0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Placebo medicine used to be widely available. It was called Snake Oil. And I would think that if a drug company could get away with marketing a physiologically inert substance with no side effects or risks as an effective medication, they'd actually be thrilled. Think of the costs saved in research and development.
When you look at the actual knee study, it suggests to me that knee surgery may be less effective that thought, not that a placebo is a great cure.
People who equate placebo with the ability to change reality by thinking about it are quick to ignore other explanations - that some diseases or conditions do resolve or improve with time for purely physiological reasons.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 12/12/2014 18:08:28"Mind-Time The Temporal Factor -Benjamin Libet" : "General Views on Mind and Matter ":What aspect of his CFM theory would you like to discuss? Your quotes are somewhat selective, I notice. He also says:<...quotes directly contradicting Don's main thesis...>
"Mind-Time The Temporal Factor -Benjamin Libet" : "General Views on Mind and Matter ":
Quote from: cheryl j on 13/12/2014 19:37:03Quote from: DonQuichotte on 12/12/2014 18:08:28"Mind-Time The Temporal Factor -Benjamin Libet" : "General Views on Mind and Matter ":What aspect of his CFM theory would you like to discuss? Your quotes are somewhat selective, I notice. He also says:<...quotes directly contradicting Don's main thesis...>Ouch! Yes, that looks like deliberately deceptive cherry-picking...
The wikipedia article has a good summary of Libet's work, and CMF theory, as well as an experiment he proposes to test it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Conscious_Mental_Field_TheoryI don't know if my version of the book is the same as Don's, but on this website there is a interesting forward to the book that discusses the basis of choice in applying the veto power or after one becomes conscious of what wants or is intending to do. I will post the entire forward since he never seems to follow my links
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg446567#msg446567 date=1418573514]Quote from: dlorde on 14/12/2014 12:14:05Quote from: cheryl j on 13/12/2014 19:37:03Quote from: DonQuichotte on 12/12/2014 18:08:28"Mind-Time The Temporal Factor -Benjamin Libet" : "General Views on Mind and Matter ":What aspect of his CFM theory would you like to discuss? Your quotes are somewhat selective, I notice. He also says:<...quotes directly contradicting Don's main thesis...>Ouch! Yes, that looks like deliberately deceptive cherry-picking...I will say that Don is correct in that Libet is critical of reductionist materialism, as expressed in the excerpt and else where in the book. Libet does not automatically exclude the possibility of the immaterial or even things like souls, life after death, etc.
This seems to contradict Don's earlier claims that neuroscientists who rely on materialist methodologies like fMRIs, or attribute mental processes to brain activity, do so because they are incapable of grasping any non-materialist interpretation, rather than simply following the evidence.
Libet does not sound indoctrinated to me, nor afraid that considering the existence of the immaterial or criticizing materialism in any way will brand him as a nut case. But he does insist on evidence. He is an example of the kind of neuroscientist that Don claims doesn't exist.
The wikipedia article has a good summary of Libet's work, and CMF theory, as well as an experiment he proposes to test it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Conscious_Mental_Field_TheoryI don't know if my version of the book is the same as Don's, but on this website there is a interesting forward to the book that discusses the basis of choice in applying the veto power or after one becomes conscious of what wants or is intending to do. I will post the entire forward since he never seems to follow my links.
dlorde is 1 of those die-hard materialistic reductionists
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg446498#msg446498 date=1418482520]Quote"Bell’s theorem and the experiments it fostered are responsible. Theydid more than confirm the weird predictions of quantum theory. But quantum theory is entirely materialistic. It's all about the observed behaviour of real stuff. What nonmaterialistic predictions did these experiments confirm?
"Bell’s theorem and the experiments it fostered are responsible. Theydid more than confirm the weird predictions of quantum theory.
And note that later in the paragraph "observation" is in quotation marks. It doesn't mean observation by a conscious being.
Since you are still a die-hard dogmatic materialist reductionist who has been taking his materialistic beliefs for granted as science , as Libet showed here above , i see no point in discussing Libet's theory or the mind -body problem with you ,what for ? .
Try to differentiate between materialist beliefs and science by distinguishing them from each other ,and hence by stopping to equate between them ,then and only then , we can progress in this debate .
What 's your point , Cheryl ? You could have just displayed that wiki link in question .I have read most of that book , so, what's your point then ?
Libet assumed that consciousness was an emergent phenomena ,that's what that theory of his was all about .
He just replaced the materialistic magical identity theory with yet another inexplicable magic : consciousness as an alleged emergent phenomena .Consciousness cannot be an emergent phenomena though : we have already talked about that on many occasions , on that lengthy consciousness thread : even Cooper did reject it .
Why don't you react to the following from that same book ?,regarding the materialistic identity theory that's just a matter of belief , no scientific theory :
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 12/12/2014 21:51:06Some people's personalities or characters , sense of morality ....and more do change almost completely when they get ...drunk lol, for example .Some good nice polite mannered people become aggressive ,rude, vulgar , offensive ...you name it , because alcohol blocks or deactivates their inhibitions area in the brain, i guess .Even peaceful people can become beasts Under certain circumstances..Is that an allusion of an apology for your past uncivil rants? - not your fault because they were drunken rants? And, of course, that only makes sense if your brain is what makes you the person you are .
Some people's personalities or characters , sense of morality ....and more do change almost completely when they get ...drunk lol, for example .Some good nice polite mannered people become aggressive ,rude, vulgar , offensive ...you name it , because alcohol blocks or deactivates their inhibitions area in the brain, i guess .Even peaceful people can become beasts Under certain circumstances..
You're just such a narrow-minded dogmatic materialist ( I have more respect for scientists like Libet , for example, who can change their minds in the face of evidence , none for ossified dogmatics like yourself , to be honest ) , a believer who has been taking his own materialistic beliefs as granted for science ,or who has been equating between science and materialism , like the majority of scientists today have been doing . ...You've got no reasons , no evidence ...to stick to your false materialist beliefs ....You can't see evidence , even if it would hit you in the eye ....This is extremely tragic -hilarious , pathetic and ironic coming from such a dogmatic materialist scientist like yourself who has been bombarding my eyes with a lots of "empirical evidence " lol that has been supporting the materialistic reductionist identity theory,and other materialist non-sense lol
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg446579#msg446579 date=1418585013]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 14/12/2014 18:01:08What 's your point , Cheryl ? You could have just displayed that wiki link in question .I have read most of that book , so, what's your point then ?I didn't know if your version included the same Forward by Kosslyn. What was your point in posting Libet's comments if you have no interest in his work and do not feel he is credible?
I have read almost all that book of his ,as i said , earlier on, that he was a great mind , after all , despite my disagreements with his work, the part of which that assumes that consciousness is just an emergent phenomena ,that is .QuoteLibet assumed that consciousness was an emergent phenomena ,that's what that theory of his was all about .I'm aware of that.
QuoteHe just replaced the materialistic magical identity theory with yet another inexplicable magic : consciousness as an alleged emergent phenomena .Consciousness cannot be an emergent phenomena though : we have already talked about that on many occasions , on that lengthy consciousness thread : even Cooper did reject it .I disagree.
QuoteWhy don't you react to the following from that same book ?,regarding the materialistic identity theory that's just a matter of belief , no scientific theory :.I did acknowledge that in another post, but again, he also says "Nondeterminism—which is the view that conscious will may,at times, exert effects not in accord with known physical laws— is of course also a nonproven speculative belief," which you chose to ignore. But unlike Chris Carter, Libet's work is not primarily based on gripes with materialism or a belief in the supernatural. He is trying to construct a model that explains his experimental observations and makes testable predictions. His theory rests on its own merits, regardless of how he feels about materialism, one way or the other.
Every time I see the the Popper example of falsifiability, using Einstein's theory and the eclipse, I imagine you saying "But Albert, that is no kind of evidence - no way, no how! You are merely mistaking the image of the process with the process!"
You're just confirming what i was saying about you all along , from the very start : you are just a dogmatic believer who's a believer first and a dogmatic narrow-minded scientist only second .What can one learn from you then ? Oh , please , just spare me your dogmatic materialistic non-sense .Amazing .