Gabriella,
No, you are – “any” means “any”. Not “some’, not “occasionally”, not “when it suits me”, not “every third time” and not anything else other than “any”. When you’re reduced to pretending even basic words no longer mean what they actually mean you’ve well and truly lost it.
No, that’s what the word means ffs.
Stop trolling. Telling you what someone says is not the same as saying you’re quoting verbatim. He says he’d consistently deny etc. I know this because he said so when he used the inclusive, invariable, without exception term “any”. So do you.
Yes I did – many times in fact. That’s the substantive point you keep ignoring in favour of endless trolling about irrelevancies remember?
Still trolling again. Why bother lying about that when it’s so easy to see what I actually said?
No it isn’t. Stop lying.
Fuck me but you’re obtuse. It’s not my job to explain basic probability to you – look it up for yourself.
Just so you know, describing what someone says but not saying you’re quoting verbatim doesn’t change the accuracy of describing what someone says. Stop trolling.
It’s his assertion, ask him.
He tells us that his deepest/most fundamental feeling is that consciousness cannot be naturalistic, therefore it cannot be naturalistic no matter what any scientific theory may say to the contrary. QED
Weird.
Typo – it was 31260 and of course he was talking about his most fundamental perception of reality. His mistake though (one of many) is to think that the depth of that perception somehow correlates to the validity of his claim that no theory could ever falsify the explanations he thinks his perception provides.
As you have no interest ever in engaging with that substantive point though and will just continue trolling I’ll leave you to it.
As I explained to you before - accusations of trolling when challenged on your assertions don't work in terms of a persuasive argument. I'm going to keep challenging your interpretations and you can keep accusing me of trolling if you want - that's up to you.
I don't agree with your interpretations of the meaning of certain words Alan has used - if you're frustrated by that, oh well.
AB claiming to have fundamental perceptions of reality and you asserting that AB claimed to know deepest truths or deepest reality isn't similar. His assertion was that his conscious reasoned choices are not just a product of past physical reactions. If I have understood him correctly he seems to be asserting that some non-physical aspect interacts with the brain to influence reasoned choices, and that non-physical interaction has its choices determined by perceptions of non-physical past events. I could have misunderstood that - but he does keep saying choices are determined so that's the interpretation I came up with.
Regarding probability - I refer you to my previous response: 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?
You are assuming the jigsaw puzzle has a recognisable picture that can be guessed from the few pieces you have. The pieces you do have could be black and all the missing pieces white - why would you assume that black pieces would allow you more chance of guessing missing white pieces. Why would you even assume that a jigsaw puzzle has a recognisable picture or pattern? Why would you assume that the pieces you have have any pictorial link to the missing pieces? Why are you then assuming that probabilities about guessing jigsaw puzzle pictures in a very simplistic scenario where you have assumed a recognisable jigsaw picture have any relevance to the missing information about how the brain makes conscious choices?
