Gabriella,
You are still waffling. I wasn't referring to any claims AB might have made. I was referring to your claim, which you have so far not substantiated, that AB entirely dismisses scientific findings we do have. If theories don't rule out AB's ideas on free will, then what findings is he dismissing as opposed to adding on to existing findings with speculation about souls?
Read what he actually said and stop lying. Scientific theories don’t "rule out"
any speculations about the supernatural - souls and storks included. Either he was “denying” no theories at all then, or he was denying those that don’t accord with the unqualified assertions he insists are facts.
Which bit are you claiming I am confused about? I bring up theories of mind, ask you for your "robust explanation" (as you called current theories) for the process of how the brain produces the complexities of self-reflective knowledge that makes up conscious self-awareness. And all I get is the above waffle - such as wealth of evidence, good indication of being on the right track.... Where's the "robust explanation"?
Try reading and stop lying. The incomplete theories of mind we have so far all point in the same direction of a naturalistic explanation for consciousness, which in turn accords with all the more complete theories we have about other phenomena. That’s not to say that the incomplete theories necessarily won’t at some time be replaced with something else as more robust evidence emerges, but it is to say that AB’s “it’s magic” is useless for that purpose.
I thought you said he dismisses the findings of science entirely.
I said no such thing – stop lying. What he does do though to use his own words is to deny “any theories” (ie, not just parts of them) that “effectively remove” his superstitious beliefs. Presumably therefore he doesn't dismiss, say, the theory of germs causing disease because his superstitious beliefs have nothing to say about that.
Now you claim he is dismissing evidence out of hand.
I don’t just claim it, he actually said it - "any theory" remember?
But then you go on to say you actually mean he is inserting a soul into the gaps in the existing explanations. You do know the difference in the English language between dismissing findings entirely and inserting additional speculations right?
Yes, but apparently you don’t. When he denies “any theory” presumably that’s what he means. If you don’t like that then take it up with him, not me. If instead of what he said he actually meant though something like, “OK, I accept where neuroscience has taken us so far, but for the explanations it has yet to complete I will insert “soul” to do the job” then that’s a god of the gaps. I really don’t care much what he thinks he’s trying to say – either way he’s wrong so the result is the same.
The 50 pieces present give you a picture of whatever is on those 50 pieces, but it doesn't give you any kind of accurate representation of what the unknown picture on the missing 50 pieces.
Oh ffs! Even for you this is so far beyond stupid that I suspect you’re on some sort of wind up now.
Probabilistically half a verifiable answer will give you a better chance of identifying the more complete answer than will no verifiable part of the answer at all. If you seriously think otherwise, can I introduce you to the still incomplete theory of gravity and to my speculation about pixies holding stuff down with very thin strings?
That's a very accurate description of yourself. Well done.
No it isn’t, stop lying.
If i meant something like empathy, I would have used the word "empathy". I meant what I said - the brain's ability to be self-aware of its own subjective consciousness and recognise alternative points of view by recognising that other beings have a different subjective sense of conscious self that is separate and different from our own.
Then you’re confused about the terms you’re attempting, and you’re trying a god of the gaps too.
What you said to AB in #31538 was "That’s just an irrational belief you happen to hold built on the odd notion that your “deepest feelings” about something must therefore explain reality at the deepest level." You did not say reality at a deeper level. Hence I asked the question about whether science has claimed to have discovered reality at the deepest level. I don't recall AB claiming to be explaining reality at "the deepest level".
Now sit in the corner with the pointy hat on and try reading that again. It was
AB’s claim that his feeling about something provide an explanation at “the deepest” level, not mine. Even if reading for comprehension isn’t your long suit, surely this was obvious enough wasn’t it?
No what she suggested was that there are some demonstrations that show that changing the format of Libet's experiment on whether intention precedes action has shown that our intentions are the factors that cause our actions. She also suggested that Libet's experiment does not correspond to real world situations where typically our actions: (a) do have consequences, (b) have rewards or punishments attached to them, and (c) are goal-directed and therefore she argues that in those kind of situations we seem to have some control or agency over decisions we make. Perceiving potential consequences and making reasoned decisions based on those perceptions based on our life experience, knowledge, and personality seems to be using our conscious brain to make a choice about a course of action.
But still she failed to tell us what this “our” would be that apparently from thin air but not randomly does this “controlling”. That’s the problem. AB claims it to be something he calls a “soul”; what do you think it is, and do you too subscribe to his “it’s magic” evasion whenever he’s asked how would work outside of the determined vs random options?
