithering nonsense. The eye is the tool that the brain uses to generate sight. It has no function without the brain. I don't unite the eye and brain, I said the brain produces eyesight, which is incontrovertibly correct.

"When light hits the retina (a light-sensitive layer of tissue at the back of the eye), special cells called photoreceptors turn the light into electrical signals.

These electrical signals travel from the retina through the optic nerve to the brain. Then the brain turns the signals into the images you see.

https://www.nei.nih.gov/learn-about-eye-health/healthy-vision/how-eyes-work#:~:text=When%20light%20hits%20the%20retina,into%20the%20images%20you%20see.
https://www.brainfacts.org/thinking-sensing-and-behaving/vision/2012/vision-processing-information

Let's not continue to deny established science, it's getting real, real old. Just contend with the topic at hand and address the issue of this thread, and do so with support, I'm done responding to false assertions of this kind.

The eye is the tool that the brain uses to generate sight. It has no function without the brain. — Garrett Travers

Did you read the article, and see how the experiments showed the tool to function without the brain?

You speak of 'biological function' and, I am not dismissing biology. However, it is one model and way of seeing reality. To what extent can everything be reduced to this model, which is materialism. I am not advocating idealism as the opposite instead of materialism, but would suggest that reality may be larger than either model. — Jack Cummins

To just about every extent. There has not ever been a reason to not use science as one's platform for deriving abstractions in philosophy. Any philosophical approach that is not informed by science, is the opposite of philosophy.

That is because, ultimately, all these views are models, including neuroscience, and none of these can be viewed as 'absolute reality.' I am not opposed to neuroscience because it is important but to see it as 'the Unequivocal Triumph' may be to put it on a pedestal and see it concretely, in the way 'religious' perspectives were once seen. The findings of neuroscience are important in science but may not contain all that is known about consciousness because it can describe consciousness but is not consciousness itself. — Jack Cummins

No, the unequivocal triumph of neuroscience, is the dismissal of previously expressed ideas of consciousness that simply do not have any weight, or support to them. Not that science has completely closed the book on consciousness. Again, it is time to address the research I've posted, I'm not going around in circles on anyone's opinions.

Check Wikipedia on "The Evolution of The Eye":

"Eyes and other sensory organs probably evolved before the brain: There is no need for an information-processing organ (brain) before there is information to process.[19] A living example are cubozoan jellyfish that possess eyes comparable to vertebrate and cephalopod camera eyes despite lacking a brain."

Did you read the article, and see how the experiments showed the tool to function without the brain? — Metaphysician Undercover

You mean, the experiment that determined this?:

"Here, our research reveals the brain's remarkable ability, or plasticity, to process visual data coming from misplaced eyes, even when they are located far from the head."

I don't need to read your article to confirm what I literally already said. The eye is a tool of the brain used to generate sight. But, why the hell would I even open your article when not one time have you addressed ANY single aspect of the NUMEROUS research articles I've placed on this thread? You open a damn article and produce an argument against my position.

"Eyes and other sensory organs probably evolved before the brain: There is no need for an information-processing organ (brain) before there is information to process.[19] A living example are cubozoan jellyfish that possess eyes comparable to vertebrate and cephalopod camera eyes despite lacking a brain." — Metaphysician Undercover

Un-believably-stupid thing to post.

Your not paying attention Garrett. The eye does not need the brain, and most likely evolved into existence prior to the brain. Therefore it does not exist as a tool of the brain.

those who do not accept his Scientism-based bible-thumping as philosophical arguments. — Gnomon

This is some mealy-mouthed weasel speech. Never have I said anything about scientism or fucking bible thumping, you insufferable, mystic prick. You owe me an apology.

And all of my proffered "evidence" came from credentialed practitioners of various fields of science — Gnomon

You haven't proffered any evidence of any kind, whatsoever. You posted opinion peices that had nothing to do with the research I posted, and you never once addressed that research.

He continued to insist "show me the evidence", yet ignored my many links to quotes by professional scientists supporting my modest comments. He didn't seem to be interested in the opinions of individual scientists. Instead, his absolute authority is capital "S" science -- as-if modern science is a monolithic institution like the Catholic Church, with canonical scriptures. — Gnomon

Untrammeled bullshit. You have addressed nothing whatsoever, and produced no evidence of anything at all.

So, I began to reflect his bullying tactics back at him. And he didn't like it at all, e.g. being treated as a naive idiot, ignorant of holy Science. Yet, he made no attempt to justify his own bragging boast of "Unequivocal Triumph" of Science over Philosophy. — Gnomon

No, I called you on your narcissistic bullshit, as I am still doing now. Present an argument, a single argument at all will do. You're unbelievable.

Your not paying attention Garrett. The eye does not need the brain, and most likely evolved into existence prior to the brain. Therefore it does not exist as a tool of the brain. — Metaphysician Undercover

The eye that your wikipedia article is talking about, is not an image processing (sight) tool. What do you think it means when it clearly states, overtly, "There is no need for an information-processing organ (brain) before there is information to process?"

Are you not understanding this?

That's so ludicrous -- the idea that the rest of our bodies are all in service of the brain. How ridiculous.

We are our whole bodies, including, but not limited to, our brain. If, when you refer to yourself as "me" you're referring strictly to your brain, you're a cartoon villain.

And semiotic on both the biological and sociological levels. — apokrisis

Yep, starting with the biological, which is to say social for humans. No way around it whatsoever that has been shown to date.

What do you think it means when it clearly states, overtly, "There is no need for an information-processing organ (brain) before there is information to process?" — Garrett Travers

It means, that there is no need for an information processing organ (brain), in order for there to be an organ which receives the information (eye). Therefore we can conclude that the organ which receives the information (eye) does not exist as a tool of the organ which processes the information (brain).

That's so ludicrous -- the idea that the rest of our bodies are all in service of the brain. How ridiculous.

We are our whole bodies, including, but not limited to, our brain. If, when you refer to yourself as "me" you're referring strictly to your brain, you're a cartoon villain. — theRiddler

No, I'm the guy rescuing you from your daydream. The brain controls everything. The brain and body are ONE, not separate:

"The brain is a complex organ that controls thought, memory, emotion, touch, motor skills, vision, breathing, temperature, hunger and every process that regulates our body. Together, the brain and spinal cord that extends from it make up the central nervous system, or CNS."

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/anatomy-of-the-brain#:~:text=The%20brain%20is%20a%20complex,central%20nervous%20system%2C%20or%20CNS.

You're not understanding what I am saying to you at all, whatsoever. And you do not understand the brain.

The brain and body are ONE, not separate: — Garrett Travers

Now you're really not making sense. Are my feet a part of my brain?

It means, that there is no need for an information processing organ (brain), in order for there to be an organ which receives the information (eye). Therefore we can conclude that the organ which receives the information (eye) does not exist as a tool of the organ which processes the information (brain). — Metaphysician Undercover

It doesn't receive information, that's what it is saying. No we cannot conclude such a thing. We can conclude that the eye you speak of is not a tool of sight, but a too of light detection. Holy shit...

Now you're really not making sense. Are my feet a part of my brain? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yep. That's why you have nerves there, and why the brain allows all movements and sensations of it.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten how to read now.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten how to read now. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nope, just dismissed your nonsense with actual facts that were stated in the words you posted. Now, it's time for you to address even the first topic of the research I've posted, or scram.

We are more than brains. To see just how much more than a brain you are you could subtract the average weight of a human brain from your total weight.

I know enough biology. The body is the “source of consciousness”. The brain is only one of many integral parts to a conscious or unconscious organism.

We are more than brains. To see just how much more than a brain you are you could subtract the average weight of a human brain from your total weight.

I know enough biology. The body is the “source of consciousness”. The brain is only one of many integral parts to a conscious or unconscious organism. — NOS4A2

Okay, citation now. Or, this assertion can be completely dismissed. You read the parameter for the discussion, correct?

Now, it's time for you to address even the first topic of the research I've posted, or scram. — Garrett Travers

Sorry Travers, just like you are uninterested in the truth about the relationship between the eye and the brain, I'm not interested in the research you posted.

Sorry Travers, just like you are uninterested in the truth about the relationship between the eye and the brain, I'm not interested in the research you posted. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yep, that's been clear . Now take your fake claims to some other thread, we deal in facts in my domain. And do some research on that eye thing, you're completely clueless about it.

Of course the brain and the body are one: the brain is a part of the body. The body, even the brain, is not located "in the brain", though, and yet, we actually are our entire bodies -- not just our brains.

And do some research on that eye thing, you're completely clueless about it. — Garrett Travers

The research has been done, and referenced above. You are in denial of the facts, because they are incompatible with what you believe. So be it.

Of course the brain and the body are one: the brain is a part of the body. The body, even the brain, is not located "in the brain", though, and yet, we actually are our entire bodies -- not just our brains. — theRiddler

That's correct. Now, take that idea and apply it to what I'm talking about, and stop just trying to dismiss what I say and insult me. The body has a control center, that control center is the brain, the brain controls EVERY aspect of the body it is a constitutent member of. It would be outrageous to conclude that the brain is not also the source of consciousness in light of what has been discovered in modern neuroscience, research that I have posted here. I'd like to see an argument from you about this.

The research has been done, and referenced above. You are in denial of the facts, because they are incompatible with what you believe. So be it. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, your research agreed with me, not you. And I pointed that out to you by quoting it. Did you miss that part? Here, I'll do it again:

"This has never been shown before," says Levin. "No one would have guessed that eyes on the flank of a tadpole could see, especially when wired only to the spinal cord and not the brain." The findings suggest a remarkable plasticity in the brain's ability to incorporate signals from various body regions into behavioral programs that had evolved with a specific and different body plan."

You completely misunderstood your research.

not just our brains. — theRiddler

Oh, and I never said anything about "just" being our brains. I said we are our brains. This "just" business is your interpolation.

Who's insulting who? I don't even take this conversation seriously -- you've insulted half the people in it!

Who's insulting who? I don't even take this conversation seriously -- you've insulted half the people in it! — theRiddler

No, I respond to insults with insults, go have a care to notice. I do not play that bullshit, and I will always respond in kind. I never initiate insults. For example you "I don't take this conversation seriously" horseshit, only indicates to me that you have no ability to contend with my postion, not that you actually don't take this seriously. When I don't take an argument seriously on other people's forums, I just skip the forum because it isn't worth my time. You, however, have remained here anyway. Not indicative of a lack of care, you care deeply. So very deeply do you care, you can't help but care. You're a good man. Now, do you have an argument, or do you not?