Gabriella,
Asserting that I am lying without presenting any evidence just makes you look silly. Based on what AB actually said, which has been posted and re-posted many times, you made the statement that AB was denying scientific findings entirely. Whereas his statement was that if a theory ruled out his particular speculation then he would deny that theory. Given that you now agree that theories currently don't rule out his specific speculations, then what scientific findings were you claiming that he was denying? If you can't back your statement up with evidence then just say so.
I did not make that statement at all and yet you repeat that I did. What more evidence of your lying do you need?
As for that “now agree” that’s disingenuous as I’ve never said anything other than that, and as for which theories he was denying then ask him – it was his statement, not mine.
Asserting that I am lying without presenting any evidence just makes you look silly. More waffle from you consisting of incomplete theories pointing in a direction as opposed to the robust explanations you claimed previously.
When you tell me I’ve said something that I haven’t said that’s a mistake – when you repeat it why should I not conclude that you’re lying?
Are you claiming that in #31045 you didn't say "First, he consistently dismisses in its entirely the scientific evidence we do have because it provides an incomplete explanation for consciousness."?
No. Are you really unable to grasp that “the scientific evidence we do have”
about consciousness is not the same thing as the entirety of scientific evidence as a whole? The “entirely” specifically refers to his denial of “any theory” about that
in it’s entirety, and not to all of science.
He is inserting something into gaps in existing theories. What theory removes AB's "reality that we are capable of driving our own thoughts and invoking conscious choices"?
No he isn’t – he’s denying “any theory”, not “just the parts of any theory I don’t like” remember? Even if he was only inserting something into the gaps in those theories though, that would still be just another example of his reliance on the god of the gaps fallacy.
He said any theory that effectively removes the "reality that we are capable of driving our own thoughts and invoking conscious choices". You haven't come up with an example of such a theory that removes etc etc for him to deny - in which case where has he actually denied any theory.
And nor do I need to. It was his statement remember, not mine. That he doesn’t understand the nature of scientific theory isn’t my problem to resolve.
On the other hand I have seen him post that he has accepted some of the findings of neuroscience. What he has also done is insert his speculation into the gaps.
Which is still logically fallacious and moreover he doesn’t posit them as “speculations” at all – he
asserts them to be
facts remember?
How are you calculating the probability of what is on the missing 50% of a jigsaw puzzle when you have absolutely no idea what is on that missing 50% as you don't have the tools to decipher any kind of image and do not know if the 50% you do have corresponds to the more complex missing 50%? What data are you using to work out the probability?
Stop it now, you’re embarrassing yourself. Axiomatically part explanations provide more likely guides to answers than no explanation at all. If I gave you ten half compete jig-saws puzzles and asked you to identify the final pictures and then ten jig-saws puzzles with no pieces at all and asked you to estimate the final pictures which would give you the more likely chance of being right do you think?
If you seriously think otherwise, then all bets are off – gravity vs pixies, childbirth vs storks, whatever – you’re into the madness of pure relativism.
Asserting that someone is lying just makes you look silly...or "deeply unpleasant" as you like to put it.
If you don’t like having your dishonesty identified stop doing it.
Nope, I'm not confused. How is recognition and awareness that another being has self-awareness different from my own self-awareness a god of the gaps - or do you just churn out random phrases when you can't think clearly.
Yes you are. You’re trying to find holes in the explanations we do have to imply that the gaps can be filled with anything at all. Neuroscience tell us a lot with a high degree of certainty, a lot that’s speculative and lot that’s unknown. Superstitions tell us noting at all because there’s nothing to investigate. That doesn’t mean though that you can just drop the superstitions that happen to take your fancy into the spaces the science leaves and call them facts.
You seem to be monopolising the pointy hat at the moment - where did AB claim he had explanations at "the deepest level"? He seems to have spent a lot of the posts on this thread inserting a soul into the gaps, speculations and unknowns left by experimental psychology and neuroscientific explanations because he had no explanation himself.
You crashed and burned here. You tried to take me to task for claiming a “deepest” truth, and I cited the post where I explained that
AB’s (and
not my) claim of a “deepest” reality was unsustainable. Rather than apologise as you should you’ve now shifted ground to ask where he did this. As it happens he’s done it a lot (nothing could ever change his mind he proudly tells us) but that’s a different matter. The fact remains that I didn’t claim to have access to the deep
est truth about anything, so you misrepresented me. Again.
Um - no she doesn't. Magda Ossman suggests "The most effective way of making choices is to think through the consequences of our actions, and evaluate the information from the situation, as well as evaluating our own motivations. When it comes to controlling external situations as well as exerting self-control, we should accept the view that our conscious mind is at the forefront rather than in the background."
I think by using the parts of the brain that deal with executive function we can consciously think about potential consequences and evaluate the accuracy of information our sub-conscious picks up and we can then make choices between competing interpretations and regulate our behaviour. I don't know what else comes into play or what exactly the brain interacts with to come up with interpretations or the process by which it chooses one particular interpretation over another.
"It's magic" is about as insightful as "it's an emergent property of the brain". Both statements provide little in the way of an actual explanation of how the brain works.
Um, yes she does. What is it that does the “thinking through” as if it were somehow floating free of the subconscious, and you should at least do some reading about emergence before equating it with magic.
