The Consciousness Deniers

Finally ->


Is that the place where you tried to get people to argue against Maaneli, and they told you to stop wasting your life?  

Anyway this is an amusing assumption on your part, I do have these discussions with people of the atheist/physicalist bent in person and online. I've posted in a few skeptical blogs and the response was dismal, akin to the poor arguments you dole out here.

But even if I only posted here I don't see how this would change your inability to express a coherent position. This isn't much better than your argument that I lack the "testosterone" to accept physicalism. In fact I'd say this is yet another last ditch ad hominem attempt to evade actually presenting a clear argument for how physicalism can be true but we can also have thoughts about things.

In any case, if you think this "stick your neck out" idea counts as a serious argument perhaps you should go first and comment on the writings of the theologian Edward Feser? Or one of the other theist philosophers, or really just some other blog discussing consciousness? Perhaps Bernardo's forum? I could CC Tallis if you want to give an argument for why he's a "damned fool"?

Much as I try to avoid wasting my time on Steve's silliness, I think it behooves him to point out where and when he has made any coherent argument supporting his position. Or give any indication that he understands your position. I am convinced, after too many years of abiding his nonsense, that he is totally clueless when it comes to either the science he espouses or the philosophy he dismisses. He completely ignores the fact that there are significantly accomplished scientists who attempt to put their work in a philosophical or metaphysical context - if he actually read the majority your posts he might realise that because it is exactly what you are drawing attention to. His rebuttals are reminiscent of the playground because he can't offer a properly considered argument. Instead he makes assertions and expects to be taken seriously because his assertions are "scientific". When he can't back up his assertions he says he is entitled to his opinions but offers nothing more in support of those opinions other than more unqualified assertions. I wouldn't mind reading his posts if he had something cogent to say but he rarely does.

Actually, to go back to what I said in starting this post - it is clearly a waste of time engaging him.

The ad homs abound.  What a remarkable way to make your point.

Are you really accusing someone else of ad hominem attacks  

....I mean you just, instead of answering why Rosenberg is wrong about what physicalism entails, accused me of lacking the courage to go to some site you picked out.  

Come on Steve, is it that hard to just admit that in the immediate you don't have an answer as why Rosenberg is wrong? I mean no one is stopping you from just not replying while looking up an answer...how many times are you going jump into a conversation only to post something like "Damn Fool", but when asked to provide an argument just go into these tantrums & non sequitors...

even if all reality is just my dream, 

I've a feeling we may be forced to accept the paradox of reality being both illusory and real simultaneously.  The more I think about it, the more I see this.

I've a feeling we may be forced to accept the paradox of reality being both illusory and real simultaneously.  The more I think about it, the
more I see this.

How do you see reality being illusory/real?

How do you see reality being illusory/real?

For the sake of mental health, accepting the illusion is the only reality on offer?

How do you see reality being illusory/real?

It's a long story with many nuances.  It has to be real because - well - here it is!  However, I can't imagine how it possibly can be real or how it possibly could have happened.  Maybe one day I'll collect some of the thoughts I have had and write about this but at the moment I'm doing 12 and 13 hour shifts at work with only a short time on the internet in the mornings so it's kind of difficult.  I think it would make a really interesting discussion perhaps for another thread.

Are you really accusing someone else of ad hominem attacks  

....I mean you just, instead of answering why Rosenberg is wrong about what physicalism entails, accused me of lacking the courage to go to some site you picked out.  

Come on Steve, is it that hard to just admit that in the immediate you don't have an answer as why Rosenberg is wrong? I mean no one is stopping you from just not replying while looking up an answer...how many times are you going jump into a conversation only to post something like "Damn Fool", but when asked to provide an argument just go into these tantrums & non sequitors...

I don't know why you even bother.