(2018-12-30, 06:15 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Though we speak and write the same language it seems you don't understand what the word "suggests" mean. It's a qualifier to indicate uncertainty of something, in this case, if you've read about the Cambrian Explosion (henceforth abbreviated C.E.) which you've done just as the word "seems" is also a qualifier. I've noted on several occasions you've misread what fls has written. Specifically fls was not stating anyone is stupid only not as informed as one thinks. Something you've pleaded guilty to in the past and very recent past.
I had a reply written out for the above about the C.E. that is until I read this post of yours quoted below and realized it would be pointless to explain in detail why I value facts over beliefs. Contrast that to your way of thinking which is certainly emotional and intuitive. Your approach I doubt will ever lead to revelations. Perhaps that's what wrong fundamentally with some maybe all of psi research. I've bolded the appropriate text to illustrate that intuitive thinking.
You might argue that all of the bolded text are just qualifiers too, but no, you've created a provenance via many prior posts. I won't comment on whether you make assertions.
P.S. I would edit the last paragraph before posting, but it's not an operation allowed using my mobile. Perhaps I'll do so on my pc.
Again - yes, yet again - a string of accusations and no content. All I asked was for some indication that you understand what it is you are accusing others of being ignorant of. I'm not asking for expertise (few of us here have such expertise), just a reasonable grasp of the subject and, more importantly, why you imagine that you have access to the truth which others don't. I'd really like to see an explanation for that
belief. But you run in the opposite direction with this reply ...
"I had a reply written out for the above about the C.E. that is until I read this post of yours quoted below and realized it would be pointless to explain in detail why I value facts over beliefs."
Yeah, right, Steve. One last time, what are the facts and why do you
believe them to be facts? Or, to put it another way, why are the points raised here by nbtruthman and others wrong? Do yourself a favour and show that you can do more than point fingers and sneer like a pouty teenager.
(2018-12-30, 06:46 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Yes jumping into threads to call someone a "damn fool" and never explaining yourself...telling people they lack the "testosterone" to share your beliefs...not emotional at all. 
I'm terribly sorry I called a man you admire an idiot but, I did explain myself rather recently, it seems you missed it. And I'm extra sorry i jumped into a thread to say that on a forum where everyone is allowed to comment at will. Perhaps skeptiko is more appropriate for someone as sensitive as yourself they do moderate threads so members delicate sensibilities are not offended. Since you have the courage of you're convictions go here where you'll most certainly be put to task defending them. The site has many subforums one is for philosophy for example. You won't I know.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/for...mindex.php
P.S. If I earned a penny for every time I listened to one of you repudiate someone I'd be rich. And this suit of sanctimony you wear is a bit moth eaten.
(2018-12-30, 06:11 PM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]Analogue computation isn't commonly used now, but really it is a collection of circuits (or some other physical system) that follow the same set of equations as the thing you are trying to study. You could use an electronic damped oscillator to mimic (i.e. compute future states of) a pendulum, for example. However, the link between the circuit and the pendulum would only exist in the human mind - not in the equipment.
The joke is that materialists normally scoff at anthropomorphic statements - "my computer doesn't understand me", and yet ultimately they try to derive the human mind from computation!
I've was thinking about this last night and revisited Lanier's You Can't Argue with a Zombie -
made a thread for it here.
(2018-12-30, 07:39 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm terribly sorry I called a man you admire an idiot but, I did explain myself rather recently, it seems you missed it. And I'm extra sorry i jumped into a thread (just like you did here) to say that on a forum where everyone is allowed to comment at will. Perhaps skeptiko is more appropriate for someone as sensitive as yourself they do moderate threads so members delicate sensibilities are not offended. Since you have the courage of you're convictions go here where you'll most certainly be put to task defending them. The site has many subforums one is for philosophy for example. You won't I know. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/for...mindex.php
P.S. If I earned a penny for every time I listened to one of you repudiate someone I'd be rich. And this suit of sanctimony you wear is a bit moth eaten.
It's not that you jumped into a thread, you jump into threads to provide worthless commentary, some insults, but when pressed you slink off only to troll another thread. Or worse you start going off about field effects being Psi when they are part of accepted physics, but you see a proponent posting and just react. A
decade since you begged for help to argue against Maaneli and some simple physics basics (field effects) available to college students who take the "Physics for Poets" or "Physics of Star Trek" courses eluded you? 10 years and you never picked up one of those "For Dummies" books to brush up before posting?
It's been
years but we're still waiting for you to explain exactly why Tallis' reasoning is so wrong he's a "damned fool".
It's odd that you mention how I missed it but can't seem to produce a link? ==>
You said Tallis was a damn fool,
here's the thread for you to explain why his argument is wrong.
You said Rosenberg, a physicalist who says there is nothing mental in matter , was also a damn fool for saying thoughts are illusions. But when asked where his reasoning is flawed you balked (if I missed a reply feel free to point that out).
Here's the thread, I await your reply.
Also odd you assume I don't discuss these questions with people who disagree with me just because I won't go a site you selected (
note I'm discussing/debating in this very thread, just not insulting my interlocutors). I could just as easily ask why you don't go to Feser's Catholic theology blog, or Bernardo' forum? Or why you don't email Raymond Tallis or Alex Rosenberg with your arguments --> you can CC a few of us so we know the replies are genuine?
Or why don't either of us write up our thoughts and publish them on Academia.edu so academics can critique us? Or take the same online courses and see what we score? Someone can always up the ante in this fashion.
(2018-12-30, 08:12 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]Yes and yes.
You (and possibly Max, and almost certainly Stephen W
) should find something interesting in
this paper on Biosemiotics I just made a thread for. Seems to relate to all your ideas in some fashion, assuming I've understood them...
Admittedly I'm still digesting it, but ideally it might spur some good discussions.
(2018-12-30, 06:15 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ] Contrast that to your way of thinking which is certainly emotional and intuitive. Your approach I doubt will ever lead to revelations.
Not to single you out, Steve, but I'll use this post as a general reminder to everyone about the respect rule of the forum (no. 1).
Characterizing other people, including their thinking, starts bordering on a personal attack. The aim should be to stick to arguments a person is making, if the intention is to debate.
(2018-12-30, 08:10 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]It's not that you jumped into a thread, you jump into threads to provide worthless commentary, some insults, but when pressed you slink off only to troll another thread. Or worse you start going off about field effects being Psi when they are part of accepted physics, but you see a proponent posting and just react. A decade since you begged for help to argue against Maaneli and some simple physics basics (field effects) available to college students who take the "Physics for Poets" or "Physics of Star Trek" courses eluded you? 10 years and you never picked up one of those "For Dummies" books to brush up before posting?
It's been years but we're still waiting for you to explain exactly why Tallis' reasoning is so wrong he's a "damned fool".
It's odd that you mention how I missed it but can't seem to produce a link? ==>
You said Tallis was a damn fool, here's the thread for you to explain why his argument is wrong.
You said Rosenberg, a physicalist who says there is nothing mental in matter , was also a damn fool for saying thoughts are illusions. But when asked where his reasoning is flawed you balked (if I missed a reply feel free to point that out). Here's the thread, I await your reply.
Also odd you assume I don't discuss these questions with people who disagree with me just because I won't go a site you selected (note I'm discussing/debating in this very thread, just not insulting my interlocutors). I could just as easily ask why you don't go to Feser's Catholic theology blog, or Bernardo' forum? Or why you don't email Raymond Tallis or Alex Rosenberg with your arguments --> you can CC a few of us so we know the replies are genuine?
Or why don't either of us write up our thoughts and publish them on Academia.edu so academics can critique us? Or take the same online courses and see what we score? Someone can always up the ante in this fashion.
Tallis is an idiot to argue the brain does not produce consciousness when all the neuroscience research says otherwise. That is my only point of contention with him. As for Rosenberg he has a very narrow point of view.
Why don't either of us.... I don't know why you don't but for me I might change some lurker's mind. I've given up on changing the minds of the usual suspects.
I'm sure you have field effects bookmarked, provide a link please I want to see if you've misrepresented what I might have said if I said anything at all, which I don't recall. I'm old an can't remember what I had for breakfast.
This continuous dredging up stuff that happened years ago indicates you might have a vindictive nature. Could that be true? If it is that's ashame.
One last observation. Notice how many threads are started (especially by you) all of which I read and not a peep do you hear from me. Do you notice or is selective memory at work and you think I post on each and every thread? No I don't for these reasons, a. I don't care to post. b. the topic is uninteresting, c. I have no opinion on that topic. So your troll characterization is a bit off.
(2018-12-30, 11:01 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Tallis is an idiot to argue the brain does not produce consciousness when all the neuroscience research says otherwise. That is my only point of contention with him. As for Rosenberg he has a very narrow point of view.
You do know that Tallis himself, before his retirement, worked in the field of neuroscience? He's actually written a few things on the limits of the field, the following perhaps most apt to the immediate discussion:
What Neuroscience Cannot Tell Us About Ourselves
To say Rosenberg's view is narrow is not an argument. Are his premises wrong about matter in your opinion? Or is it the conclusions? To simply say you have faith he'll be proven wrong on the latter while agreeing with the former is fine, but that just puts you on the level of everyone else posting with some given beliefs about the nature of reality.
As for bringing things up that occurred in the past, I mention them b/c it shows the accusations you make are just the pot calling the kettle black. It deflates these constant attempts at emotional appeal, where you've taken on this "I'm a man of facts" slogan as a marketing attempt. It clogs up interesting discussion/debate that has substantive value, and the fact this marketing occurs across threads in lieu of actual arguments germane to the actual topic degrades the quality of the forum.
Vindictiveness would be acting as you do--> Playing armchair psychologist in the hopes of emotionally manipulating someone's opinions, calling someone an "idiot" or a "damn fool" over and over, etc. Pondering motivation is inevitable, I suspect, but this seems to be the card you play at the expense of insightful discussion rather than in tandem with it.
I'll dig up the argument over field effects later.