Absolutely incredible... In the same breath you deny the very presumption I spoke of while explicitly affirming it. Its fascinating how your personal integrity and logical self-consistency go out the airlock when a cherished belief of yours is on the line. Yea, I know, I know...
"What 'cherished beliefs'?" 
Care to explain what it is that you're objecting to? Your highlight doesn't appear to support your statement.
ETA: In response to your edit, you are presenting a false dichotomy. I consider you a reliable witness
if there is evidence backing up your claim. For example, if you claimed that you had coffee this morning, I would have no issue, because I know that coffee exists and that people drink it in the morning very commonly. However, if you claimed that you had been abducted by aliens, no, I would not believe you, because there is no evidence that it occurred.
Why would I need to straw-man?
I didn't say you
needed to. Just that you
are. No one has said that you "must" be wrong. That is a blatant straw man. Attempting to dodge the accusation does not change this.
In order to discount the validity of my recollections my memory would have to be so unreliable as to render me completely dysfunctional.
No, it wouldn't. There are thousands of people like you all over the world who have faulty memories and who function perfectly normally. In fact, there are roughly
seven billion people with faulty memories out there, myself included.
That your memory is faulty does not make you dysfunctional. It makes you normal. The disconnect is when you refuse to admit that your memory is likely imperfect, and that there are many mundane explanations for what you experienced which cannot be ruled out, and maintain that your memory is evidence of psi.
The fact of the matter is that I directly know what I experience and how clear my memories of those experiences are, your presumptions notwithstanding.
Well, no. The fact of the matter is you don't. Your memory is demonstrably imperfect. It's part of being human. Because the only thing you can compare your memory to is itself, you cannot know - without some form of outside evidence - whether or not your memory is unaltered.
There's no mental flag that says "WARNING: ALTERED MEMORIES AHEAD". You can only compare it to itself, which is why it looks unaltered.
This is not something which is up for dispute. It is irrefutable fact. No human has an absolutely perfect memory. The brain is not wired that way.
This does not mean that every single one of your memories is flawed (well, actually, they are, but not necessarily
badly - fine detailing may get altered, but the substance will likely remain unchanged). But it does mean that your memory can be and has been altered. Memories of emotionally-charged events - like your experience - are even more likely to be altered.
Again, this cannot be disputed. It happens. We know it happens.
So why do you think your memory is correct?
That makes for very convenient wiggle-room to sneak in special pleading.
No.
Whenever faced with reports of events suggestive of "the paranormal" memory is presumed so unreliable that even the firsthand observer hardly knows their ass from up. But when dealing with more "mundane" circumstances memory is considered reliable enough to give the benefit of the doubt. Very convenient.
Yes. We've been over this before.
Entirely mundane claims have their evidence readily available. "I drove here" is trivially easy to prove, as it's too far to walk in such a time, the speaker isn't covered in mud and his car is in the driveway. However, if he said "I drove here" when there is no car in the driveway, he's covered in mud, he's carrying a dirty sleeping bag, and he's bleeding gently onto the carpet, you wouldn't believe him, no matter how certain he was.
This is why courts do not convict people based solely on witness testimony. There must be evidence to back up the accusation, because the accusation is not evidence in and of itself.
The post you decided to reply to was addressed to PixyMisa and was making a broader epistemological point on the fundamental limitations of knowledge and understanding. The point is that there really is no such thing as "sufficient" understanding of the world and presumptions of such are erroneous folly. The fact that you chose to dispute this demonstrates that you actually do hold to such a position and the argument does, in fact, personally apply to you. Quit falling back on the whole "straw-manning" defense; its not only silly and dishonest, its also getting pretty old.
I'll stop accusing you of making straw men when you stop doing it. Read my response again. You are mischaracterizing those who have responded to you. You are strawmanning.
All I aim to show is that you've a very powerful [and unrecognized] cognitive bias toward presuming that all such studies and reports are fundamentally unreliable.
Which you can't really do by repeating "you're biased skeptic jerks!" over and over. Repetition does not equal truth. If you want to show that we dismiss studies out of hand, present a study and watch us do so. Repeating "you dismiss any studies which contradict you!" doesn't work when you haven't given us any studies to dismiss.
No. Not unless you actually have a study which cannot be dismissed rationally.
<snip straw men and repetition>
Let me ask you this: Do you feel that you subject counter claims and negative evidence to the same level of scrutiny that you do positive?
Yes. If I didn't, I wouldn't saying it to you.
You spoke with such authority about the great strides they've been making in understanding consciousness. I assumed that you'd have some documented evidence of such understanding. Apparently you don't. Shame, that
Did you even bother to read my response?
In addition, "great strides" does not mean "we understand every detail".
<snip repetition>
Ergo, my earlier statement that emphatic claims that consciousness must, in principle, be a phenomena confined to brains is an
argument from ignorance still stands.
No, it doesn't, because no one has said that consciousness
must be confined to brains. Stop with the straw men.
It isn't that consciousness
must be the product of a brain, but that it
is in the case of humans. I don't know of anyone here - except for perhaps yourself, Malerin, and annnnoid - who would say that it is impossible for a machine to be conscious. I do
not argue that consciousness arises
only from brains, as it is simply a byproduct of certain interactions, and I see no reason that this could not be recreated in another type of system, such as computers.
So stop strawmanning.
Face it, Argent; your emperor has no clothes.
Face it, Aku. You can't answer to what's actually being said to you, so you have to create these imaginary foes to duel against.
We were discussing the current paucity of scientific understanding regarding subjective experience and you submitted that our "knowledge" of how eyes perceive is evidence of such understanding.
No. We were discussing whether or not physics could explain subjective interpretation. You argued that there was nothing in physics which could explain the fact that we perceived certain wavelengths of light as "blue". "Blue" is simply the name we give to certain wavelengths of light as interpreted by our eyes. Because of the differences between different wavelengths of light, our eyes send different signals to the brain, thus giving us different colors.
You jumped on "our eyes perceive" because you were being needlessly pedantic. Physics very much does explain colors.
Its not my fault if you choose take personal offence to posts I've not addressed to you.
The lengths to which you'll go to contort and evade an obvious point is breathtaking, to say the least. There is no way that you're honestly this obtuse.
You might try to be a little less transparent with your lies.
