0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Are you insinuating that dlorde is incompetent by calling him silly??I think you should apologize......................
Quote from: Ethos_ on 10/12/2013 22:05:17Are you insinuating that dlorde is incompetent by calling him silly??I think you should apologize......................He's called me a lot worse than that. When his repeated unsupported assertions and declarations of incredulity fail to convince, he will post whole chapters of other people's work; when that fails, he resorts to ad-hominems and insults. What he is unable to do is provide any coherent argument or explanation for his constant straw-man assertions. This behaviour is so consistently misdirected, repetitive and apparently obsessive, I suspect OCD. These days, I post my responses for the exercise and the lurkers []
I think it's time for a moderator to get envolved.......................HELP
[moderators] don't seem that interested - stuff like ... and this
Quote from: dlorde on 10/12/2013 22:19:34Quote from: Ethos_ on 10/12/2013 22:05:17Are you insinuating that dlorde is incompetent by calling him silly??I think you should apologize......................He's called me a lot worse than that. When his repeated unsupported assertions and declarations of incredulity fail to convince, he will post whole chapters of other people's work; when that fails, he resorts to ad-hominems and insults. What he is unable to do is provide any coherent argument or explanation for his constant straw-man assertions. This behaviour is so consistently misdirected, repetitive and apparently obsessive, I suspect OCD. These days, I post my responses for the exercise and the lurkers []I think it's time for a moderator to get envolved.......................HELP
Since the mainstream 'scientific world view " assumes a-priori that "the mind is in then brain, or that the mind is just brain's activity ". then, scientists all around the world would just have to try to confirm that a priori held "scientific ' assumption empirically .In the particular case of those experiments you mentioned , i think, personally, that they were designed as to confirm the mainstream 'scientific world view " on the subject of brain and mind ,to the point where those experiments were suggestive and confirmatory , in the sense that the subjects under "investigation " were told to perform particular decisions-making via specific instructions on how to perform them .Those specific instructions went through the subjects' in question sensory -"inputs " to their brains first , that's why those scientists who were conducting those suggestive experiments through their suggestive confirmation bias ,in the above mentioned sense ,that's why they detected neurons' firings before those subjects were aware or conscious of their decisions.
The very existence of confirmation bias,for example, is evidence enough for the fact that the mind of the observer does change the observed ,via the observer's a-priori held belief assumptions ,is evidence enough for the fact that the mind does have causal effect on matter , brain or body .[/i]
I don't agree. Crushing the discussion would only confirm Don's conspiracy theory regarding anti-materialism.
This has been in many ways a pointless, circular, and silly discussion, but in other ways quite fruitful for me - an aspect of biology I had never really thought about much in the past. My knowledge of the brain was pretty much anatomical. Until David Cooper mentioned it, I had never heard the word qualia before. Since this conversation started, I've read at least least 3 books that I might not have read other wise, and articles by Nagler, Chandler, Sheldrake, Ramachandron, Dennett, Searle, Chirchland, Damasio , Raymore, Carter and others. I've read interesting things from dlorde, alancalverd, RD, Ethos (and, yes, Don, although I think he has an agenda.) At anyrate, it's given me something to think about while driving to work, or folding laundry. The occasional ad hominem doesn't bother me; I stick around until I get bored.
But moderation doesn't have to crush discussion; on some forums a short suspension follows breaking the rules; in others, the offending post is edited to remove the infringement and warning 'points' awarded, which add up over several infringements to a suspension. The problem is that this takes manpower, and moderators can become over-officious...
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 10/12/2013 21:59:03Quote from: dlorde on 10/12/2013 21:48:46Quote from: DonQuichotte on 10/12/2013 21:30:58... We should thus be looking for non-materialist falsifiable theories of consciousness ,basta .How? []Silly question : It's a bit like saying : if one detects flaws in or unexplained anomalies or unexplained phenomena ...by classical physics , before the time of Einstein, then, there is no way to disocover the still unknown at that time future relativity theory discovery , or quantum mechanics .New scientific discoveries through the evolutionary nature of science might deliver the answer to your silly question thus : only time will tell then .Are you insinuating that dlorde is incompetent by calling him silly??I think you should apologize......................
Quote from: dlorde on 10/12/2013 21:48:46Quote from: DonQuichotte on 10/12/2013 21:30:58... We should thus be looking for non-materialist falsifiable theories of consciousness ,basta .How? []Silly question : It's a bit like saying : if one detects flaws in or unexplained anomalies or unexplained phenomena ...by classical physics , before the time of Einstein, then, there is no way to disocover the still unknown at that time future relativity theory discovery , or quantum mechanics .New scientific discoveries through the evolutionary nature of science might deliver the answer to your silly question thus : only time will tell then .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 10/12/2013 21:30:58... We should thus be looking for non-materialist falsifiable theories of consciousness ,basta .How? []
... We should thus be looking for non-materialist falsifiable theories of consciousness ,basta .
Back on topic, I just noticed that QualiaSoup have two 10 minute videos on substance dualism (the idea that there is a physical body & brain, and a non-physical mind & consciousness). The second video covers much of what we've discussed here (with a mention of split-brain consciousness that's problematic for dualists), but it's worth viewing both:Substance Dualism (1)Substance Dualism (2)
thanks to consciousness mainly
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 11/12/2013 17:04:19thanks to consciousness mainly Please define this remarkable stuff you keep talking about. What does it do?
Quote from: DonQuichotte link=topic=48746.msg426266#msg426266 [/quoteThe very existence of confirmation bias,for example, is evidence enough for the fact that the mind of the observer does change the observed ,via the observer's a-priori held belief assumptions ,is evidence enough for the fact that the mind does have causal effect on matter , brain or body .[/i]Seriously? That's the exactly wrong definition of bias. Look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe me - it means the mind is wrong about its interpretation of reality, not that it changes it.
Quote from: DonQuichotte link=topic=48746.msg426261#msg426261 Since the mainstream 'scientific world view " assumes a-priori that "the mind is in then brain, or that the mind is just brain's activity ". then, scientists all around the world would just have to try to confirm that a priori held "scientific ' assumption empirically .In the particular case of those experiments you mentioned , i think, personally, that they were designed as to confirm the mainstream 'scientific world view " on the subject of brain and mind ,to the point where those experiments were suggestive and confirmatory , in the sense that the subjects under "investigation " were told to perform particular decisions-making via specific instructions on how to perform them .Those specific instructions went through the subjects' in question sensory -"inputs " to their brains first , that's why those scientists who were conducting those suggestive experiments through their suggestive confirmation bias ,in the above mentioned sense ,that's why they detected neurons' firings before those subjects were aware or conscious of their decisions. So, you are saying the experiments were fraudulent? Were the subjects told "Please wait exactly six seconds before responding" in order to maintain the materialist conspiracy?
Quote from: Ethos_ on 10/12/2013 22:21:31Quote from: dlorde on 10/12/2013 22:19:34Quote from: Ethos_ on 10/12/2013 22:05:17Are you insinuating that dlorde is incompetent by calling him silly??I think you should apologize......................He's called me a lot worse than that. When his repeated unsupported assertions and declarations of incredulity fail to convince, he will post whole chapters of other people's work; when that fails, he resorts to ad-hominems and insults. What he is unable to do is provide any coherent argument or explanation for his constant straw-man assertions. This behaviour is so consistently misdirected, repetitive and apparently obsessive, I suspect OCD. These days, I post my responses for the exercise and the lurkers []I think it's time for a moderator to get envolved.......................HELPI don't agree. Crushing the discussion would only confirm Don's conspiracy theory regarding anti-materialism. This has been in many ways a pointless, circular, and silly discussion, but in other ways quite fruitful for me - an aspect of biology I had never really thought about much in the past. My knowledge of the brain was pretty much anatomical. Until David Cooper mentioned it, I had never heard the word qualia before. Since this conversation started, I've read at least least 3 books that I might not have read other wise, and articles by Nagler, Chandler, Sheldrake, Ramachandron, Dennett, Searle, Chirchland, Damasio , Raymore, Carter and others. I've read interesting things from dlorde, alancalverd, RD, Ethos (and, yes, Don, although I think he has an agenda.) At anyrate, it's given me something to think about while driving to work, or folding laundry. The occasional ad hominem doesn't bother me; I stick around until I get bored.
Quote from: alancalverd on 11/12/2013 17:20:08Quote from: DonQuichotte on 11/12/2013 17:04:19thanks to consciousness mainly Please define this remarkable stuff you keep talking about. What does it do?Please , do some introspection : look within yourself : get in touch with your self ,or with your own subjective inner life .
Ironically and paradoxically enough , materialism has been the one that's been turning science into a dogma , into an orthodox dogmatic secular religion , by imposing its false materialist conception of nature as "the scientific world view " for so long now :