Doug
You've got to be joking liking Sci's post #125
I give up.
(2017-10-22, 06:13 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]Doug
You've got to be joking liking Sci's post #125
I give up.
Oops, I meant to click the "Delete" button but clicked "Like" instead. Sorry Steve. On the other hand, Sci did write some likable things in that post, so I think I'll leave things as they are.
Very good Doug. It's probably 'much ado about nothing.'
I'm taking an extended break.
(2017-10-22, 06:00 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]I mentioned in this in an earlier post but it seems to me trying to time-stamp the occurrence of dreams by mere similarities is rather biased?
Also going beyond dreaming and getting into subjective feels:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17900016
It's not a bias, it's clinical observation. There is the apparently common observation of "covert REM" during the awakening phase of deep general anesthesia, correlating with the patient reporting of brief dreams. The other paper is interesting and seems to point to some sort of residual memory formation under general anesthesia unconsciousness. This could be interpreted in different ways both materialist mind-brain and interactive dualist.
(2017-10-22, 06:36 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]It's not a bias, it's clinical observation. There is the apparently common observation of "covert REM" during the awakening phase of deep general anesthesia, correlating with the patient reporting of brief dreams. The other paper is interesting and seems to point to some sort of residual memory formation under general anesthesia unconsciousness. This could be interpreted in different ways both materialist mind-brain and interactive dualist.
Ah that there's some REM measured during awakening phase is interesting though my feeling that there's a bias is when the argument turns to similarities of dreams as a method of timestamping where they occur.
But as to the second point I'd agree - most of this kind of work is easily interpreted as coming from brain-as-producer or brain-as-transceiver, and of course immaterialism being true doesn't rule out mind=brain just as materialism being true (impossible but let's assume) doesn't rule out God or an afterlife.
(2017-10-22, 06:27 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]I'm taking an extended break.
Now see here, Stanley: you can let your Scottish temper run riot, but You. Will. Not. Be. Leaving. This. Forum - not for an extended period of time, and not for a short one. There will be consequences, young man!
I'm returning to this thread because I feel that it has been left in a state where doubts have been expressed (by Sci) that I can allay, and I feel it's my duty to do that. Sci (and any others who share Sci's doubts): I have been in contact with Steve (aka Stan Woolley) off-site and can give you a categorical assurance that his account has not been hijacked and that Stan Woolley on Psience Quest <=> Steve on Skeptiko. They are one and the same person by different names. As Doug wrote earlier, Steve was with us as part of the founding team of this forum from the start, and he let us know when he created his account that he was using this new name. Given my recent off-site communication with him, I know that this hasn't changed and that he remains in control of this account. So... does that put your concerns to rest, Sci?
(2017-11-12, 07:51 PM)Pssst Wrote: [ -> ]No shit.
I think sometimes, as on this occasion, 'curse words' were very appropriate.
I really don't see what the problem is. Should I have responded to being accused of being a troll by saying "No, Old boy, I'm afraid you're mistaken."
Rather than being bothered about my reaction, Sci might instead look back and see how many such accusations Flowers has made, here and on Skeptiko.
I think that someone being bothered by me using them is much more worrying than me using them.
I saw this article from New Scientist earlier. I can’t read it, as I have not access. I probably cannot relate to it’s content, as my experience has been that time is lost when I’m under general anaesthetic, go under, then wake up - nothing in between.
It belongs in this thread, warts and all.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/217...aesthetic/