Near Death and Out of Body Experiences

[Nonpareil]

Is it just me, or is annnnoid simply indulging in the wordiest "god consciousness of the gaps" argument ever?

No, that's exactly what he's doing. It's all he's ever done, and it's been pointed out many times.

He doesn't seem to care, even in the unlikely case that he understands what makes this a fallacy. He does not understand what "burden of proof" means, or how it applies to him.

 

[annnnoid]

No, he's talking speculation.

"Theoretical physics" requires some actual physics being theorized about. All he's saying is that science has not yet definitively ruled out magic.

Which is true, because there is no defined mechanism for magic, and people are free to keep making up any sort of nonsense they want for how it might work. But that doesn't actually make their hypothetical nonsense "theoretical physics".

It is baseless speculation.

There is nothing else to be said. He does not make any attempt whatsoever to actually back up anything he says. That is the definition of baseless speculation.

So answer the question then Nonpareil:

Do the known laws of physics preclude the possibility of OBE’s, NDE’s, psi, etc. etc.

Yes
…or no.

If you are going to answer yes we will expect evidence to support the claim. What laws are violated? How?

…and yes, you can conclude that an individual with nothing more than a pathetic masters degree in theoretical physics will be reviewing your claims to establish that they are worthless.

(snip)

…you can believe whatever you like. If you’re gonna make claims about it here be prepared to provide evidence.

Is that Deraksani, the woo! blogging grad student?

Upon what research in theoretical physics is he currently working?

What has he published, anent physics?

What is the source of your quotation?

ETA: ninja-ed by Nonpareil!

…the usual…don’t like what he had to say so rather than talk about what he had to say we’ll insult the author.

…sad.

...and you put great store in his unsuported opinion. Please to indicate where this quote from Dershani may be found, in situ. In which physics journal has it been published?

Does it require a ‘physics journal’ to make it valid? It is an argument. If you don’t like the argument, challenge it.

Oh, I get it!

Because you can claim that [science]...doesn't....know!...you therefore make free to claim that anything is possible, even those things that have yet to be demonstrated to have any grounding in actual reality at all.

Special pleading, anyone?

…ya got me Slowvehicle. I am about to insist that there really is not just a flying spaghetti monster but a flying spaghetti monster that speaks Russian and can recite every Justin Beiber song every recorded.

Do let me know when you actually have something reasonable to contribute.

I invite you to support this extravagant claim.

And this one.

Is it really necessary to produce links to those who have insisted that physics does not allow these events to occur?

Maaneli quite clearly argues that physics does not conflict with these events. If you disagree make at least some attempt to explain why that doesn’t include insisting that the author is not qualified to come to such a conclusion.

So where do you stand Slowvehicle? Do the laws of physics preclude this activity?

Yes…or no?

Ad hominem, strawman, Ad hominem, strawman, Ad hominem, strawman, Ad hominem, strawman,

My but we are getting desperate aren’t we. Can’t challenge what the man says so resort to ridicule.

…sad.

….and in case it has escaped your notice, numerous folks, both here and on the other thread have blatantly insisted that these events could not happen because the laws of physics do not allow them to happen.

Do I need to go and get actual quotes?

So who do you think we should consult when one of the issues is the fundamental laws of physics:
…should we consult a florist, an auto mechanic, a lawyer, an ignorant skeptic, a veterinarian, or a theoretical physicist?

Pat yourself on the back if you answered ‘theoretical physicist.’

So, your insistence that he is ‘irrelevant’ is just slightly silly.

You know, just once I'd like to see you use arguments instead of incredulity and appeals to ignorance.

A lie does not become true after a certain number of repetitions.

…and yet nobody…
…not a single…one…of…you…
…ever answer a single one of those questions I present.

Nor do a single one of you every present any evidence that demonstrates that science has any clear understanding of how the brain generates consciousness. All we get is “ oooh, look at all the research, maybe if we put it all in a pile and weigh it it will be heavy enough to mean that they know what they’re talking about.”

Hand waving. Bare assertions. Special pleading. Complaints, excuses, insults, ad hominems…etc. etc.

Never a shred of evidence to challenge the claims.

….thus, the claims stand.

Ah, well that's quite a different claim.

I agree that while someone argues in opposition you can say it isn't resolved; everyone is welcome to an opinion.

When Nonpareil presents a statement about theoretical physics I’ll call it an opinion. When someone with a masters degree in theoretical physics presents a statement about such a topic I think it’s a bit more substantial than just an opinion.

I do note that not a single one of the brilliant minds lined up on this thread have challenged a word that he had to say. Hasn’t stopped anyone from insisting that he isn’t qualified to say it though.

…sad.

 

[Daylightstar]

I thought that is what I was doing.

so the link to the image is this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=859&pictureid=9470

when I click that it takes me to the image.

Not for me, I get a blank page.
In the quote box below I put your link address in "IMG" BB tags:

.....as you can see, that also doesn't work.

Simply attach the image to the post. Below the edit window go to "Additional Options", there, click on "Manage Attachments" and attach the image.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Do the known laws of physics preclude the possibility of OBE’s, NDE’s, psi, etc. etc.
...

No OBE or NDE (woo definition) has been demonstrated to actually have occurred.
Many claims, nothing else.

It's not even reasonable to insist that they are possible, since you do not actually know that they are possible. Believe, yes, but nothing more substantial than that.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Never a shred of evidence to challenge the claims.

….thus, the claims stand.
...

Never a shred of evidence for your claims, thus the claims are considered invalid.

 

[annnnoid]

No OBE or NDE (woo definition) has been demonstrated to actually have occurred.
Many claims, nothing else.

It's not even reasonable to insist that they are possible, since you do not actually know that they are possible. Believe, yes, but nothing more substantial than that.

Use your words Daylightstar.

If you can't answer the question, just say, " I can't answer the question."

 

[Daylightstar]

...
If you can't answer the question, just say, " I can't answer the question."

Sorry, my bad.

Your question is wrong.
My more specific answer however would be that the known laws of physics offer no allowance for OBE, NDE (woo definition) or psi.
Nor have any of these concepts been demonstrated to actually occur.

 

[Nonpareil]

So answer the question then Nonpareil:

Do the known laws of physics preclude the possibility of OBE’s, NDE’s, psi, etc. etc.

Yes
…or no.

That would require there to be an actual mechanism proposed by which it could operate.

Science does not, technically, rule out ESP, but this is only for the same reason that it does not technically rule out magic.

This is in no way a reason to believe in it.

and yes, you can conclude that an individual with nothing more than a pathetic masters degree in theoretical physics will be reviewing your claims to establish that they are worthless.

I'm terrified. Will he be blogging about me, too?

Does it require a ‘physics journal’ to make it valid? It is an argument. If you don’t like the argument, challenge it.

There's nothing to challenge.

Speculation is not an argument.

My but we are getting desperate aren’t we.

Hilarious.

So, your insistence that he is ‘irrelevant’ is just slightly silly.

He is entirely irrelevant, because he hasn't actually made any arguments pertaining to physics (other than "oh if it turns out something completely random does it in a way that completely overturns all the other evidence then yeah totally", which is itself pointless). He has offered third-hand "critique" of critiques of meta-studies of experiments that turned up nothing.

And even that critique is easily shown to be flawed. It doesn't actually answer any of the objections raised.

Nor do a single one of you every present any evidence that demonstrates that science has any clear understanding of how the brain generates consciousness. All we get is “ oooh, look at all the research, maybe if we put it all in a pile and weigh it it will be heavy enough to mean that they know what they’re talking about.”

"None of you have presented evidence, except all the evidence that I am outright admitting I refuse to consider, and also the fact that we don't know the precise mechanism means it could be magic even though that makes absolutely no sense and there is less than no evidence for that! Ha! Truly my position is the more intellectual!"

 

[dlorde]

The word is misleading.

Because it doesn't mean quite what you think it should?

So how is telling others of the experience going to be different than reminding oneself, within that time frame?

Personally, I find an interaction with someone else more memorable than just reminding myself. YMMV.

Recording it asap would seem the best idea.

Ideally, yes. I may even have done so, but it was a long time ago; I have no current record.

Perhaps the key then is to not use leading questions or hints.

It can happen anyway, but they increase the likelihood, particularly under hypnosis and similar relaxation techniques, such as those used in 'regression therapy'. But you don't need to be hypnotised - that's a why witness interview techniques have changed to avoid leading questions and suggestions. Did you not hear about the satanic ritual abuse hysteria of the 1980's? largely a result of confabulation under interview. There have also been numerous cases of families torn apart by confabulated stories of 'suppressed' memories of parental child abuse 'recovered' by naive leading interview techniques.

It's not so surprising when you consider that we regularly, and usually without realising, make up plausible explanations for things we do which we can't otherwise account for (yes, it's been demonstrated experimentally).

What I have read suggests the individual can go back to the memory and it is vivid - literally relived.
Which of course would make a good case for memories being stored intakes and retrievable in all their vividness.

It may feel that way, but it most likely isn't the case. Memory isn't stored like a video recording, it's stored associatively and reconstructed on recall. Even the vivid so-called 'flashbulb' memories, that seem like immutable snapshots to the person recalling them, are typically inaccurate.

 

[annnnoid]

Sorry, my bad.

Your question is wrong.
My more specific answer however would be that the known laws of physics offer no allowance for OBE, NDE (woo definition) or psi.
Nor have any of these concepts been demonstrated to actually occur.

Where has ‘love’ been demonstrated to actually occur?

In people, by people. Nowhere else and in no other way. Let me know when you locate some variety of science that has the capacity to measure it. I can unconditionally assure you there is no such thing.

That would require there to be an actual mechanism proposed by which it could operate.

Science does not, technically, rule out ESP, but this is only for the same reason that it does not technically rule out magic.

This is in no way a reason to believe in it.

Having a really hard time answering a very simple question aren’t you.

Yes…or no.

Seems you’re answering ‘no’…that physics does not rule out these events. In that case, I guess you’ll have to agree that these two are wrong, cause they’re insisting that physics does not allow for such things.

an unknown thing that violates the known laws of physics.

ESP would challange fundamental assumptions about how the universe works--and I'm talking assumptions that have been tested so much that they are as close to proven as you can get outside of mathematics (I'd say they're proven beyond any rational doubt).

There are no other fields or forces that can significantly interact with our brains, so disembodied consciousness is a non-starter, even before we consider all the baggage of thermodynamic impracticalities, interaction problems, problems of origin and evolution, accompanying such a speculation.

Disembodied consciousness is like a rook moving diagonally. We know enough about the physics of human scale interactions to know it's not a valid move.

There's nothing I KNOW HOW to challenge.

ftfy

He is entirely irrelevant, because he hasn't actually made any arguments pertaining to physics (other than "oh if it turns out something completely random does it in a way that completely overturns all the other evidence then yeah totally", which is itself pointless). He has offered third-hand "critique" of critiques of meta-studies of experiments that turned up nothing.

What on earth are you rambling about. Did you actually read the paragraph? Where in there is he NOT talking about physics? As you can see above, people have claimed that these events (NDE’s, OBE’s, psi, etc.) cannot occur because they violate the laws of physics. Here we have an individual whose understanding of physics is, by any stretch of the imagination, light years beyond anything you can muster.

…but his opinions are irrelevant…basically cause you don’t like what they have to say. Boo hoo.

"None of you have presented evidence, except all the evidence that I am outright admitting I refuse to consider, and also the fact that we don't know the precise mechanism means it could be magic even though that makes absolutely no sense and there is less than no evidence for that! Ha! Truly my position is the more intellectual!"

If you’re actually gonna insist you’ve presented some evidence then show me.

…where…is…it?

 

[Belz...]

…and yet nobody…
…not a single…one…of…you…
…ever answer a single one of those questions I present.

What the hell are you blabbering about ? We keep answering your questions, all the time. You just don't like the answers because, again, all you have is ignorance and incredulity.

 

[Nonpareil]

Where has ‘love’ been demonstrated to actually occur?

And here we go again.

Having a really hard time answering a very simple question aren’t you.

Not really.

You seem to be having a hard time understanding a very simple answer, though.

Yes…or no.

Seems you’re answering ‘no’…that physics does not rule out these events. In that case, I guess you’ll have to agree that these two are wrong, cause they’re insisting that physics does not allow for such things.

The known laws, annnnoid.

And they don't. This is true. In the same way, there is no known law of physics which allows magic to function, and it would violate several fundamental principles if it did - but, technically, it's still possible that something might be discovered that does it anyway.

It won't happen, but it's technically true.

ftfy

You really didn't.

What on earth are you rambling about. Did you actually read the paragraph? Where in there is he NOT talking about physics?

Are you incapable of reading? I was very clearly talking about his ramblings on the ganzfeld experiments. His rambling on the fact that science has not technically ruled out the possibility is covered in parentheses. It is nothing but empty speculation.

If you’re actually gonna insist you’ve presented some evidence then show me.

…where…is…it?

We've been over this a dozen times in a dozen threads. I do not particularly care if you want to continue pretending that neuroscience as a field does not exist, or that Cristof Koch, among others, are currently in the process of studying the computational basis for consciousness.

Ignoring what is available doesn't make it go away.

 

[Navigator]

Not for me, I get a blank page.
In the quote box below I put your link address in "IMG" BB tags:


.....as you can see, that also doesn't work.

Simply attach the image to the post. Below the edit window go to "Additional Options", there, click on "Manage Attachments" and attach the image.

Okay here is an image of one of the devices I have used, mentioned here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10450658&postcount=805

 

[Navigator]

Because it doesn't mean quite what you think it should?

Perhaps.

However it is strongly related to that idea.

Ideally, yes. I may even have done so, but it was a long time ago; I have no current record.

Can you still recall the experience(s) or are they completely gone from your memory?
Do you believe that your memory of the experience(s) is different from the actual experience?

It's not so surprising when you consider that we regularly, and usually without realising, make up plausible explanations for things we do which we can't otherwise account for (yes, it's been demonstrated experimentally).

What is your explanation for your own experience(s)?

It may feel that way, but it most likely isn't the case. Memory isn't stored like a video recording, it's stored associatively and reconstructed on recall.

Well we have to be careful when such things as hypnosis are dramatized through media that we take it with a grain of salt, as the saying goes.

In relation to everyday events I think it is likely we feel no need to focus attention to detail consciously and consistently. It is good practice to be focused in certain situations and observe as much as one can during those events.

Having said as much, when I misplace an item I have this little trick I use. Rather than spend time looking (and re-looking) in places where I think it most possible I placed the item , I simply forget about looking for the item and wander around the house not looking. 9 times out of 10 I find the item quite quickly by not consciously looking for it.
At the moment I find it I remember putting it there.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip of much unsupported contentiousness, leading up to irony>
…you can believe whatever you like. If you’re gonna make claims about it here be prepared to provide evidence... ,snip of much unsupported contentiousness (and evasion) trailing away form irony>

Does this mean you'll be providing evidence, or continuing to rely upon assertion?

 

[Navigator]

Right- what makes it such a great question is the way the framing of it lets you slither away from any actual answers to it, by shifting the burden on to others to define what your evidence should be.

On the contrary. It may compel the one asking to think specifically about what it is exactly they are wanting and whether they are being realistic or simply using the catch phrase as a way of not having to think about that.

Since you apparently accept the evidence for evolution itself, what you need, as evidence for an "intelligence" behind it, is the kind- empirical and testable- that's comparable to what supports evolution- but not for evolution itself, for the separate intelligence. If you're simply going to assert that they are the same thing, then you're just begging the question by assertion. Faith is fine, but don't try to pass it off as "evidently" if you can't show the evidence that, by definition, is needed to make it so.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is no evidence that the process is intelligent and accept that it is just a random thing which happens because of processes which are not evidently intelligent.

In other words it is a favored point of view which you have adopted as true.

So my question, "what kind of evidence would you accept", is valid enough. What would YOU accept as evidence of intelligence (and therefore consciousness) being involved in the process?

If you can give me an indication, , I will be able to ascertain how realistic you are being in your request.

That's the best anyone can do by way of telling you what's acceptable as evidence, short of telling you what the evidence is- and that, of course, is your burden.

That is contradictory. If you are asking for evidence, you would of course be ignorant of there being any (thus you are asking.) Otherwise you know there is evidence but are not saying so, which is dishonest and slippery.


So in order for me to offer any form of evidence I have to know what kind of evidence you would accept, otherwise whatever I give as evidence can be rejected by you as not being legitimate ie, not fitting nicely into your particular subjective world view.

I have mentioned a couple of examples where I can identify intelligence involved with the process and thus I see as evidence of intelligence and you have rejected those, saying that such things can happen without intelligence. Your ( and anyone's) rejection of that does not mean that I am incorrect or should refrain from seeing intelligence in the process of biological evolution.

 

[annnnoid]

What the hell are you blabbering about ? We keep answering your questions, all the time. You just don't like the answers because, again, all you have is ignorance and incredulity.

You don't answer questions, you make claims. Anyone can, as you say, ‘answer the questions.’ Apparently nobody can support the claims with evidence.

It is frequently claimed that science has the ability to explain how the physical activity of the brain generates consciousness.

Nobody ever produces any evidence to support this claim, yet everybody screams and yells when I produce statements from various neuroscientists claiming that science basically has no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain.

If you are one of those who insist on the first claim, perhaps you’d care to produce some evidence to support it. Nobody here ever does, including Nonpareil.

Not…ever.

I also frequently claim that there is nothing remotely resembling a consensus on either the phenomenology of consciousness or its range of activity.

Others scream and yell and insist that this is not true.

…but nobody produces any evidence to suggest that there is any kind of consensus on either issue.

If you are claiming there is some kind of consensus, then produce evidence to support the claim.

Assuming said evidence is not forthcoming (it has yet to be, but hope springs eternal), the aforementioned

ignorance and incredulity.

shall fall on the shoulders of the deserving. Necessarily, those who fail to produce evidence.

And here we go again.

You have yet to demonstrate any variety of science that has the capacity to quantify it.

The known laws, annnnoid.

…the known laws…what?

And they don't. This is true.

Perhaps you’d be so kind as to inform Dinwar and dlorde of your recent conversion.

In the same way, there is no known law of physics which allows magic to function, and it would violate several fundamental principles if it did - but, technically, it's still possible that something might be discovered that does it anyway.

It won't happen, but it's technically true.

Is it really necessary to point out the logical absurdity of these statements??? But I think I get it. This is like your ‘but in principle sometime in the next hundred million years if it’s possible then you can’t say that it isn’t’…. type of argument.

‘Technically’…’in principle’…what the hell is ‘magic’ anyway???? If there were known laws of physics that could explain it…

….guess what…

IT WOULDN’T BE MAGIC!

You really didn't.

I suppose you’re actually correct there since you’ve now agreed that the known laws of physics do not conflict with NDE’s, OBE’s, or psi events. Since Maaneli is correct there is nothing to challenge.

Are you incapable of reading? I was very clearly talking about his ramblings on the ganzfeld experiments. His rambling on the fact that science has not technically ruled out the possibility is covered in parentheses. It is nothing but empty speculation.

If it's such empty speculation why are you so reluctant to challenge him about his.... 'empty speculation'????

...as usual. Throw stones from the sidelines. I've got his email. You can easily enough send him an email with your grave concerns about his 'empty speculation'.

Y'know what would happen? He would demolish you.

We've been over this a dozen times in a dozen threads. I do not particularly care if you want to continue pretending that neuroscience as a field does not exist, or that Cristof Koch, among others, are currently in the process of studying the computational basis for consciousness.

I could hardly be pretending that neuroscience doesn’t exist when I constantly reference numerous practicing neuroscientists in my claims.

…and in dozens of threads you have consistently failed to produce a single piece of evidence to support your claims that ‘we’ know how the brain generates consciousness and that the phenomenon is comprehensively understood and robustly defined (not to mention your magical scanning machines).

…but that’s impressive. A vague and utterly meaningless reference to a practicing neuroscientist.

So he’s studying the computational basis of consciousness (among a million other things). So are lots of folks. What has that got to do with anything?

Does this mean you'll be providing evidence, or continuing to rely upon assertion?

What do you want evidence of / for? You asked for evidence of claims that physics conflicts with NDE’s, OBE’s, psi. It’s up there.

…but I guess you missed that in your righteous haste.

Shall I expect you to insist that others be equally diligent with their provision of actual evidence? Explanations for neural activity, consciousness, etc. So far a whole lot of nothing.

BTW…you completely forgot to answer the question. I guess you just overlooked it (righteous haste and all that).

Do the laws of physics preclude NDE’s, OBE’s, psi, etc. etc.

Some here say yes, others say no.

What do you say...which group are you going to side with?

 

[Nonpareil]

You have yet to demonstrate any variety of science that has the capacity to quantify it.

We've been over this in other threads.

Observation, annnnoid. It is a thing that exists.

…the known laws…what?

Perhaps you’d be so kind as to inform Dinwar and dlorde of your recent conversion.

You really can't read, can you?

Is it really necessary to point out the logical absurdity of these statements??? But I think I get it. This is like your ‘but in principle sometime in the next hundred million years if it’s possible then you can’t say that it isn’t’…. type of argument.

No, annnnoid. That is your type of argument. That was me posting your argument.

Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of it.

‘Technically’…’in principle’…what the hell is ‘magic’ anyway???? If there were known laws of physics that could explain it…

….guess what…

IT WOULDN’T BE MAGIC!

And that was the sound of yet another point whizzing over your head.

I suppose you’re actually correct there since you’ve now agreed that the known laws of physics do not conflict with NDE’s, OBE’s, or psi events.

Because there's no mechanism. There's no definition of it, so there's no conflict. In the same way, there is no conflict with magic.

Once you actually have a claim, it starts to fall apart - but you haven't claimed anything. You've just said "you can't prove this nebulously-defined phenomenon can't happen". Which is true, in the same way that I cannot prove that a gzhurkaflrpt doesn't move through time backwards. There's no concrete definition of a gzhurkaflrpt, let alone any sort of defined mechanism by which it moves through time backwards. I can't say it conflicts with physics because there's no definition.

Once you have a definition, though, yes, it does tend to run up against the problem of violating the known laws of physics.

If it's such empty speculation why are you so reluctant to challenge him about his.... 'empty speculation'????

"Reluctant"? I have pointed out that it is empty speculation. Nothing else needs to be done.

...as usual. Throw stones from the sidelines. I've got his email. You can easily enough send him an email with your grave concerns about his 'empty speculation'.

I don't care, annnnoid. I'm not going to get into an email argument with a college student because you don't care to defend your own point.

Besides, I thought he was reading this.

I could hardly be pretending that neuroscience doesn’t exist when I constantly reference numerous practicing neuroscientists in my claims.

Save that you consistently try to brush aside the other neuroscientists whose statements and findings contradict your pet theories.

…and in dozens of threads you have consistently failed to produce a single piece of evidence to support your claims that ‘we’ know how the brain generates consciousness and that the phenomenon is comprehensively understood and robustly defined (not to mention your magical scanning machines).

I do not claim that we know the exact mechanics of how, and the scanning machines are hypothetical.

But we've already established that you can't actually understand the difference between hypothetical and practical situations.

So he’s studying the computational basis of consciousness (among a million other things). So are lots of folks. What has that got to do with anything?

You just said that.

You really just said that.

 

[annnnoid]

We've been over this in other threads.

Observation, annnnoid. It is a thing that exists.

Observation…of…what? The only thing I observe / experience (or not, as the case may be), is ‘love’ itself.

Nothing else.

What variety of science has this capacity? You have yet to produce evidence to support this claim either.

…what a surprise.

Because there's no mechanism. There's no definition of it, so there's no conflict. In the same way, there is no conflict with magic.

Once you actually have a claim, it starts to fall apart - but you haven't claimed anything. You've just said "you can't prove this nebulously-defined phenomenon can't happen". Which is true, in the same way that I cannot prove that a gzhurkaflrpt doesn't move through time backwards. There's no concrete definition of a gzhurkaflrpt, let alone any sort of defined mechanism by which it moves through time backwards. I can't say it conflicts with physics because there's no definition.

Once you have a definition, though, yes, it does tend to run up against the problem of violating the known laws of physics.

Out…of…body…experience. That is what O.B.E. stands for. One of the claims is that that which is ostensively referred to as ‘me/I/you’ can occur separately from the body.

Does this conflict with physics? There are those who consistently argue that it does. They have presented their arguments. Do you agree with them?

Yes or no?

So far you can’t seem to make up your mind. Maanneli has demonstrated quite clearly that their claims are not nearly as conclusive as they have been suggesting they are.

What side are you one Nonpareil…or do you even know?

"Reluctant"? I have pointed out that it is empty speculation. Nothing else needs to be done.

I don't care, annnnoid. I'm not going to get into an email argument with a college student because you don't care to defend your own point.

….a college student who could wipe the floor with your arguments. But that’s ok. We all know why you ‘don’t care’. If you really wanted to challenge his conclusions you’d challenge them directly.

…from here…it’s a nice safe distance.

Save that you consistently try to brush aside the other neuroscientists whose statements and findings contradict your pet theories.

Do let me know when you plan on actually producing some of this mythical evidence that you’re referring to here.

I do not claim that we know the exact mechanics of how, and the scanning machines are hypothetical.

Hypothetical???? They sure didn’t sound ‘hypothetical’ when you accused me of being ‘staggeringly ignorant’. Shall we assume all your claims are equally ‘hypothetical’? Why bother participating at all if you’re going to do nothing more than make ridiculous ‘hypothetical’ claims that ‘in principle’ could ‘technically’ be possible sometime in the next hundred million years.

Hang on. I get it. ‘Hypothetical’ claims that could, ‘in principle’, ‘technically’ be possible don’t require evidence.

…cause they’re B.S.

Perhaps we should start a B.S. thread!

How about we give you something really simple. So far nobody has come up with an answer, but you're sounding real optimistic with your 'we don't know the exact mechanics' (but we still know lots...don't we???) crap.

Does, or does not, science have the explanatory capacity to conclusively and explicitly describe the neural activity that generates the cognitive condition known as the number...

....1.

There, couldn't get much more simple than that. I didn't hit you with complex manifolds, algebraic varieties, sheaves, vector bundles, Kahler manifolds, vanishing theorems, the Kodaira embedding theorem, the Riemann-Roch theorem, or even deformation theory.

Just...the number...1.

Knock yourself out.

 

[The Norseman]

You have yet to tell us what is not intelligent in your system.

Republicans?