Even assuming that this was a ridiculous claim--something that has never been established--that IN NO WAY precludes you from making a ridiculous claim. This is just mud-slinging in an attempt to distract us from the poor quality of your own arguments.
My only claims…are that there is a great deal of, at the very least, anecdotal evidence that supports the ESP position. I would also insist that the research that has been done in the area is, at worst, inconclusive leaning towards favoring the ESP phenomenon. It is not a slam dunk and I never suggested it is. Anyone who has taken the time to look into the issues must come to the conclusion that it is every bit as complex as any major area of cognitive study…more so actually (for reasons that do not require exposition here). Thus I find the inevitable reductionist approach tedious in the extreme (“show me someone who can predict a lottery number and I’ll believe you”).
Many here have tried to argue that anecdotal evidence is irrelevant…despite the indisputable fact that it provides the foundation of our personal and social lives. It may not be explicitly scientifically admissible as such, but it is far from irrelevant (as any credible psychoanalyst will agree). Given the complexity, psychological characteristics, and prevalence of ESP reports (easily above epidemic levels), it is absurd to so casually dismiss the phenomena, especially when (and this is a documented fact) so little clinical study has actually been done in the mainstream academic community (why?...just ask any academic who has tried to get funding for such research or who has publicly admitted to an interest in studying the phenomenon).
Not to mention the indisputable fact that since science has absolutely no ability to conclusively establish exactly what is (or is not) going on within the subjective experience of anyone (as of this point in time), it is simply impossible to establish that what these people experience is NOT what these people say they experience.
Essentially…the ONLY way science could establish that a cognitive event did not happen would be if science had the capacity to definitively adjudicate cognitive events in real time as they occur. Science currently has nothing even closely resembling this capacity.
Nonsense. If someone claims to be able to read my mind, and cannot tell what I'm thinking at a higher rate than chance would allow, I can conclude that they cannot read my mind. That's just one exampleGiven what I've said .
You certainly can conclude that and I would be surprised if you came to any other conclusion. What you cannot conclusively establish is that this ‘someone’ cannot read your mind. You can doubt it and challenge it till kingdom come…but short of having access to some mythical technology ….you cannot establish what anyone is, or is not, experiencing subjectively.
Obviously, were such technology available, the veracity of any claim made by any individual could immediately be established. It would also utterly revolutionize the psychology profession …not to mention upend the entire world.
Please do not confuse me with other people. That's a very annoying thing to do, and demonstrates a very slip-shod method of argument. I DO NOT believe that scanning technology can give us a 100% clear picture of the mind; I believe that such a concept is overly-reductionistic, and is akin to trying to learn ecology by studying tissue function.
You have said as much in previous posts so I have no reason to doubt you. My apologies for confusing you with anyone else.
Then again, I also recognize--which you apparently do not--that neurology isn't the only science studying the mind. Psychology and psychiatry are two others.
I realize perfectly well that there are a great many disciplines involved in cognitive studies of one variety or another. Neurology, though, is specifically concerned with how the brain generates the mind. More than a few neuroscientists currently admit that they don’t have a clue as to how that happens…thus, it is slightly irritating to have to constantly challenge the notion that neuroscience has developed the capacity to explicitly translate neural events into their equivalent cognitive events. Current technology doesn’t come within light years of such abilities and, as you have indicated, probably never will.
This is you cramming words into my mouth so hard your hand is somewhere around my colon. *I* get to make my arguments, and if you continue to refuse to accept that there is no sense in continuing to engage with you. There's already very little point in such engagement--I know that all that will happen if I disagree with you is that you'll insult me and refuse to provide any data,a s though attacking me personally has any bearing on the debate--but if you're not even willing to allow me to make my own arguments there is literally no point in discussing anything with you. It's no longer a discussion; you're handling both sides!
My insults were…inappropriate. There are those, on the other hand, who deserve them. If you disagree with me at least I can expect an actual argument. I don’t really care if you do… or if you don’t like me. I simply care that you are credible, reasonable, and have what I call integrity.
Besides, you're continuing to ignore my posts where I provided exactly what you're looking for. Your arguments display all the traits of the worst sort of pseudoscience.
Posts have been sent to AAH. I will look there.
