Chaos Magic

[carlitos]

annnnoid, if you could be a wee bit more concise, you might inspire more to read your posts.

Just a friendly reminder that masking profanity is against the Membership Agreement. I don't report people, and frankly don't give a **** about profanity, but you are picking fights and no doubt someone will report this. Why not just remove such things from your posts and remove the problem?

 

[Nonpareil]

Every one of these ‘ignorant assertions’ (as you called them) was either written or reviewed and explicitly confirmed by Professor Geraint Rees, Director… Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London…who is the one of the authors of (among other things) the following paper: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi...field%3A%28decoding+fmri%29&searchHistoryKey=

Then source it. The paper you linked to does not support your assertions. Or, at least, the synopsis doesn't. I don't have access to the site (and I doubt that you do, either).

As for that link you included (whatever happened to 'google it' ?), did you even read it?

Yes. Did you?

It actually does far more to confirm the conclusions I presented than anything you presented.

Then explain why.

<snip>

As for ‘free will’….I have presented massive amounts of evidence to support the existence of the phenomenon.

No, you haven't.

The explicitly stated positions of some of the most brilliant philosophers who have ever lived: Descartes, Hegel, Plato, Kant…to name a few. Just about every major religious tradition that has ever existed. The constitutions and founding documents of every liberal democracy in the world. Only a complete and utter fool would insist that ‘free will’ does not figure fundamentally and prominently in the metaphysics of these individuals and social phenomenon.

It's a good thing that I never said that, then, isn't it? I said that their opinions are not evidence, not that the existence of free will was not important to them.

Your arguments would be greatly improved if you stopped strawmanning.

<snip>

…and yet, somehow all of these are ‘ignorant assertions’…and there is ‘no supporting evidence’ ?!?!?!?!?!?

Yes. That you continue to insist that they are doesn't make you look very good. This is very, very basic logic, annnnoid. Opinions, even the opinions of famous people who are considered very intelligent, mean nothing. Do you understand that? Nothing. Evidence means everything. What they believe means nothing if they cannot produce the evidence.

They can't.

<snip repetition>

You say your position is supported by the evidence…

…yet once again…

ARGENT DOES NOT SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!!

Straw man. My position that there is no free will is supported by the lack of evidence for your position that there is free will.

Try again.

Or perhaps one of your fellow skeptics has this magical information available (you claim this is the reason no one has been critical…let’s see if you’re right).

The information about consciousness? Yes. I imagine they do. It's right there on Google.

I’d sure like to know what it is…and if they don’t (present it), I’ll just assume they don’t know what it is either (which will establish your claim to be wrong)

It's very telling that your position includes this little catch. It's a totally unwarranted leap. Just another one in a long line of them, for you.

 

[annnnoid]

Absolutely amazing.

STILL NO EVIDENCE!....dozens of posts…and STILL NO EVIDENCE!...and yet somehow you have the nerve to complain about the evidence I provide!?!?!?!?!?

The first discussion ended at the last post. The second discussion is now over as well.

You have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to brain-state decoding and you have even less of an idea when it comes to ‘free will’. You make endless excuses that you can’t submit supporting evidence….you make absolutely idiotic claims and substantiate them with nothing more than ‘google it’…you make no argument what-so-ever except that you’re right because your opponent can’t prove otherwise….you play endless games about what your position actually is and then make endless excuses about ever presenting one. I could go on and on but I simply can’t be bothered any more. If you are an example of skeptic achievement then the religious world has absolutely nothing to worry about.

You are now the second skeptic to graduate to my ignore list. Congratulations. No more Argent…I feel better already.

 

[PixyMisa]

Not sure about Hegel, but Descartes, Kant, and Plato were wrong about just about everything, philosophically speaking. Waving their names about doesn't help your case in any way.

Oh yeah, Hegel. Now that I recall what he was into, yep, dead wrong about everything.

 

[tsig]

Absolutely amazing.

STILL NO EVIDENCE!....dozens of posts…and STILL NO EVIDENCE!...and yet somehow you have the nerve to complain about the evidence I provide!?!?!?!?!?

The first discussion ended at the last post. The second discussion is now over as well.

You have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to brain-state decoding and you have even less of an idea when it comes to ‘free will’. You make endless excuses that you can’t submit supporting evidence….you make absolutely idiotic claims and substantiate them with nothing more than ‘google it’…you make no argument what-so-ever except that you’re right because your opponent can’t prove otherwise….you play endless games about what your position actually is and then make endless excuses about ever presenting one. I could go on and on but I simply can’t be bothered any more. If you are an example of skeptic achievement then the religious world has absolutely nothing to worry about.

You are now the second skeptic to graduate to my ignore list. Congratulations. No more Argent…I feel better already.

What particular religious world were you thinking of?

 

[PixyMisa]

Then source it. The paper you linked to does not support your assertions. Or, at least, the synopsis doesn't. I don't have access to the site (and I doubt that you do, either).

Take a look at Professor Rees' own website. It's painfully obvious that he's a materialist and a computationalist and agrees with us - or, rather, he being the expert here, we agree with him:

We spend a lot of our time using multivariate algorithms to predict behavior and subjective states such as the contents of consciousness from patterns of brain activity measured using fMRI. More recently we have become interested in using MEG to accomplish similar goals.

Most research involves functional MRI at high field, in combination with behavioral studies, transcranial magnetic stimulation and EEG/MEG. Previous work by Rees has suggested that subjective awareness of objects in the visual environment is associated not just with enhanced activation in visual areas of the occipital lobe, but also areas of parietal and prefrontal cortex often associated with attention. A major focus of this work is therefore in studying interactions between visual cortex and these areas, both in the context of attention, and with respect to eye movements.

annnnoid is living in a bizarre fantasy land.

 

[The Man]

What, "subjective awareness of objects in the visual environment" involves "areas of parietal and prefrontal cortex often associated with attention"?!?!

I might agree, were I more attentive.

Dang parietal and prefrontal cortex, get to doing some work, break time is over.

 

[Nonpareil]

Absolutely amazing.

STILL NO EVIDENCE!....dozens of posts…and STILL NO EVIDENCE!...and yet somehow you have the nerve to complain about the evidence I provide!?!?!?!?!?

Burden of proof fallacy, lie.

On the subject of free will, I am not required to give any evidence. I have explained this before, but you didn't understand it then, either, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it still escapes your grasp.

On the subject of neurology, I have given you evidence, even though you very obviously didn't want it and would simply dismiss it out of hand. And you did, as expected. Now, in my last post, I asked for the justification for your dismissal, as in your last post you said nothing more than "It actually does far more to confirm the conclusions I presented than anything you presented" with no justification given. And, seeing as it directly contradicts your statement that you cannot decode visual data via neuroscanners, I can only conclude that you did not read the paper.

Because, you see, I was right. Finding evidence for you is pointless. You aren't interested in the truth. You just want to live in your smug, self-satisfied fantasy world. You aren't interested in reality.

You have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to brain-state decoding and you have even less of an idea when it comes to ‘free will’.

Funny, then, that I'm the one whose position is backed by the evidence.

And basic logic.

You make endless excuses that you can’t submit supporting evidence….

Straw man (again). I make no excuses. I state baldly and unequivocally that I can, but will not find evidence for you. I have tried in the past, and it earned nothing more than your present shameless denial.

If you want to know (you don't), Google it.

you make absolutely idiotic claims and substantiate them with nothing more than ‘google it’…

Half-right.

you make no argument what-so-ever except that you’re right because your opponent can’t prove otherwise…

No. Straw man again. When are you going to get it through your head that the burden of proof is on you?

you play endless games about what your position actually is and then make endless excuses about ever presenting one.

I haven't done any such thing. But then, we already knew that you were deluded.

I could go on and on

Oh, I don't doubt you could.

but I simply can’t be bothered any more. If you are an example of skeptic achievement then the religious world has absolutely nothing to worry about.

You are now the second skeptic to graduate to my ignore list. Congratulations. No more Argent…I feel better already.

That makes two people who have me on ignore put me there immediately following a discussion like this. The other was 9/11-investigator, just after I pointed out that his pet fantasy of Auschwitz being a vacation resort for Jews (not kidding) was a steaming pile of crap.

I wonder why that is.

 

[Nonpareil]

annnnoid is living in a bizarre fantasy land.

But we knew that already.

 

[annnnoid]

So Reess is one of ‘us’ is he. I guess you completely missed what that whole discussion was about didn’t you Pixy (read much?…only when necessary). It actually had nothing what-so-ever to do with materialism or computationlism… but you get a jelly bean for trying anyway.

But I’m glad to hear you agree with him. Just confirms that Argent was wrong about all his points…which was the point to begin with.

Kant, Hegel, Descartes, and Plato were all idiots…wrong about just about everything. Funny Pixy…when I check the Wiki philosophy website, I don’t see your name featured anywhere. Is that some kind of oversight d’ya suppose. Those four philosophers get chunks of space, and you get….none. But you’re right, and they’re all wrong. I guess you must be ahead of your time. Doubtless in a hundred years Wiki will have been renamed Pixy and we’ll all be referring to Pixypedia to get all our facts on life, the universe and everything.

 

[Nonpareil]

So Reess is one of ‘us’ is he. I guess you completely missed what that whole discussion was about didn’t you Pixy (read much?…only when necessary). It actually had nothing what-so-ever to do with materialism or computationlism… but you get a jelly bean for trying anyway.

So you aren't paying attention to your own arguments, either?

But I’m glad to hear you agree with him. Just confirms that Argent was wrong about all his points…which was the point to begin with.

Funny, then, that he agrees with me.

Kant, Hegel, Descartes, and Plato were all idiots…

No.

wrong about just about everything.

Yes.

Why is it that you can't seem to grasp this simple concept?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

In the past, I have been known to commune with spirits -- I'd begin my ritual by unscrewing the cap from the whiskey or vodka bottle and pouring out a glass.

After a while, I would be levitating too!

I hope this counts as chaos magic.

Once when I tried that I must have gotten an Evil Spirit as it ended with projectile vomiting like 'The Exorcist'!

 

[PixyMisa]

So Reess is one of ‘us’ is he.

Materialist and computationalist, yes.

I guess you completely missed what that whole discussion was about didn’t you Pixy (read much?…only when necessary). It actually had nothing what-so-ever to do with materialism or computationlism… but you get a jelly bean for trying anyway.

It was also about you asserting that we don't know things that we do, in fact, know perfectly well.

Kant, Hegel, Descartes, and Plato were all idiots…wrong about just about everything.

When it comes to philosophy, yes. Descartes was also a scientist and mathematician. Plato was entirely wrong; on the other hand, he didn't a whole lot of earlier philosophers to learn from.

If you wish to describe Kant and Hegel as idiots, I won't argue.

Funny Pixy…when I check the Wiki philosophy website, I don’t see your name featured anywhere.

No, but you will find, for example, Bertrand Russell saying that almost everything Hegel ever said was wrong.

Is that some kind of oversight d’ya suppose. Those four philosophers get chunks of space, and you get….none. But you’re right, and they’re all wrong. I guess you must be ahead of your time. Doubtless in a hundred years Wiki will have been renamed Pixy and we’ll all be referring to Pixypedia to get all our facts on life, the universe and everything.

Argumentum ad populum. You'll find Lamarck in Wikipedia, and phlogiston, and the luminiferous aether. And astrology and homeopathy and iridology. And von Daniken and Cayce and Annie Besant.

If you want to argue that having a Wikipedia page about something makes it true, then you should go right ahead and start a new thread. That will be fun.

 

[PixyMisa]

On the subject of neurology, I have given you evidence, even though you very obviously didn't want it and would simply dismiss it out of hand. And you did, as expected. Now, in my last post, I asked for the justification for your dismissal, as in your last post you said nothing more than "It actually does far more to confirm the conclusions I presented than anything you presented" with no justification given. And, seeing as it directly contradicts your statement that you cannot decode visual data via neuroscanners, I can only conclude that you did not read the paper.

Yes, I was very amused when he took that as a rock on which to stand.

 

[annnnoid]

Yes, I was very amused when he took that as a rock on which to stand.

Then I’m sure you’ll find what follows equally amusing.

Just for your enlightenment Pixy…I reviewed the entire situation with Rees point by point…including both your and Argents idiotic claims. He flat out rejected both of them as utter nonsense (…his specific words were “I’ve personally never made such claims and I know of no scientists anywhere in the world who have or would”…). I asked him specifically about a range of conclusions and observations he and other researches had made in various papers. They clearly describe the current state of brain decoding. He explicitly wrote or approved every one of them. They all came directly from him. They’re all in my previous post. None of them agree with either your position or Argents.

Rees is the director of the cognitive science department at university college London. You’ve dismissed Kant, Hegel, Descartes, and Plato (and Argent has dismissed what is regarded as the foundation of the civilized world and human nature). Are you gonna dismiss Rees as well?

Go right ahead if it makes you happy, I no longer give a crap. Neither of you have the faintest idea what you’re talking about and I’ve no intention of wasting another second on Argents utterly worthless point of view. ‘Ignore’ is a great idea. I should have used it a long time ago.

Staggeringly ignorant now belongs to you Argent. If you can’t handle being wrong, take it up with Rees. Maybe you’d actually learn something.

…and just a final point Argent. Referring to that little quote in Pixy’s post. Do you have any idea how hysterically laughable it is for you, of all people, to be insisting that someone else explain, justify, or support their claim! Coming from you…the king of ‘google it’ and ‘I don't have to define my terms, I don't hare to provide an argument, I don’t have to give you any evidence…oh no I don’t’.. What a f’in joke. What I included in my previous post came straight from the horses mouth. Rees wrote or approved every one of those points. There’s nothing to argue, nothing to discuss, nothing to debate. You, and Pixy, are wrong. End of story. Boo hoo.

 

[Nonpareil]

I reviewed the entire situation with Rees point by point…

Hands up everyone who believes this.

…and just a final point Argent. Referring to that little quote in Pixy’s post. Do you have any idea how hysterically laughable it is for you, of all people, to be insisting that someone else explain, justify, or support their claim! Coming from you…the king of ‘google it’ and ‘I don't have to define my terms, I don't hare to provide an argument, I don’t have to give you any evidence…oh no I don’t’.. What a f’in joke.

So you still would rather resort to strawmanning and denial than admit that the burden of proof is on you? Sad, but unsurprising.

 

[PixyMisa]

Then I’m sure you’ll find what follows equally amusing.

Researchers have demonstrated that it is possible to read words right out of the visual cortex using fMRI. This has been referenced multiple times by multiple posters. It doesn't matter what you believe Rees may have said; you are simply wrong.

 

[PixyMisa]

I reviewed the entire situation with Rees point by point…

[citation needed]

 

[Nonpareil]

If I am not mistaken, annnnoid has managed, in the space of maybe two days, to put everyone on this forum who attempts to actually engage him in discussion on ignore.

I wonder why he would do that?

 

[annnnoid]

Wallowing in desperation are we? You’re beginning to sound pathetic.

You’re both wrong.
The director of cog sci at university college London says so.
I’d be happy to show the emails to anyone at JREF who wants proof that Pixy and Argent don’t know what they’re talking about. That Pixy and Argent fabricate facts and manipulate evidence. They’re clearly dated and they clearly have Rees email address on them and they clearly include all the statements written in my post…word.…for….word.

Deal with it.

I won’t bother asking for a citation for your claim Pixy. Your credibility vanished a long time ago. No citation needed. When it comes from you, we already know it’s a waste of time.