Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rationalism: a paper tiger?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 125 (436906)
11-28-2007 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by crashfrog
11-26-2007 11:36 PM


Re: The catch-22
Remember that if PP is right, we'll need to rewrite everything we know about neuroscience.
Why would we need to do that?
Don't you think we deserve a little more than his say-so before we start?
I suspect that medical journals will not be falling over themselves to revise their books on neuroscience based on Petro's personal claim made in an obscure forum.
I just want to hear what he has to say about it. What difference does it make to you?

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 11-26-2007 11:36 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 11-28-2007 12:26 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 123 by nator, posted 11-28-2007 1:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 122 of 125 (436913)
11-28-2007 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Hyroglyphx
11-28-2007 12:08 AM


Re: The catch-22
Why would we need to do that?
Because those models say what PP claims he can do is completely impossible. The brain simply doesn't work like that.
If we see observations that contradict the models on a fundamental level, we need new models. Simple as that. You can't simply do the impossible and expect there not to be interest in that.
I suspect that medical journals will not be falling over themselves to revise their books on neuroscience based on Petro's personal claim made in an obscure forum.
Is that suspicion based on your realization that Petro's claims are unlikely and untenable? If so that seems inconsistent with your pledge to approach them with an open mind.
If not, then what is the source of your suspicion?
What difference does it make to you?
I'm a student of why people believe things that are obviously false. I'm not saying you believe Petro, but Petro believes Petro, and maybe he's more amenable to inquiry from you. Clearly he views the rest of us skeptics as incorrigible ideologues wedded to the idea of a completely mundane universe.
I just think it'll be interesting if you can get him to answer some probative questions. It's up to you, best of luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-28-2007 12:08 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 123 of 125 (437011)
11-28-2007 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Hyroglyphx
11-28-2007 12:08 AM


Re: The catch-22
quote:
I just want to hear what he has to say about it.
Me too, which is why I opened a thread devoted specifically to letting him answer questions regarding his gift.
He had nothing but disdain and anger for the perfectly reasonable questions posed to him, so I have my doubts whether he is really interested in even an amateur-level investigation of his abilities.
What he seems to want is to simply be able to say that he can read minds and for all of us to simply take his word for it.
Why should we do that?
I for one would think it the most awesomely cool thing ever if he really could read minds through detection of EM brain waves, but if he is too threatened by the idea that he might be fooling himself to answer simple questions on an annonymous internate debate board, I really don't think he's confident enough to submit himself to anything as acary as a meaningful test.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-28-2007 12:08 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 124 of 125 (446182)
01-05-2008 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Chiroptera
11-12-2007 7:30 AM


Re: Yet more nonsense.
chiroptera:
I've never seen anyone give a precise definition of what an "absolute" is..
An unchanging point of reference, like the instruments used by pilots in zero-visibility conditions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Chiroptera, posted 11-12-2007 7:30 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 125 of 125 (589273)
11-01-2010 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
11-11-2007 12:08 PM


Re: Yet more nonsense.
jar writes:
We also know that humans are capable of imagining Ideals which we now know are impossible in reality, for example an Absolutely Level Surface, or an Absolutely Straight Line. The fact that they cannot exist does not mean that humans cannot imagine such things.
Humans prefer to imagine things which we can live with. Some absolutes are too uncomfortable to allow. (Absolute equality, for example..which includes finance)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 11-11-2007 12:08 PM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024