Adoration, fondness, liking, attraction, caring, tenderness, compassion, sentimentality, Arousal, desire, lust, passion, infatuation, longing, Amusement, bliss, cheerfulness, gaiety, glee, jolliness, etc. etc. to infinity and beyond...
We have no existing scientific instrument that can detect any of these things as they are known to exist by those who experience them….except, of course, the 'scientific instrument' that is those who experience them.
Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments.
Your ignorance is staggering.
But then all of a sudden we go from ‘everything’ to something orders of magnitude more vague. Now we can only register ‘roughly something’, which…in fact, bears no resemblance to the point upon which I was accused of being staggeringly ignorant but, no doubt, I am still staggeringly ignorant.
We can detect emotions. We can register when someone is feeling roughly a certain way. We simply lack a total map of the brain which would allow us to determine in real time exactly which chemicals in which area trigger which emotion.
…and then we find out that we have no such ‘machine’ (singular or plural) capable of detecting everything, which was the basis for the accusation of staggering ignorance…
( “We can detect everything on that list!!!!!...your ignorance is staggering!!!! )
I am saying that it is possible for such a machine to exist. Do we have such a machine right now? No.
…but just try asking for his holiness to provide some evidence to support this wild fantasy of detecting every single condition of human consciousness. Oh, but I just realized, Argent may actually be looking ahead a few years…say to the year 9,345. Well, it’s quite reasonable then isn’t it. Bare assertions are perfectly acceptable when you’re dealing in utter fantasy…come to think of it, isn’t that exactly what woo-woos do?
All of these can be and have been detected by scientific instruments.
….oops…now we’re back to square one. I’m staggeringly ignorant again because all of these can be and have been detected. No evidence required.
I never said that the tests had anything to do with who I am - or who you are. Or who anyone else is.
But it's still ok to toss around accusations like 'staggeringly ignorant' even though you've just moved the goal posts not just off the field but onto another planet entirely.
I quite clearly provided a list describing subjective states of human consciousness…(states which every psychologist on the planet [and just about any human being above the age of seven] would immediately associate with the condition referred to as: who I am) and then just to make it crystal clear, I explicitly stated that those words describe the conditions as they are known to those who experience them. Only a complete idiot could conclude that the entire premise suggested anything other than ‘who - I/you/ or anyone’. I guess I grossly overestimated one of my readers.
However, I am of the opinion that we understand consciousness perfectly well. Do we understand every chemical and every section of the brain? No. Do we understand what every single neurological disorder is? No. But we understand perfectly well what consciousness itself is.
…and once again, things get murky. We no longer understand everything (upon which basis I was accused of being staggeringly ignorant), we only understand things ‘perfectly well’ (what-the-hell-ever that means). I guess it means well enough for skeptics who don't want to have to confront their own ignorance.
But take heart, according to Argent, we understand perfectly well what consciousness is. No doubt that explains what a massively ****** up place this planet is. We do understand consciousness, it’s just that the good doctors haven’t felt the need to share their insights with the despairing masses. I guess it’s escaped your attention there Argent, but consciousness is us, all of us. Individually and collectively. All those neurological disorders you mentioned also include every variety of emotional dysfunction known to man (or did you think they are merely confined to autism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders and the like?). So we understand the whole deal perfectly well do we? I’d say the evidence speaks very loudly in the exact opposite direction (evidence, say it ain’t so). Remember K-Pax…’If you’re a doctor, why are the patients still sick?’ ….duh!
Go back and read over my posts again. We'll talk when you've actually made some effort towards understanding.
…reading…
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.
Certain areas of the brain light up?....my god, what an insight. But something occurs to me, just how far is this from being able to detect everything….which was the specific claim upon which you based your accusation of my staggering ignorance? Apparently, we can now only determine when certain areas of the brain light up (light up…I’ve never noticed my brain ‘lighting up’…and I don’t see that word on my list anywhere either, are you sure you’ve got the results correct there Argent?). So how many of those words can we reduce my list by Argent (…all of them actually, but I don’t expect you to understand that)? And does this mean that I am no longer staggeringly ignorant?...perhaps just enormously? ..or just perhaps just marginally? Or maybe I’m not actually the one who’s ignorant.
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.
…very far from everything now...only able to ‘roughly’ detect ‘something which there is too much background noise to determine the exact nature of’. And just how far a cry is ‘roughly noisy’ from ‘absolutely everything’…upon which basis I was accused of being staggeringly ignorant? Some distance I’d say, but feel free to introduce your own version of events…but hang on, this is your version of events.
PROTIP: If you stopped accusing me of saying things which I never said, you would get less "I never said this".
Well, as we can all see from this little trip down memory lane, I am not accusing you of saying things you never said. In fact, the exact opposite is the case.
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.
So what you’re saying (by way of a rather obvious analogy) is that if I quote, say, Richard Dawkins in relation to a question concerning evolutionary biology we can all assume Richard Dawkins is full of ****? Good point there Argent. As for evidence of Chomsky’s claim that our understanding of human nature is thin (since he’s obviously an idiot), we quite obviously can’t even reliably adjudicate that most basic of human conscious realities: a lie. Care to dispute that evidence Argent? Didn’t think so. Nuff said.
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.
I produced a supporting conclusion from one of the most highly respected cognitive scientists in the world. I produced a clear example of the current state of the art in relation to detecting states of subjective consciousness.
I think this little review quite clearly establishes who it is who has utterly failed to produce any substantiating evidence (…we can ‘definitely’ do this, but no…we can only ‘roughly do that’…but no…’we can’t tell exactly what’s going on’…etc. etc. etc. but never the slightest note or link or example of a shred of corroborating evidence...but then again, you never actually say anything anyway).
...read above...
I am not spouting garbage. Even if I was, it would not excuse your strawmanning.
....read above...
If you want to know what my position is, go back and read my posts again. Without your straw glasses on this time.
...read above...
It's only slander if it's a lie.
…and I think we’ve established quite clearly that you explicitly misrepresented the facts.
To put it bluntly Argent, you accused me of being staggeringly ignorant based on the bare assertion that we can detect the meaning of every word in that list. You subsequently changed your position all over the place, and then denied that you ever took that position in the first place (which is a bit absurd since it’s all there in black and white). You’ve accused me of failing to provide any evidence to support my positions and then blatantly ignored the evidence I did provide…all the while taking endlessly vague positions yourself and arguing that you are under no obligation to substantiate a single one of them.
Nuff said.
Edited by jhunter1163:
Edited to properly mask profanity. Do not attempt to bypass the autocensor.
