No, the first-person "reports" are just what they say after the event, which could be entirely fabricated or otherwise mistaken, with no possible way of checking, so it counts for nothing. — S

There’s no way of verifying your model either.

We normally only see clearly only at about the size of a deck of cards held at arm’s length (Try looking just a little away and the clarity goes way down)—this is the center of the tunnel which is caused by neuronal stripes. I am not really dying to go down the tunnel… — PoeticUniverse

I have 20/10 vision. Speak for yourself.

mental modes that give rise to consciousness. — PoeticUniverse

That is speculative actually.

No, it's not my interpretation, it's my reasonable conclusion. Do you have a way of verifying their "report"? Yes or no? If yes, explain. If no, then it counts for nothing, as opposed to evidence in favour of one possibility over others.

Oops, replied to the wrong comment above. Nevermind.

No, it's not my interpretation, it's my reasonable conclusion. Do you have a way of verifying their "report"? Yes or no? If yes, explain. If no, then it counts for nothing, as opposed to evidence in favour of one possibility over others. — S

No, I cannot verify their report, and that’s the point. Consciousness is only accessible to the self.

If there's no means of verification, then it counts for nothing. You accept that, then? Because I was under the impression that you wanted to count it as evidence. But it can't be counted as evidence, because it could be fabricated or mistaken.

If there's no means of verification, then it counts for nothing. You accept that, then? Because I was under the impression that you wanted to count it as evidence. But it can't be, because it could be fabricated or mistaken. — S

It’s evidence to the people who experience it, and to doubt so many accounts just shows that you may be projecting your psychopathic behaviors onto others. A lot of atheists are psychopaths. Not all of them, but there is strong evidence that you are one.

What's "my model"? I haven't made the same claims as Terrapin,by the way. Although I did somewhat rhetorically raise the question of whether there's any credible evidence of consciousness without a functioning brain. That link definitely counts for something, and it can indeed be verified.

What's "my model"? I haven't made the same claims as Terrapin, but I did somewhat rhetorically raise the question of whether there's any credible evidence of consciousness without a functioning brain. That link definitely counts for something, and it can indeed be verified. — S

It’s evidence to the people who experience it, and to doubt so many accounts just shows that you may be projecting your psychopathic behaviors onto others. A lot of atheists are psychopaths. Not all of them, but there is strong evidence that you are one. — Noah Te Stroete

First of all i don´t mean no disrespect. And also sorry for my English, it is not my native language.

What i have to say is: what are these questions of mind and matter mingled with idealism and materialism?
Matter is being purchased by physics, well advanced and on tracks. Mind is a definition still very unclear and unknown (I believe that psychology is a form of witchcraft, we understand almost nothing of the brain, much lesser that we understand matter - and this is fine, brain is a lot of matter interacting, so first we need to understand basic matter).

On the other hand, idealism is a concept, a construction of the so called mind. Also as materialism. They are just consensual taxonomy.

Maybe all of this is correlated, but at this point of humanity, how in the world can you demonstrate it?

Just imagine how Kierkegaard perceived gravity or aspirin.

Maybe it is me that I´m limited, but I can even start to make sense of your questions....

That link definitely counts for something, and it can indeed be verified — S

It cannot be verified that consciousness only occurs in functioning brains.

They are just consensual taxonomy. — James Pullman

I think you understand quite well.

I'm going to ignore the nonsense about psychopathy, besides this brief mention of it.

"It's evidence for them" is so lame a response as to be laughable, and noting the number of accounts is a fallacious appeal to the masses. Lots of people claim to have seen a ghost, too.

"It's evidence for them" is so lame a response as to be laughable, and noting the number of accounts is a fallacious appeal to the masses. Lots of people claim to have seen a ghost, too. — S

Many people have encountered UFOs. Quite frequently and ongoing among Air Force pilots. They are first-person accounts. They may be mistaken, or there may be something else.

That's not a claim that I've made, and is therefore irrelevant. I am not Terrapin Station.

"It's evidence for them" is so lame a response as to be laughable, — S

Laughable how? Because you haven’t experienced it? Because it doesn’t fit with your scientism?

You mean that they've encountered flying objects that they've been unable to identify? Big deal. That just means that they've encountered flying objects that they've been unable to identify, and nothing else.

You mean that they've encountered flying objects that they've been unable to identify? Big deal. That just means that they've encountered flying objects that they've been unable to identify, and nothing else. — S

And you don’t think they speculate? You don’t think many of these intelligent men and women have certain beliefs about their experiences?

Because it's meaningless, i.e. counts for nothing, to anyone who i) isn't that person, and ii) has their wits about them.

Yes I know what you mean, but it´s this kind of questions, posed this way, that drives good "minds" from looking for the answers

Because it's meaningless, i.e. counts for nothing, to anyone who i) isn't that person, and ii) has their wits about them. — S

That’s my point. It may be meaningless to you, but it’s not meaningless to them. That’s the very essence/nature of consciousness.

It doesn't matter one way or the other! That's precisely the point. Speculation like that counts for little-to-nothing. I thought I had made that clear enough.

Yes I know what you mean, but it´s this kind of questions, posed this way, that drives good "minds" from looking for the answers — James Pullman

I’m always looking for answers. That’s why I’m on this forum in part. I bounce ideas off people and see what comes of it.

I don't care, and have no reason to care, because I'm not a gullible fool.

It doesn't matter one way or the other! — S

That’s a sad view. Phenomenology counts, IMO

So you want to ply a little, or is this boring for you? Do you want a good question or a twisted idea?

Phenomenology?! You were talking about speculation about UFO's. Quit trying to give this conspiracy theory bullshit a visage of credibility.

So you want to ply a little, or is this boring for you? Do you want a good question or a twisted idea? — James Pullman

This is leading nowhere. It’s getting tiresome. I’m thinking about taking another two months off of this forum because I can’t deal with Dawkins-loving psychopaths.

Ok, I will leave you with this....

“Nothing is more despicable than respect based on fear.”
Albert Camus

Of the Concern in Being Good

The stage of complete freedom is a place where the being perceives himself under the realization that to nothing owes genuine interest. It is a peculiar form of consciousness, aware of its finitude, random and devoid from probabilistic gender. It is a result of the evolutionary process and the interaction with everything that with it coexists. In a way, being becomes fervently desirable and undeniable. By this, comes the fact that morality, as a concept, is a skilful tool of self-manipulation, and whose derivative fear is counternature and subject to deconstruction. The concern to be good is an artifice that relieves the burden of being. It is also the result of yearning for non-existence.

and who the fuck is Dawkins??