Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:41 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:I did not say that it is not fully subjective. :) In fact, I was pointing out that YOU did not say that.


Actually, I said it was "a little subjective" and "not much subjective."
You fail to provide the quote. Why is that? :lol:

I'm not claiming that you have been consistent.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:06 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:You replied that it IS NOT objective.
You replied that it IS subjective. Not that it is not fully subjective, but that it IS subjective.
It IS subjective. It IS NOT objective.
That does not mean somewhere in the middle.


So, if it's not fully subjective, as you nicely bolded, and it is not objective, doesn't that mean it should fall somewhere between fully subjective and fully objective? I.e., on a spectrum?

Scott Mayers wrote:But when it comes to seeking truth, the only means to do this is to observe things subjectively while the concept of 'objectivity' is only a convention of agreement amongst some accepted group of subjective observers.


Exactly. Though, there are tools and methods we can use to more closely approximate "objective" values (e.g., an atomic clock vs. counting in your head).



Here Canadian Skeptic agrees that the only means is subjective. Non-objective.
This position is maintained in his other claims; that it is not objective and that it is subjective.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:17 pm

clarifyit4me wrote:(...)...He is trying to describe the real in the unreal. Himself, in the dream. Only through lack of experience he misunderstands.

There is no object subject, these are just mental constructs thought and imagined and are unrelated to the real. If you get to involved in the subject object nexus you will inevitably contradict yourself...(...)


As he has already - he's fouled himself...and it smells rather awfully :lol:


Canadian Skeptic wrote:
Cygnus wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:So SweetPea, you aren't willing to clarify if you believe that a little subjectivity could equal objectivity? That the two concepts are not mutually exclusive?

This strikes me as going down the same 'escape by semantics' route....maybe someone should call it the Bill Clinton method...that was used in the original consciousness thread.

Clearly, subjective is the opposite of objective.
I agree. SweetPea, however, appears to think that an objective truth can also be a little subjective
:)

He even tries to attribute the smell he's emanating, to me.


Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:Thus it's not objective. You are doing just what Cygnus said.
You're right. It's not objective. And that's exactly what I said it was.
Last edited by SweetPea on Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:42 pm

SweetPea wrote:Here Canadian Skeptic agrees that the only means is subjective. Non-objective.
This position is maintained in his other claims; that it is not objective and that it is subjective.


Subjective. Not "fully subjective." You wouldn't be trying to deceive people, would you?

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:50 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:Here Canadian Skeptic agrees that the only means is subjective. Non-objective.
This position is maintained in his other claims; that it is not objective and that it is subjective.


Subjective. Not "fully subjective." You wouldn't be trying to deceive people, would you?

Nope. You said "subjective". You claimed that It's not objective and it is subjective.

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
Cygnus wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:So SweetPea, you aren't willing to clarify if you believe that a little subjectivity could equal objectivity? That the two concepts are not mutually exclusive?
This strikes me as going down the same 'escape by semantics' route....maybe someone should call it the Bill Clinton method...that was used in the original consciousness thread.

Clearly, subjective is the opposite of objective.
I agree. SweetPea, however, appears to think that an objective truth can also be a little subjective
:lol:

Canadian Skeptic wrote:However, in a discipline such as physics, I don’t think there actually is a lot of subjectivity in a measurement such as “this object took X seconds to fall Y metres
:lol:
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:02 pm

Canadian Skeptic, I think you have been fooling yourself - and contradicting yourself, necessarily, under examination.

That's OK, but it's not OK to try to implicate me in your confusion, and attribute to me what you said.

Time to put on some big boy pants. :)
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:25 pm

SweetPea wrote:Nope. You said "subjective". You claimed that It's not objective and it is subjective.


Indeed. But I didn't say fully subjective, now did I? Come now SweetPea, isn't it about time you gave this up? You're clearly stretching as far as you can go.

Time to grow up.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:39 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:Nope. You said "subjective". You claimed that It's not objective and it is subjective.


Indeed. But I didn't say fully subjective, now did I? Come now SweetPea, isn't it about time you gave this up? You're clearly stretching as far as you can go.

Time to grow up.


You did not say "fully subjective". In fact, earlier as you attempted to confuse the issue to match your own state, I BOLDED that, showing that you had not.


:lol:

You claimed subjective, and not objective - not to say that you have not contradicted yourself, though!
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:50 pm

SweetPea wrote:You did not say "fully subjective"..


Exactly! That's precisely what I'm saying, my silly little friend: subjective, but not fully subjective. A spectrum.

Once again, you've confused yourself. Are you willing to -- again -- admit you made a mistake?

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:51 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
Cygnus wrote:Clearly, subjective is the opposite of objective.


I agree. SweetPea, however, appears to think that an objective truth can also be a little subjective


:lol: Your confusion and attempts to attribute to me what you're claiming, is enjoyable.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:54 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:You did not say "fully subjective"..


Exactly! That's precisely what I'm saying, my silly little friend: subjective, but not fully subjective.


You did NOT say "not fully subjective". You said "subjective".

Not that I'm claiming that you have been consistent. Not that you haven't contradicted yourself.
Last edited by SweetPea on Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:58 pm

SweetPea wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:You did not say "fully subjective"..


Exactly! That's precisely what I'm saying, my silly little friend: subjective, but not fully subjective.


You did NOT say "not fully subjective". Yuo said "subjective>

Not that I'm claiming that you have been consistent. Not that you haven't contradicted yourself.T


So I didn't say fully subjective. And I didn't say not fully subjective (though I also didn't say not not fully subjective, or even not not not fully subjective). I did say a spectrum.

Where do you suppose that leaves us?

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:00 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:You did not say "fully subjective"..


Exactly! That's precisely what I'm saying, my silly little friend: subjective, but not fully subjective.


You did NOT say "not fully subjective". Yuo said "subjective>

Not that I'm claiming that you have been consistent. Not that you haven't contradicted yourself.T


So I didn't say fully subjective. And I didn't say not fully subjective (though I also didn't say not not fully subjective, or even not not not fully subjective). I did say a spectrum.

Where do you suppose that leaves us?
With you caught in contradiction all over the place and trying to attribute your confused position to me.

Canadian Skeptic wrote: agree. SweetPea, however, appears to think that an objective truth can also be a little subjective
:lol:
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:06 pm

SweetPea wrote:With you caught in contradiction all over the place and trying to attribute your confused position to me.


Bahaha, poor SweetPea, pulling at straws. I haven't contradicted a thing. It's fairly evident that you are, in fact, extremely confused. It's okay though, perhaps it'll make more sense when you complete grade school in a few years.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:11 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:You seem to think that something can be a little subjective and also objective. I guess that's fine if you see nothing wrong with that.


:lol:
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:21 pm

And yet you can't point out where I said observations are objective. You must be confused again :lol:

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:37 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:And yet you can't point out where I said observations are objective. You must be confused again :lol:

I don't claim that you had. Why then, would I need to point it out? :lol:

Truly pathetic antics by Canadian Skeptic.
All his rat holes covered by Sweetpea.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:53 pm

SweetPea wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:Hey, if you don't think there's anything odd about thinking something can be slightly subjective but also fully objective at the same time, that's your prerogative.
I never said anything like that. What a pathetic ploy.


Didn't you, though?

First, you said that you agree with the statement, "not much subjectivity = objectivity."
That's a lie you just told. You did not use a quotation - because you are lying.


SweetPea wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:Not much subjectivity = objectivity?
Right!

Classic SweetPea. :lol:

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:13 pm

It is classic. Thanks.

Under examination you insisted that it's not what you meant, and I accepted that plea from you.


SweetPea wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote: However, in a discipline such as physics, I don’t think there actually is a lot of subjectivity in a measurement such as “this object took X seconds to fall Y metres
You have unable to give the "correct" reading.
The answer: that there is some subjectivity in a measurement such as “this object took X seconds to fall Y metres."

Thus it's not objective. You are doing just what Cygnus said


Margaret Atwood wrote:How furious she must be, now that she's been taken at her word
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:43 pm

SweetPea wrote:It is classic. Thanks.

Under examination you insisted that it's not what you meant, and I accepted that plea from you.


And if you had read, you would have recognized my meaning from the very beginning, instead of having to go through this whole embarrassing exercise for you. :lol:

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:50 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:It is classic. Thanks.

Under examination you insisted that it's not what you meant, and I accepted that plea from you.


And if you had read, you would have recognized my meaning from the very beginning, instead of having to go through this whole embarrassing exercise for you. :lol:


If I had not presented you with your apparent claim, and gotten your plea, you would not have been so well exposed as in a mess of contradiction and false statements. :lol:
Dat's how it goes.

Messy pants by Canadian Skeptic
Disinfection by SweetPea
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:55 pm

SweetPea wrote:If I had not presented you with your apparent claim, and gotten your plea, you would not have been so well exposed as in a mess of contradiction and false statements. :lol:
Dat's how it goes.

Messy pants by Canadian Skeptic
Disinfection by SweetPea


And yet, you haven't identified a single contradiction. Someone be lyin!

I think that crap on your hands might be your own ;)

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:58 pm

:lol:
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 8:00 pm

:roll:

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 8:08 pm

I think I can understand your motivation for denial of the facts.

Now if you want to untangle yourself, to understand the faults of one of your positions (your position re: how it's a mix of subjective and objective), Scott and Cygnus have your number.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Scott Mayers » Thu Apr 17, 2014 8:09 pm

My head is spinning a little trying to figure out what is intended by the present dispute regarding perspectives [objective/subjective]. I suggest the following:

Think of the terms as they were originated to describe the ideas here. The term, 'jacere' was of a Latin form meaning "to throw" and had evolved to be used in the those days to describe tossing out an idea or suggestion based upon one's opinions without much thought when used with the prefix, 'con-' meaning, "with". In logic and grammar, the idea to for using sub- and ob- to describe a closed proposition, named thing or idea 'thrown out' (-jecture -> which evolves to 'gesture' in our day) was an arbitrary designation to represent the position of each proposition as we use them.

In, 'All A are B', for instance, A and B are propositions or what comes to us in grammar as 'named things or ideas' (nouns). The A, in this case, was labeled the sub-ject while the second became, ob-ject. The idea is only to show that the connection within a sentence originates by starting at the proposition 'before' or 'underlying' the meaning of the sentence and leads "to" [ob-] that proposition which follows the stating or acting comparison between the two (the verb, operation, or comparative words).

Just as you can start with any proposition, it is arbitrary to assert any idea as being necessarily a subjective or an objective concept since they are dependent upon the way we use them within a sentence ('sentence' is derived as any statement or argument written or spoken that makes "sense"). You always require both to connect two or more ideas; but subjects are always at minimum needed first and foremost while objects are not always needed in order to completely make sense of something.

"Scott types." [no object necessary; subject always necessary]
(Note that though we might say, "Go away." and make sense of this without the subject stated, it is understood in context to actually mean, "(you, who I am speaking to,) go away." But without context to a subject understood prior to stating, "Loves Shannon," means nothing without knowing what or who the subject is.)

Subjects are determinate or determinable while objects can be either known or indeterminate. For the object to be determinate, it still must depend upon the subject.

In modern uses, we often use the term, 'object' to refer generically to the idea of a proposition which may sometimes confuse people. This use makes sense since even a subject is an object of the set of possible things out there in the environment that we can use. A subject is particular while the object is general.

Without going into writing a book here, my point is to show that the ideas of objectivity and subjectivity are both logical concepts that we cannot do without to describe perspectives in communicating reality. However, what seems to have become the problems in arguments, as in this thread, is that one favors one perspective over the other. This favoring is an emotional judgment regarding a preference for determining truth. In this way, we are trying to determine the value of a claim of truth as either a particular bias or a generally accepted idea. We usually place objectivity in this meaning as a value we aim for because it means that everyone can participate in its discovery while any one's particular experience is insufficient to assure it is agreed to by all.

Respecting logic, however, the question is whether if we have no subjective observer at all, can we assert anything sensible about reality without it? Of course, if no subject exists, something cannot make 'sense' as I've pointed out above. But this does not assure that if there is no subjective observer, that it means that sense itself cannot exist. We are bound to create the terms we use to describe reality by our egoistic perspective and so even the term, "sense" ( = intellectual understanding) implies the need to "sense" ( = the capacity to see, hear, feel, taste, or think). But even if we used our normal understanding that we cannot truly physically sense another person's perspective, we know that just because we aren't capable of perceiving it, we know that the 'other' exists and can make statements of credible sense whether you are there to witness it or not. (You could even be dead or unborn, for instance.) So, we can reasonably infer by extension that even logical realities can exist without a person there to pass judgment upon it.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 8:12 pm

SweetPea wrote:I think I can understand your motivation for denial of the facts.

Now if you want to untangle yourself, to understand the faults of one of your positions (your position re: how it's a mix of subjective and objective), Scott and Cygnus have your number.


As I can understand your motivation for lies, deceptive rhetoric and general evasiveness.

If you want to untangle yourself from your numerous contradictions and devious wordplay, the entire forum has your number.

By the way, I rather think Scott and I agree, and Cygnus and I shared at least some common ground. Your ploys, however, remain uniquely within the filth of your own deceit.

:lol:

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 8:22 pm

How furious she must be now that she's been taken at her word.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 8:30 pm

SweetPea wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:Not much subjectivity = objectivity?
Right!


:lol:

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 8:37 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:Not much subjectivity = objectivity?
Right!


:lol:
That's perfect, thanks.
I accepted your plea that it's not what you meant.

How furious she must be, now that she's been taken at her word
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:35 pm

Now let's get down to some of your beliefs, Canadian Skeptic.

Is it your belief that Bayesian probability determines the status of a statement wrt it's objective status?
Last edited by SweetPea on Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:37 pm

SweetPea wrote:That's perfect, thanks.


You're welcome! I enjoyed the opportunity to illustrate your self-contradictions and deceit :)

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:40 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:That's perfect, thanks.


You're welcome! I enjoyed the opportunity to illustrate your self-contradictions and deceit :)

But it doesn't do what you wish.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Scott Mayers » Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:47 pm

Sweetpea, may I suggest that you initially check out http://www.clearerthinking.org/ and click the lesson under Probabilistic Fallacies to test the usefulness and rationality of Bayes' Rule.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:03 pm

SweetPea wrote:But it doesn't do what you wish.


I beg to differ! :lol:

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:16 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:But it doesn't do what you wish.


I beg to differ! :lol:
That's where you go wrong again. That was my interpretation of what you were saying. :) When you insisted it was not, I accepted that it was not. Simple.
It does not do what you wish it did
lies, deceptive rhetoric and general evasiveness.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:33 pm

SweetPea wrote:That was my interpretation of what you were saying.


Finally, the root of the problem! Your interpretation ;)

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:40 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:That was my interpretation of what you were saying.


Finally, the root of the problem! Your interpretation ;)
Of course it was my interpretation. Who else's could it have been?

What the incident does show is that you are attempting a deceit in presenting it as if it shows lies, deceit and evasiveness.
Though I asked repeatedly for your alternative, you were evasive. :)
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:14 pm

SweetPea wrote:Of course it was my interpretation. Who else's could it have been?


There you go misinterpreting again. The emphasis wasn't on it being your interpretation, but rather on your interpretation being wrong. Confused again?

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:47 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:Of course it was my interpretation. Who else's could it have been?


There you go misinterpreting again. The emphasis wasn't on it being your interpretation, but rather on your interpretation being wrong. Confused again?
My interpretations are not wrong. Different than what you say you mean.
It does not show what you wish.
That you pretend that this shows
lies, deceptive rhetoric and general evasiveness.
demonstrates your attempt at deceit, and the incident shows that you were evasive.

Two out of three ain't bad - but not the way you wished. :lol:
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest