Consciousness is not a product of the brain - the evidence.

[The Pixie]

Ok Duckie

You just cannot admit you were wrong, can you? Too much pride.

Actually, I did. You just didn't bother reading the post which was a direct response to you.

And yet you cannot find that post now, can you? Odd that. Almost like it does not exist.

Did I say "almost"? I meant "exactly". Exactly like it does not exist. But you have to pretend it does because the alternative is swallowing your pride.

What if I'm just saying that you're really making this a boring discussion, because the only thing I'm seeing is a kid who likes to play king of the sandbox, and it makes genuinely interesting conversation with you a tedious and pointless experience?

As opposed to conversing with someone who cannot accept he was wrong, even when presented with overwhelming evidence?

I have proved Ockham and Occam were the same person, and still you refuse to admit it. How can we possibly have a discussion if you are determined to cling to something that has been shown to be wrong? And that is an issue that is trivial; it is not like I am asking you to change your faith in anyway, just for you to accept that a guy long dead is known by two different names.

If you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that, then discussion is out of the window. All that is left is exposing you for what you are, Steve.

Well, we already know that it's easier for you to jump to such conclusions, just so you can have the appearance of being justified.

It is a conclusion based on good evidence.

• We know you were wrong about positrons - despite doing physics at university - and we know you have never admitted it.
• We know you were wrong about St Paul - despite doing Bible studies - and we know you have never admitted it.
• We know you were wrong about Ockham, and we know you have never admitted it.

Just to be clear, I have searched for posts you made with the words "positron", "saul" or "paul" to confirm you have not later admitted you were wrong, and I can see in this thread that you are still not doing to with Ockham, so I can be pretty confident that - despite your claims to the contrary - you have never admitted to be being wrong about any of these.

Given that evidence, I think "easier for a Christian to lie than to swallow his pride and admit an atheist was right" is a very reasonable conclusion. Certainly the best I have. How do you explain it, Steve?

 

[Ontos]

A number.

Is that an image of a number or something else? What could be the material construct in your brain of a number when you're consciously aware of it?

Are you happy that a Wikipedia article can have an image of an elephant, and can also state the typical weight of an elephant?

The article doesn't have any of that.

When you look at wiki page, all your eyes see is color - you are abstracting from those colors to form symbols - which you further abstract to give meaning.

But qua materiality of consciousness, abstracting must be a material process - the symbols are images, so those are literally in your brain as images. But, what about meaning? Like numbers - what could be the material construct in your brain of "meaning" when you're consciously aware of it?

 

[The Pixie]

Is that an image of a number or something else? What could be the material construct in your brain of a number when you're consciously aware of it?

How do YOU understand a number? Is it as an image?

Again, the best analogy is the computer you are sat at. It can store billions of numbers with no problem.

The article doesn't have any of that. When you look at wiki page, all your eyes see is color - you are abstracting from those colors to form symbols - which you further abstract to give meaning.

So you are saying the Wiki article therefore does not contain any images? The image is there on the screen of your computer.

Yes, to get to our brains it travels as photons of various colour and intensity, and that gets reassembled into the image n our brain, but the image is still there in the Wiki article.

You might have more of an argument with the text "elephant", which has no inherent connections to elephants; it is just what we have learnt to understand to mean elephant.

But qua materiality of consciousness, abstracting must be a material process - the symbols are images, so those are literally in your brain as images. But, what about meaning? Like numbers - what could be the material construct in your brain of "meaning" when you're consciously aware of it?

Not sure I see your point. The image of an elephant has meaning because we associate it with something. In fact, just like the Wiki page, in our minds we have a concept of what an elephant is, and that would include an image of some sort. When we think of elephants, we look up the Wiki article in our minds to retrieve the information.

 

[SteveB]

You just cannot admit you were wrong, can you? Too much pride.

You're the one still talking.

And yet you cannot find that post now, can you? Odd that. Almost like it does not exist.

That would indeed make it easy for you, wouldn't it.
I'm curious why you're not able to prove I did not.
I've since moved on.

Did I say "almost"? I meant "exactly". Exactly like it does not exist. But you have to pretend it does because the alternative is swallowing your pride.

Yeah.... further evidence you don't actually want to learn t he truth.

As opposed to conversing with someone who cannot accept he was wrong, even when presented with overwhelming evidence?

I'm not the one trying to win a lost argument.

I have proved Ockham and Occam were the same person, and still you refuse to admit it. How can we possibly have a discussion if you are determined to cling to something that has been shown to be wrong? And that is an issue that is trivial; it is not like I am asking you to change your faith in anyway, just for you to accept that a guy long dead is known by two different names.

No. actually you have not.
You quoted from a source that makes the claim.

If you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that, then discussion is out of the window. All that is left is exposing you for what you are, Steve.


It is a conclusion based on good evidence.

• We know you were wrong about positrons - despite doing physics at university - and we know you have never admitted it.
• We know you were wrong about St Paul - despite doing Bible studies - and we know you have never admitted it.
• We know you were wrong about Ockham, and we know you have never admitted it.

Just to be clear, I have searched for posts you made with the words "positron", "saul" or "paul" to confirm you have not later admitted you were wrong, and I can see in this thread that you are still not doing to with Ockham, so I can be pretty confident that - despite your claims to the contrary - you have never admitted to be being wrong about any of these.

Given that evidence, I think "easier for a Christian to lie than to swallow his pride and admit an atheist was right" is a very reasonable conclusion. Certainly the best I have. How do you explain it, Steve?

Well, since you keep talking, it's obviously you who needs to win, and has too much pride..... not to admit they're wrong, but to consider that there's another explanation.

Have a nice day Duckie.

 

[The Pixie]

...
I'm not the one trying to win a lost argument.

It looks like that is exactly what you are doing. What is your actual point is your post? I see nothing other than trying to win a lost argument.

Clearly I am not doing that. I won. I proved positrons do not bounce off electrons. I proved Saul did not change his name to Saul. I proved Ockham and Occam are the same guy. I won the arguments, Steve.

But of course, you cannot admit that, can you? So you persist with this farcical pretence.

No. actually you have not.
You quoted from a source that makes the claim.

In contrast to you, who cannot find anything to support your position that they are different people.

Here are another four:

Occam’s razor | Origin, Examples, & Facts

Occam’s razor, also spelled Ockham’s razor, also called law of economy or law of parsimony, principle stated by the Scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) that pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” The principle gives...

www.britannica.com

The Tyranny of Simple Explanations

The history of science has been distorted by a longstanding conviction that correct theories about nature are always the most elegant ones.

www.theatlantic.com

What is Occam's Razor?

math.ucr.edu

William of Ockham - Biography

William of Ockham was an English mathematician and philosopher best known for Ockham's razor, one version of which is: It is vain to do with more what can be done with less.

mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk

Can you find any that support your position? Of course not. We have discussed this over several posts now, and you have presented exactly zero evidence to support your claim.

All you have is bluster and hot air.

Well, since you keep talking, it's obviously you who needs to win, and has too much pride..... not to admit they're wrong, but to consider that there's another explanation.

Sure I have pride. I do not think it is sin; it is not a problem for me, Steve.

So do you really have another explanation? Or is that just wishful thinking? Just you pretending you have not lost again?

Perhaps you enjoy me pointing out you are wrong all the time... I guess that must be it.

 

[SteveB]

It looks like that is exactly what you are doing. What is your actual point is your post? I see nothing other than trying to win a lost argument.

and yet you're the one still talking.

Clearly I am not doing that. I won. I proved positrons do not bounce off electrons. I proved Saul did not change his name to Saul. I proved Ockham and Occam are the same guy. I won the arguments, Steve.

But of course, you cannot admit that, can you? So you persist with this farcical pretence.


In contrast to you, who cannot find anything to support your position that they are different people.

Here are another four:

Occam’s razor | Origin, Examples, & Facts

Occam’s razor, also spelled Ockham’s razor, also called law of economy or law of parsimony, principle stated by the Scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) that pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” The principle gives...

www.britannica.com

The Tyranny of Simple Explanations

The history of science has been distorted by a longstanding conviction that correct theories about nature are always the most elegant ones.

www.theatlantic.com

What is Occam's Razor?

math.ucr.edu

William of Ockham - Biography

William of Ockham was an English mathematician and philosopher best known for Ockham's razor, one version of which is: It is vain to do with more what can be done with less.

mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk

Can you find any that support your position? Of course not. We have discussed this over several posts now, and you have presented exactly zero evidence to support your claim.

All you have is bluster and hot air.


Sure I have pride. I do not think it is sin; it is not a problem for me, Steve.

So do you really have another explanation? Or is that just wishful thinking? Just you pretending you have not lost again?

Perhaps you enjoy me pointing out you are wrong all the time... I guess that must be it.

 

[Ontos]

How do YOU understand a number? Is it as an image?

As a transcendental concept of relations of objects. It can be symbolically represented vis a vis - an image

Again, the best analogy is the computer you are sat at. It can store billions of numbers with no problem.

Ok, but what could be the material construct in YOUR brain of a number when you're consciously aware of it?

So you are saying the Wiki article therefore does not contain any images? The image is there on the screen of your computer.

Correct as per the materialism were talking about. The article contains color - you are abstracting and partitioning that color to conceive a particular form which we call an "image". You're doing the same to form the symbols which we call "words", and further abstraction to assign those words "meaning".

All these concepts must have a material construct in your brain, and I simply asking what could that be?

Not sure I see your point. The image of an elephant has meaning because we associate it with something...

Whether or not an elephant "has" meaning is irrelevant to my question...
My question - what could be the material construct in your brain "of" meaning when you're consciously aware of it?

 

[The Pixie]

and yet you're the one still talking.

Because there is a wider issue here - credibility.

We know you are wrong about positrons - something you claim to be knowledgeable about. We know you are wrong about St Paul - something you claim to be knowledgeable about. Now we also know you are wrong about William of Ockham. And yet in all these cases you continue to pretend you are right!

What does this tell us about your other claims? Why should anyone believe your claims about salvation and Jesus? Perhaps these are also subjects where you claim to be an authority, but actually have it wrong, and indeed it seems possible that you have been proved wrong about them too in the past, but refuse to admit - perhaps even to yourself.

What it comes down to Steve is that given your track record here, it would be very foolish to believe anything you say.

I will continue to point this out to everyone so anyone who happens upon your posts will see them for what they are - the unsupported opinions of a guy with a history of being wrong, but stubbornly clinging to those erroneous claims.

You could choose to address that, and a first step would be acknowledging you are wrong when that has been shown, and then perhaps we could have worthwhile discussion with you, Steve. But that would involve you swallowing your pride, so sadly will never happen.

 

[The Pixie]

Ok, but what could be the material construct in YOUR brain of a number when you're consciously aware of it?

If you are getting into the detail, firstly I am not an expert and secondly we may not know. That said, take a look at this article, which goes into this in some depth:

What Actually Is a Thought? And How Is Information Physical?

Thoughts are physical representations or maps. They have shape and weight.

www.psychologytoday.com

Since this was such a strong stimulus—a "flashbulb memory" moment, the pattern of connections in this particular network is then made permanently retrievable. This happens by changes in membrane proteins at the connections between all the participating neurons that fired together in response to that stimulus—“Neurons that fire together wire together” (Hebb's Law).​

This constitutes the memory: The same approximate network can be reactivated in the future by a reminder, some association cue. The pattern of connections is a representation (a "map") corresponding to the pattern of information that you perceived. It is likely also interwoven with representations of other feelings or memories that you associate with that experience, adding layers of meaning to the experience.​

Correct as per the materialism were talking about. The article contains color - you are abstracting and partitioning that color to conceive a particular form which we call an "image". You're doing the same to form the symbols which we call "words", and further abstraction to assign those words "meaning".

All these concepts must have a material construct in your brain, and I simply asking what could that be?

Again, see that article.

What is your hypothesis? How do you think consciousness works? How do we handle a pink elephant of the number 42 in your view?

 

[SteveB]

Because there is a wider issue here - credibility.

We know you are wrong about positrons - something you claim to be knowledgeable about. We know you are wrong about St Paul - something you claim to be knowledgeable about. Now we also know you are wrong about William of Ockham. And yet in all these cases you continue to pretend you are right!

What does this tell us about your other claims? Why should anyone believe your claims about salvation and Jesus? Perhaps these are also subjects where you claim to be an authority, but actually have it wrong, and indeed it seems possible that you have been proved wrong about them too in the past, but refuse to admit - perhaps even to yourself.

What it comes down to Steve is that given your track record here, it would be very foolish to believe anything you say.

I will continue to point this out to everyone so anyone who happens upon your posts will see them for what they are - the unsupported opinions of a guy with a history of being wrong, but stubbornly clinging to those erroneous claims.

You could choose to address that, and a first step would be acknowledging you are wrong when that has been shown, and then perhaps we could have worthwhile discussion with you, Steve. But that would involve you swallowing your pride, so sadly will never happen.

really.....
Still talking?
Have a nice day Duckie.

 

[Ontos]

If you are getting into the detail, firstly I am not an expert and secondly we may not know. That said, take a look at this article, which goes into this in some depth:

The article doesn't help and shows he doesn't take his materialism seriously enough. Just look what he's doing - he says all these physical processes in the brain mean X, and by the way; meaning and X are also physical processes.

His "knowledge" that consciousness is a physical process is because of a physical process. He doesn't actually know anything - he receives sensory input *electro-chemical reaction/s* and out pops a necessary response. If he says he knows - that too is just an electro-chemical reaction, if he says I'm wrong - that too is just an electro-chemical reaction.

I find his position irrational, literally - there may be casual connections between electro-chemical reactions, but it can hardly be said that there are logical connections. It can hardly be said that electro-chemical reactions "consult" the principles of logic prior to output, unless of course he wants to say that the principles of logic are just electro-chemical reactions too - and so we're just confirming our confirmations with our confirmations.

What is your hypothesis? How do you think consciousness works? How do we handle a pink elephant of the number 42 in your view?

I take consciousness to be immaterial, so I can't say how it works in any mechanical/material sense. I could only talk about how in a relative or negative sense. Like, how it's not a circular physical electro-chemical reactions that I feel leads to absurdities, thus it must be something else that provides a terminus...

A pink elephant and number 42 can be viewed as an image, and thus physically in your brain, arguably though; it can be "viewed" conceptually as in knowing the essence of a thing. That is, if you know what an elephant is; then de facto you know all elephants. Now, its one thing to have a particular elephant in your brain - physical image - but its quite another to have all elephants in brain; as such I can't see how that's material...

 

[The Pixie]

The article doesn't help and shows he doesn't take his materialism seriously enough. Just look what he's doing - he says all these physical processes in the brain mean X, and by the way; meaning and X are also physical processes.

That seems pretty consistent.

His "knowledge" that consciousness is a physical process is because of a physical process. He doesn't actually know anything - he receives sensory input *electro-chemical reaction/s* and out pops a necessary response. If he says he knows - that too is just an electro-chemical reaction, if he says I'm wrong - that too is just an electro-chemical reaction.

I find his position irrational, literally - there may be casual connections between electro-chemical reactions, but it can hardly be said that there are logical connections. It can hardly be said that electro-chemical reactions "consult" the principles of logic prior to output, unless of course he wants to say that the principles of logic are just electro-chemical reactions too - and so we're just confirming our confirmations with our confirmations.

The confirmation is required whatever the cause of consciousness.

Why should we trust our reasoning? If you are right, it originates in some unknowable place we can never hope to penetrate. How can you pretend that that is a good foundation for reason?

No. We trust our reason because of its track record, not because of the internal mechanics of thought.

I take consciousness to be immaterial, so I can't say how it works in any mechanical/material sense. I could only talk about how in a relative or negative sense. Like, how it's not a circular physical electro-chemical reactions that I feel leads to absurdities, thus it must be something else that provides a terminus...

Right. Real science is actually looking at how consciousness might work. You just say it is some mystical thing and refuse to consider it any further than that.

A pink elephant and number 42 can be viewed as an image, and thus physically in your brain, arguably though; it can be "viewed" conceptually as in knowing the essence of a thing. That is, if you know what an elephant is; then de facto you know all elephants. Now, its one thing to have a particular elephant in your brain - physical image - but its quite another to have all elephants in brain; as such I can't see how that's material...

But it is all information. We can think of an abstract ideal of an elephant and we can think about an actual elephant and we can visualise an elephant. These are all different things, but are all just information. So what is the problem?

 

[The Pixie]

really.....
Still talking?

Sure. I was curious to see if you could link to the posts where you admitted you were wrong. Obviously not. They are just a fantasy in your head.

I was curious to see if you could find web site that indicate Occam's razor was devised by someone other than William of Ockham. Obviously not. You were wrong again, and as usual cannot swallow your pride to admit it.

I find it fascinating that you even chose to reply. I think even now you cannot admit to yourself that you were wrong, and you are determined to have the last word. My guess is that you will continue to make these banal, content-free replies every time I post. I look forward to the next one...

 

[Ontos]

That seems pretty consistent.

Consistently circular

Why should we trust our reasoning? If you are right, it originates in some unknowable place we can never hope to penetrate. How can you pretend that that is a good foundation for reason?

Who said it's "unknowable"?

No. We trust our reason because of its track record, not because of the internal mechanics of thought.

Your "trusting" of your "reason" just is an internal mechanic. Under the author's thesis - there is no you - there is only the internal mechanic.

And at bottom your reason may work, but that doesn't mean it's true.

Right. Real science is actually looking at how consciousness might work. You just say it is some mystical thing and refuse to consider it any further than that.

No, you are saying it's "some mystical thing", and you're assuming your science is the only "real science".

All the physical sciences slice out a part of reality, but metaphysics - the science of being as being - considers reality in whole

But it is all information. We can think of an abstract ideal of an elephant and we can think about an actual elephant and we can visualise an elephant. These are all different things, but are all just information. So what is the problem?

The problem is (if you follow the authors thesis) that's just your electro-chemical reactions talking. You don't know it - you read all I wrote and had a series of electro-chemical reactions and out popped all you wrote. Your internal mechanics processed stimuli and outputted an answer - maybe it's true, but you don't really know it - if you say you do or that I'm wrong - that too is just your electro-chemical reactions talking. The author is making you a moist calculator.

 

[The Pixie]

Consistently circular

How so?

Who said it's "unknowable"?

okay, I will bite. What do we know about it? How do we learn more?

Your "trusting" of your "reason" just is an internal mechanic. Under the author's thesis - there is no you - there is only the internal mechanic.

Is the "author's thesis" something specific? I am not familiar with it.

My trust of reason maybe "just is an internal mechanic", but it still has a good track record. If it really is "just is an internal mechanic" then that track record gives a justification for trusting it.

And at bottom your reason may work, but that doesn't mean it's true.

Sure, but that is true of all reasoning and all world views.

No, you are saying it's "some mystical thing", and you're assuming your science is the only "real science".

All the physical sciences slice out a part of reality, but metaphysics - the science of being as being - considers reality in whole

So show me the science for consciousness existing outside the physical. That is the purported aim of this thread, after all.

Even if there are no results yet, you should be able to point me to on-going research, right?

The problem is (if you follow the authors thesis) that's just your electro-chemical reactions talking. You don't know it - you read all I wrote and had a series of electro-chemical reactions and out popped all you wrote. Your internal mechanics processed stimuli and outputted an answer - maybe it's true, but you don't really know it - if you say you do or that I'm wrong - that too is just your electro-chemical reactions talking. The author is making you a moist calculator.

A vastly complex moist calculator that is capable of rational thought and at least the appearance of consciousness. Why is that a problem?

 

[Ontos]

How so?

He knows it's all electro-chemical reactions, because electro-chemical reactions causes what he knows

okay, I will bite. What do we know about it? How do we learn more?

There's plenty of philosophy of consciousness/mind literature out there to read and reflect upon

Is the "author's thesis" something specific? I am not familiar with it.

Of course, didn't you even read it?

My trust of reason maybe "just is an internal mechanic", but it still has a good track record. If it really is "just is an internal mechanic" then that track record gives a justification for trusting it.

It being "good" is merely your internal mechanics making you affirm that, you don't know it though.

Sure, but that is true of all reasoning and all world views.

Is THAT true?

So show me the science for consciousness existing outside the physical. That is the purported aim of this thread, after all.

Even if there are no results yet, you should be able to point me to on-going research, right?

Again, the literature is out there; you just have to allow it to come in.

A vastly complex moist calculator that is capable of rational thought and at least the appearance of consciousness. Why is that a problem?

Electro-chemical reactions made you say that, you don't know if it's true.

Any reply back to me is not "rational thinking" of your own accord, but determined physics for which you have no choice but to output.

 

[The Pixie]

He knows it's all electro-chemical reactions, because electro-chemical reactions causes what he knows

Great. What is the problem?

There's plenty of philosophy of consciousness/mind literature out there to read and reflect upon

The majority assumes consciousness is in the brain. SteveB helpfully linked to a list of them earlier in the thread in post #52.

Can you find a couple of articles that discuss what we know about consciousness assuming it is not in the brain, or how we could know about it?

Of course, didn't you even read it?

Obviously not. It might have been helpful at this point if you said something about it or linked to it. The fact that you did not is once more making me wonder if you are actually interested in having a discussion.

It being "good" is merely your internal mechanics making you affirm that, you don't know it though.

The same applies to you, except it is external. That does not magically make our judgments make sense.

Is THAT true?

I think so. Do you have an opinion? Can you say why your opinion is valid, given it is based on an unknowable external mechanism?

Again, the literature is out there; you just have to allow it to come in.

If you want to be taken seriously you need to do more than assert there is literature out there. Find some actual papers that support your position, or I will not believe you. And by the way, I am not going to find them for you.

Electro-chemical reactions made you say that, you don't know if it's true.

Correct.

An erroneous belief in an unknowable external mechanism makes you doubt it.

Any reply back to me is not "rational thinking" of your own accord, but determined physics for which you have no choice but to output.

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

 

[Ontos]

Great. What is the problem?

None, if you believe the article you posted on #89. If your electro-chemical reactions dont compute a "problem" for an informal fallacy of circularity - then there just is no problem.

The majority assumes consciousness is in the brain. SteveB helpfully linked to a list of them earlier in the thread in post #52.

Same here, no problem with ad populum

Can you find a couple of articles that discuss what we know about consciousness assuming it is not in the brain, or how we could know about it?

No, you can do the homework

Obviously not. It might have been helpful at this point if you said something about it or linked to it. The fact that you did not is once more making me wonder if you are actually interested in having a discussion.

We're talking about the article you posted in #89...

The same applies to you, except it is external. That does not magically make our judgments make sense.

Not sure how you got "external" out of what I said. I never argued for anything being external to me.

I think so. Do you have an opinion? Can you say why your opinion is valid, given it is based on an unknowable external mechanism?

If you subscribe to the article you posted in #89, then you didn't think so - you reacted so.

And no, I can't give a valid opinion based on your presupposed "unknowable external mechanism"

If you want to be taken seriously you need to do more than assert there is literature out there. Find some actual papers that support your position, or I will not believe you. And by the way, I am not going to find them for you.

Again, if you subscribe to the materiality of consciousness and thought etc... Then, whether or not you take me "seriously" is a matter of physics and chemistry not an article. Regardless of the truth of any article I give you, if it doesn't stimulate you're brain in such a way to give you a "true" signal (whatever that could be), then it's just not true for you.

An erroneous belief in an unknowable external mechanism makes you doubt it.

Assuming the materiality of consciousness/thoughts etc... you don't know it's "erroneous", you're merely outputing that out of necessity of physics and chemistry

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

Because

Matter =/= The fact of the matter


I appreciate the chat, but I'm done.

 

[Nouveau]

Any reply back to me is not "rational thinking" of your own accord, but determined physics for which you have no choice but to output.

How would one's thinking being either non-physical or causally undetermined make it any more rational or any more a matter of one's choice?

 

[The Pixie]

None, if you believe the article you posted on #89. If your electro-chemical reactions dont compute a "problem" for an informal fallacy of circularity - then there just is no problem.

Same here, no problem with ad populum

Great.

No, you can do the homework

It ius your homework, you do. Otherwise it is just your unsupported opinion. I am happy to leave it at that.

We're talking about the article you posted in #89...

In that case I misunderstood, so sorry about that. I thought maybe there was a hypothesis called the "author's thesis" that said that there is no you. Can you quote the bit in the article where the author says there is no you? I did not see it - hence my confusion.

Not sure how you got "external" out of what I said. I never argued for anything being external to me.

You appear to be arguing against an internal mechanism. That would suggest to are arguing for an external one, such as the claim of the OP.

Perhaps you should say exactly what your position is here.

If you subscribe to the article you posted in #89, then you didn't think so - you reacted so.

Where does it say that in the article?

If it does not, then why should I think you are right?

Again, if you subscribe to the materiality of consciousness and thought etc... Then, whether or not you take me "seriously" is a matter of physics and chemistry not an article. Regardless of the truth of any article I give you, if it doesn't stimulate you're brain in such a way to give you a "true" signal (whatever that could be), then it's just not true for you.

Why? Can you talk me through why it being a matter of physics and chemistry necessarily implies it cannot also lead to me knowing something?

Let us suppose you are right... Can you then give me a link to an article that supports your position? Or is this really just a dodge to avoid having to present any evidence? Given your last sentence, it would appear to be the latter.

Assuming the materiality of consciousness/thoughts etc... you don't know it's "erroneous", you're merely outputing that out of necessity of physics and chemistry

Because

Matter =/= The fact of the matter

This is like supposing a map cannot exist. It is just ink on paper; the ink on paper is the matter, it clearly cannot be the fact of the matter, i.e., a map of somewhere.

I think maps can and do exist. I think they are matter, but at the same time contain information about different matter. Just like the computer you are using is made of matter, but at the same time can hold information about matter too.

I appreciate the chat, but I'm done.

Yeah, best quit now, before having to actually present any evidence.

Or indeed make clear exactly what your position is.