(2017-10-17, 01:33 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]The question of coming out of normal sensual awareness into a different sort, is one for religious/spiritual types to ponder. Scientists have unfortunately exempt themselves from such discussions.
I would have thought it was exactly a suitable topic for scientific investigation. One is more likely to find an answer by examining the evidence than via theoretical speculations.
(2017-10-17, 05:38 PM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]I would have thought it was exactly a suitable topic for scientific investigation. One is more likely to find an answer by examining the evidence than via theoretical speculations.
How can you investigate what you don't believe exists?
That's my point. Scientists don't think it's even possible.
(2017-10-16, 10:11 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]Well, Hammeroff disagrees.
I must have missed the convention where his opinion was declared infallible. He is pushing his own theory and you can sympathize with that, but you can't ignore the data.
(2017-10-16, 10:11 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe I'm ignoring that because you haven't pointed me to where it might be. Maybe in your head?
Charming. Try Googling "dreams under anesthesia".
(2017-10-16, 10:11 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]What is it to do with you or anyone else where and when as well as why I've been posting? It's not as if the answer to the question has been answered to anyone's satisfaction, here or anywhere else, is it?
The thing is that the resident troll(s) back at Skeptiko used to do the same. Post some rhetoric question there, at Bernardo's, Prescott's, etc. and then sit back and see the two camps clash, only swooping in to bump the thread when it cooled down.
That you have been doing the same is suspicious, as is the fact that the last user to do so changed names twice back in August. Are you comfortable as Stan, or shall I call you Cole Jesen or Alex Meteos? Given all the impersonators that we have seen, how can I know that you are actually Steve?
(2017-10-17, 07:26 PM)E. Flowers Wrote: [ -> ]I must have missed the convention where his opinion was declared infallible. He is pushing his own theory and you can sympathize with that, but you can't ignore the data.
Charming. Try Googling "dreams under anesthesia".
The thing is that the resident troll(s) back at Skeptiko used to do the same. Post some rhetoric question there, at Bernardo's, Prescott's, etc. and then sit back and see the two camps clash, only swooping in to bump the thread when it cooled down.
That you have been doing the same is suspicious, as is the fact that the last user to do so changed names twice back in August. Are you comfortable as Stan, or shall I call you Cole Jesen or Alex Meteos? Given all the impersonators that we have seen, how can I know that you are actually Steve?
Oh do fuck off!!
You are very guilty of casting ridiculous dispersions around.
It is you that is the Troll! Why do you feel the need to question anyone (everyone?) that you somehow perceive as being against you or against the forum? I have raised my eyes to heaven a few times on seeing such posts on Skeptiko and now here.
If you paid any real attention to my posts, you would see that it is the same person that's posting! I gave my reasons for the name change in the introductions thread. I've a good mind to report you for being so annoying!
(2017-10-17, 07:51 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]Oh do fuck off!!
ROFL.
Let 'em have it, Stanley.
ROFL.
(2017-10-17, 07:51 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]Oh do fuck off!!
You are very guilty of casting ridiculous dispersions around. It is you that is the Troll! Why do you feel the need to question anyone (everyone?) that you somehow perceive as being against you or against the forum? I have raised my eyes to heaven a few times on seeing such posts on Skeptiko and now here.
If you paid any real attention to my posts, you would see that it is the same person that's posting! I gave my reasons for the name change in the introductions thread. I've a good mind to report you for being so annoying!
Are you 12? That's probably the only explanation for your two outbursts. If you are offended that was pointed out, I don't care. Fact is that you are posting the same crap all over and contributing nothing of interest, only to cry that the replies are unconvincing. BS. Also, I couldn't care less how far up you can roll your eyes, it's irrelevant if your head is up your ass.
In the end, your OP argument is quaint... As is your selectiveness in acknowledging what is presented to you. "Ohhhh, Hammeroff said that, fuck the damn papers". Childish.
(2017-10-09, 12:05 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]It baffles me why some members are so set against brain creating consciousness. It's even much more baffling why they go to great lengths to answer that why by giving another mysterious answer that consciousness lives outside the brain that the brain is just a radio reciever by analogy. I've read one member stating memories aren't in the brain.
It baffles me why some members are so against the brain *not* creating consciousness, to the point they - unable to come up with a counter argument to the neuroscientist Tallis remarking he doesn't believe memories are in the brain - throw a childish temper tantrum. What was your exact wording? That Tallis was just a "damn fool" for disagreeing with your physicalist beliefs, despite his level of scientific and philosophical education far, far exceeding anything you've achieved?
But for new readers perhaps it serves as a refresher as to the cheap rhetorical tricks of the materialist evangelist, as well as offering the opportunity for redress ->
The neuroscientist Tallis' argument against memories being stored in the brain:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/A_Sm...oo_Station
As always, we await your stunning rebuttal to Tallis' argument as we have for the last 3 (or was it more like 5?) years.
Also I think Steve001 and Stan Woolley are the same person. Another troll account he's created for himself, as I suspect he's done over the years?
(2017-10-22, 04:04 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Also I think Steve001 and Stan Woolley are the same person. Another troll account he's created for himself, as I suspect he's done over the years?
Well you'd be dead wrong Sci ! Where do you think the Steve from Skeptiko went? Or do you also think that he was a 'troll account'.
This drives a hole through your judgement in my opinion. And you owe Steve001 an apology!
Paranoia appears to be the order of the day.
(2017-10-22, 04:04 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Also I think Steve001 and Stan Woolley are the same person. Another troll account he's created for himself, as I suspect he's done over the years?
Sci, you're joking, right?
Stan Woolley is Steve from Skeptiko, as he wrote in his member introduction here:
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-54...tml#pid162