annnnoid
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,703
...why do you even ask if you have no interest in an answer? Oh, I get it now, you are trying to emphasize how incoherent I am.
So why don’t we ask the question since you seem so concerned about the answer: How normal is it to be a creature that did not create itself, does not create itself, does not understand it’s own existence, yet at the very same time is fundamentally defined by a phenomenon known as ‘understanding', seems to function within a reality known as a universe that nobody really understands the true nature of, and for the most part has the ability to behave as if none of this is even relevant. I guess, dlorde, that some things are just not apparent to the naked eye.
....typical I suppose. Pixy presents this absurd new scientific methodology (…because we can measure some things, we must be able to measure all things, therefore if we can’t measure it, we may justifiably conclude it does not exist)…and nobody makes a peep. Pixy suggests that we have instruments that can determine the definitive conscious state of any human being anywhere anytime…and nobody makes a peep. I point out these blatant absurdities (…which, come to think of it, bears a remarkable resemblance to something called a ‘point’…but not, understandably, to those who…in over twelve thousand posts…have yet to achieve a single coherent point of their own), and am accused of incoherence. Fine, if nonsense (or as you so obsequiously refer to it: 'confidence') is the metric by which we adjudicate the value of a statement, I’d suggest you gravitate to Pixy’s ravings. Somehow methinks the proverbial shoe is on the wrong proverbial foot.
Really. Perhaps you could provide a coherent explanation as to why the debate rages unabated? Oh yeah, I forgot…the belligerents have simply failed to acknowledge your profound wisdom…as, apparently, have the Nobel committee. You’ve already got the whole thing figured out. End of discussion.
Which obviously hasn’t the slightest thing to do with cognition, neurology, human identity, or subjective consciousness.
How to avoid having to face an inconvenient truth: slander and libel
…and they accuse me of incoherence????
Don’t know if you’ve noticed Pixy, but it’s subjective consciousness that we’re studying here (that is the context), not all the little machines we use to study it with (which you seem to be so gleefully fixated upon).
…argument over? How is it over. Slippery as a greased willy Pixy. What was the whole point of that post. It was your wonderful new theory and the assertion that there is nothing hidden from us.
I await your presentation of the instrument that can definitively determine the condition of the subjective consciousness of any human being anywhere anytime…to any reasonable degree actually, let alone explicitly as that specific human being is experiencing it them-self.
That was your claim, prove it.
Your claim, specifically, was that we have scientific instruments capable of detecting anything (because…just look at all the stuff we can already detect)…remember your new theory…so produce the instrument capable of detecting every single thing a human being experiences. Otherwise, I guess we’ll just have to conclude that you’re the one who is wrong (which, I’m sure, is as plain as day to all the other resident skeptics…they’re just typically spineless about criticizing one of their own…except for Resume, who I note, in the true skeptic tradition, actually makes decisions for himself).
Last edited:
