….of course Argent. You can present some wackjob claim that every single condition of human subjective consciousness has been somehow detected (care to specifically define ‘detected’, or is asking for substantiation not allowed there either?)
Registered on brain scanners of various types. We do have machines that monitor various areas of the brain, you know. When someone is feeling a certain emotion, certain areas of the brain light up.
This is why I said we can
roughly tell which emotions are being experienced. Different areas of the brain correspond to different types of emotions. But our knowledge isn't complete enough - and there's too much background noise - to be able to figure out exactly which emotion is being experienced.
It's not a difficult concept.
by some neurological test or other…without any need for a shred of evidence…
The evidence is out there, and is available at a second's Googling. I don't feel like wasting my time giving you evidence that is so blatantly obvious.
Do your own homework.
(which then becomes endlessly qualified to read…” I never said that “…or “I never said this” …or…”I never said that”…so what the hell did you say Argent?)
Exactly what is in my posts. Nothing more, nothing less.
PROTIP: If you stopped accusing me of saying things which I never said, you would get less "I never said this".
…whereas I back up my claim with a statement of support from one of the most highly respected and experienced (…do you understand the meaning of the word ‘experience’ Argent?) cognitive scientists on the planet and somehow I am the one who fails to substantiate their claim.
Ok then.
Yep. It doesn't matter who says it if there's no evidence backing it. You can quote cognitive scientists who back your position until the cows come home. It doesn't change the fact that not a single one of them - or yourself - has any evidence to support that claim whatsoever.
Of course, it's incredibly easy to prove me wrong on this. Just present me with some actual evidence, rather than baseless quotes.
You want to know what your position is Argent?
PROTIP2: Don't tell someone else what they think. It just makes you look like a pompous idiot.
Your position is that you have this vague idea that it’s possible to test for lots of human characteristics and you’d like to sometimes sneakily extrapolate that to read ‘all characteristics’ even though you have no real idea what either position actually means.
Not even close.
As I said quite clearly, we don’t even have an accurate ability to adjudicate one of the most basic conditions of subjective consciousness…when is someone lying. You just have no idea of the dimensions of the reality that is subjective consciousness (most people [me included] don’t, ever), but, like most ignorant skeptics, you believe in scientism…you’re a religious dogmatist…you are (to borrow that most damning of accusations), deluded…and you’d like to think it’s a simple little thing (just like Pixy) because if it’s not then that means there really is a whole bunch of stuff that we don’t actually know about ourselves and no self-respecting skeptic likes to deal with issues like collective or personal ignorance.
I've got no issue against ignorance. I admit that I am ignorant on any number of subjects. Quantum mechanics, for example. And the history of Turkey. And the reproductive habits of deep-sea animals. But this isn't a matter of ignorance.
Accuse me of being dogmatic all you want. It doesn't change reality. It just highlights the fact that you are entirely incapable of producing a single shred of actual evidence to support your position, and that you are willing to fall back on insults to attempt to hide this fact.
…of course you never said any such machine exists. You just said that every single human reality has been detected…by something. And then you back-pedaled like crazy.
I never backpedaled. You failed to understand my position.
‘…stop strawmanning me, stop strawmanning me, stop strawmanning me…’ then stop spouting garbage!
I am not spouting garbage. Even if I was, it would not excuse your strawmanning.
Try again.
So you’re done explaining your position to me, too bad…I’m enjoying demolishing it.
You've demolished nothing. As I said, I'm done going over this with you. If you want to know what my position is, go back and read my posts again.
Without your straw glasses on this time.
As far as B.S. goes….what it comes down to is that many of those at JREF are massively biased, period. Not surprising and totally expected. What it also comes down to is that there is simply far too much we don’t know about science in general and about consciousness in particular to insist that vaguely or explicitly reported psi phenomenon contradict scientific understanding. It is also a simple fact that these phenomenon occur along the frontiers of our understanding of science and consciousness and implicate a massive range of scientific and psychological issues across the complete spectrum of human reality (it is not for nothing that consciousness has been described as the biggest unanswered question in science). There have been countless studies done of a wide variety of these phenomenon…and more are being complied all the time, and to suggest that we dismiss the issue simply because various stupidly biased reports (Randi, Shermer, Blackmore…the trinity of fools) of rudimentary studies show negative results is massively scientifically illiterate.
The appropriate skeptical approach to this subject is, first, to recognize the dimensions and unique characteristics of the issues in question. When you’re dealing with widely reported phenomenon that implicate the entire reality of human identity and fundamentally challenge our most significant scientific assumptions you don’t simply suggest that because our current instruments fail to detect it, we must conclude that it is not there…case closed! That is the default position of many JREFers. Dogmatic scientism. It’s a purely religious position, and it is plainly scientifically illiterate.
Your first paragraph is largely bunkum. I have neither the time nor the desire to go through it all. However, there are many studies which are not "rudimentary" and which were not performed by Randi or the rest. None of them showed positive results. The only ones which did were later shown to either be flawed methodologically or failed to repeat.
The second paragraph is even farther removed from reality. You're still acting as through brain scanners are our only tools. Again, if someone claims something about psi - such as clairvoyance, telepathy, or telekinesis -
we can test that. It's
stupidly simple, annnnoid. You can't contest it. It's blatantly obvious, and that you maintain that it isn't is mind-boggling.
Of course, in dealing with you I've come to expect mind-boggling amounts of willful ignorance, so... par for the course, I guess.
