0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/12/2013 20:17:57It is in fact very convenient for materialists to assume that "all is matter ,including the mind ", and hence "the mind is in the brain , or the mind is just brain acivity ", and then, they misinterpret scientific experiments on the subject , in order to make them fit into that false materialist unfalsifiable a-priori held concepion of nature .And conveniently, you reject any and all evidence, in order to support your a-priori immaterialist conception of nature.
It is in fact very convenient for materialists to assume that "all is matter ,including the mind ", and hence "the mind is in the brain , or the mind is just brain acivity ", and then, they misinterpret scientific experiments on the subject , in order to make them fit into that false materialist unfalsifiable a-priori held concepion of nature .
...So, that detected brain activity 6 secs before the patients' in question awareness of their own conscious decision making on the subject , in those experiments you mentioned , that detected brain activity prior to that specific conscious process was / is just the image of that specific conscious process , not its cause ,since any given conscious process would require no time space or energy : a bit like the phenomena of light : just an analogy : that take place instantly : when you turn on the light switch , for example ,the electric current process seems thus to take place millisecs before the appearance of the light in the room .
Something like that , i don't know
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 09/12/2013 17:40:10...So, that detected brain activity 6 secs before the patients' in question awareness of their own conscious decision making on the subject , in those experiments you mentioned , that detected brain activity prior to that specific conscious process was / is just the image of that specific conscious process , not its cause ,since any given conscious process would require no time space or energy : a bit like the phenomena of light : just an analogy : that take place instantly : when you turn on the light switch , for example ,the electric current process seems thus to take place millisecs before the appearance of the light in the room .In your analogy, the electric current flowing does cause the light to appear, and the delay between switching it on and the light appearing is well understood. Electrical technology relies on our understanding of this causal relationship.
If the phenomena of consciousness require no time, space, or energy, and take place instantly, we should not expect to detect their physical precursors well before the individual is aware of them.
QuoteSomething like that , i don't knowBoth the experimental evidence and your own analogy contradict your unevidenced assertions about consciousness. You don't know why, yet you persist with these assertions.
A strong belief held in the absence of evidence is called faith, and a strong belief held in the face of conflicting evidence is called a delusion.
Any idiot can design experiments as to make them fit into his /her a-priori held biased suggestive belief assumptions ...pfff...
The biggest error ever made in the name of science ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cBiNsdvJF4
QuoteAny idiot can design experiments as to make them fit into his /her a-priori held biased suggestive belief assumptions ...pfff...Go on, then, show us the experiment that confirms your beliefs.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 09/12/2013 16:56:48The biggest error ever made in the name of science ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cBiNsdvJF4Is that YouTube [currently with a measly 519 views] by the same Bernardo Kastrup whose ignorance was exposed on the jref forum ? ... http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=8552406#post8552406
Thanks by the way for raising that confirmation bias in that link of yours ...
Well, don't be so unimaginative ,simplistic and short sighted as not to have noticed that i said that that was just an analogy .
We don't know what "aware of them " is ,or rather what or how the conscious process takes place ,so to speak then : you are just trying to explain away my speculations on the subject via your own false materialist "all is matter ,including the mind " physical theory of nature .
We don't know nothing of non-physical or mental forms of causation : and they should be totally different from the conventional physical ones, logically .
All i know is that materialism is false , and hence not 'all is matter " , and therefore consciousness must be non-local and non-physical .
There must be some flaws in those experiments you mentioned , since they were conducted under the materialist false mainstream dominating 'scientific world view " = the way and the results of those experiments cannot be but biased and a-priori suggestive .
What extraordinary evidence has been delivered by materialism then, regarding the extraordinary claims of the materialist conception of nature ? and hence what extraordinary evidence has materialism been delivering regarding its " the mind is in the brain " materialist extraordinary claims ? Those experiments you mentioned ?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 09/12/2013 19:49:19Thanks by the way for raising that confirmation bias in that link of yours ...But unfortunately you lack the insight to recognise yourself in the bit about "... rhetorical spin ... arm waving and emotional characterizations ...".
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 09/12/2013 18:59:21Well, don't be so unimaginative ,simplistic and short sighted as not to have noticed that i said that that was just an analogy .Analogous with the experimental results, but contradictory to your acausal 'explanation' []QuoteWe don't know what "aware of them " is ,or rather what or how the conscious process takes place ,so to speak then : you are just trying to explain away my speculations on the subject via your own false materialist "all is matter ,including the mind " physical theory of nature .We have to take their word for when they became consciously aware of making a choice - unless you think they can be consciously aware of it before before they are consciously aware of it []QuoteWe don't know nothing of non-physical or mental forms of causation : and they should be totally different from the conventional physical ones, logically .Using your own analogy, that's like saying the appearance of light might be causing the light switch to go on. The events in the brain progress in a causal manner until the posteromedial cortices and frontal lobes are involved, and this coincides with the subject's declaration of when they made the choice. The sequence is not significantly different from other causal neural progressions from stimulus to response.To suggest that the sequence with a conscious end-point has a different causality than other similar sequences is special pleading of the most egregious kind. QuoteAll i know is that materialism is false , and hence not 'all is matter " , and therefore consciousness must be non-local and non-physical .You don't know it, you only believe it. Knowledge is falsifiably justified belief, and you have no falsifiable justification. QuoteThere must be some flaws in those experiments you mentioned , since they were conducted under the materialist false mainstream dominating 'scientific world view " = the way and the results of those experiments cannot be but biased and a-priori suggestive .By all means point out such flaws; otherwise you can see how damaging it is to your case to claim the experiments were flawed because the results don't agree with your beliefs. If you opened your stance to 'materialism may be false', you wouldn't have to resort to dismissing evidence that doesn't fit your world view.QuoteWhat extraordinary evidence has been delivered by materialism then, regarding the extraordinary claims of the materialist conception of nature ? and hence what extraordinary evidence has materialism been delivering regarding its " the mind is in the brain " materialist extraordinary claims ? Those experiments you mentioned ?It's interesting evidence that is entirely consistent with a material explanation, and quite inconsistent with a non-material explanation. It's been replicated in various ways, and remains consistent; you're welcome to call it extraordinary if you wish - it's your belief it contradicts. QuoteAny idiot can design experiments as to make them fit into his /her a-priori held biased suggestive belief assumptions ...pfff...True; so are you calling the researchers who designed these various experiments idiots? If so, how are the experiments flawed? In summary - the results conflict with your belief therefore they must be flawed experiments designed by idiots... Once again; 'nuff said []
Not to mention the fact that the mind of the observer does change the observed , via the observer's a -priori held dogmatic belief assumptions
Anyone thus who would try to prove materialism to be "true "
The above can be summarized just as follows :Confirmation bias ...= goes also perfectly for materialists ,and for those experiments you mentioned mainly ...Way to go, scientist .Objectivity in science is a myth , Mr.
Yeah, right : i lack many things , i have many flaws ...
that does not make the fact go away that materialism is false , and hence the mind is not in the brain , or the mind is not brain's activity
the fundamentally incorrect sand-castles of Newton's classical physics
Did you at least try to read my relevant posted excerpts on the subject ? Guess not .