The Illusion of Self

[DBT]

Some know more about the brain.

Which most certainly is not you.

I can't make a living at it. I can't write books about it.

But I can judge bad research methodology.

You as someone who professes to value qualifications, yet has no qualifications in neuroscience are not in a position to judge.

You as someone who is not qualified are not in a position to judge the work of those who are.

Pharmacy is not neuroscience.

You have no relevant qualifications.

 

[untermensche]

I clearly have more qualifications than you.

I understand that a wild guess about the precise time an invisible "urge" begins is not objective evidence.

You have no clue about the matter.

 

[fromderinside]

Really? You have more qualifications than DBT? Then why aren't they appearing in your "a little more about me" bucket in your member information?

Ashamed?

Making claims for unreferenced attributes seems to be a characteristic of yours.

 

[untermensche]

Really? You have more qualifications than DBT? Then why aren't they appearing in your "a little more about me" bucket in your member information?

Ashamed?

Making claims for unreferenced attributes seems to be a characteristic of yours.

I clearly have more qualifications than ANYONE who claims wild guesses about the precise moment an invisible "urge" begins are objective data.

 

[fromderinside]

Making claims for unreferenced attributes seems to be a characteristic of yours.

I clearly have more qualifications than ANYONE who claims wild guesses about the precise moment an invisible "urge" begins are objective data.

So you aren't denying unreferenced attributes are a characteristic of yours.

great.

Moving forward ....

 

[DBT]

I clearly have more qualifications than you.

I understand that a wild guess about the precise time an invisible "urge" begins is not objective evidence.

You have no clue about the matter.

As it happens that I have not given in to your demand for qualifications, you have no idea of what my qualifications are. I won't say because it is none of your goddamn business.

You are using qualifications as a ploy, even while you, yourself have no qualifications in the field. A pharmacist is not a neuroscientist, which means that you have no relevant qualifications, that you are not qualified to dismiss the work of qualified researchers in neuroscience.

Yet you do. You as an unqualified commentator flippantly dismiss the work and analysis of those who are qualified.

Even when your error is pointed out numerous times, you persist. You persist in the assumption that you as an unqualified commentator can dismiss research, carried out by professionals in the field, that doesn't comply with your own beliefs.

 

[untermensche]

Making claims for unreferenced attributes seems to be a characteristic of yours.

I clearly have more qualifications than ANYONE who claims wild guesses about the precise moment an invisible "urge" begins are objective data.

So you aren't denying unreferenced attributes are a characteristic of yours.

great.

Moving forward ....

I attribute whenever it is needed and rational to do so.

Unlike some who do it ignorantly as a smokescreen to hide bad ideas.

 

[untermensche]

I clearly have more qualifications than you.

I understand that a wild guess about the precise time an invisible "urge" begins is not objective evidence.

You have no clue about the matter.

As it happens that I have not given in to your demand for qualifications, you have no idea of what my qualifications are. I won't say because it is none of your goddamn business.

You are using qualifications as a ploy, even while you, yourself have no qualifications in the field. A pharmacist is not a neuroscientist, which means that you have no relevant qualifications, that you are not qualified to dismiss the work of qualified researchers in neuroscience.

Yet you do. You as an unqualified commentator flippantly dismiss the work and analysis of those who are qualified.

Even when your error is pointed out numerous times, you persist. You persist in the assumption that you as an unqualified commentator can dismiss research, carried out by professionals in the field, that doesn't comply with your own beliefs.

You are not qualified to comment on anything I say.

You don't have any qualifications in any real world activity as far as I can see.

The error is the absurdity that wild guesses about invisible events are objective data.

But you are totally unqualified and can't understand that.

I could just as easily teach a pig calculus.

 

[fromderinside]

So you aren't denying unreferenced attributes are a characteristic of yours.

great.

Moving forward ....

I attribute whenever it is needed and rational to do so.

Unlike some who do it ignorantly as a smokescreen to hide bad ideas.

Ah, the nub. One created an empirically based response, even citing experimental literature and findings. But my doing that the other proclaims is a smokescreen. It is a smokescreen because...?

As far as I can tell you think so because it runs counter to your self declarations.

Yup. I'm on pretty safe material grounds here. What happens if you change your mind?

 

[untermensche]

It is a philosophical issue whether a wild guess about the timing of invisible events is objective or subjective.

No bad study from people who must publish or be out of work will give you the answer.

The vast majority of published "science" is garbage that is forgotten very quickly and useful in only allowing people to keep their University gig.

30 years of intensive research of the brain all over the world has not helped stroke victims in any way.

Presently Neuroscience has absolutely nothing to say about the phenomena of experience.

It is not understood at all.

And some have gone mad and claim experience does not exist as they experience the screen fill with their words of absurdity.

I wonder how those people who claim they can't experience have access to the words I write?

 

[DBT]

Unlike some who do it ignorantly as a smokescreen to hide bad ideas.

That describes you. You are the one who rejects the work of qualified researchers because you feel that your ideas are better. You, being unqualified, hide behind your bad ideas while flippantly dismissing decades of research and analysis by experts in their field.

I on the other hand refer to the research and point to the results.....which you reject because you feel like you know better.

 

[fromderinside]

OK. The following is going into the piss pot.

It is a philosophical issue whether a wild guess about the timing of invisible events is objective or subjective.

It is not a philosophical issue whether ones claim of a wild guess about empirically determined timing of operationally defined and materially measured events is objective or subjective.

The only problem here is that one is juxtaposing a philosophical construction around an empirical observation by substituting 'wild guess' for operationally defined empirically determined measurement. It is clearly an objective statement.

The rest of your tirade is not even suitable for pig slop.

Even politicians cringe at such statements.

 

[DBT]

I clearly have more qualifications than you.

I understand that a wild guess about the precise time an invisible "urge" begins is not objective evidence.

You have no clue about the matter.

As it happens that I have not given in to your demand for qualifications, you have no idea of what my qualifications are. I won't say because it is none of your goddamn business.

You are using qualifications as a ploy, even while you, yourself have no qualifications in the field. A pharmacist is not a neuroscientist, which means that you have no relevant qualifications, that you are not qualified to dismiss the work of qualified researchers in neuroscience.

Yet you do. You as an unqualified commentator flippantly dismiss the work and analysis of those who are qualified.

Even when your error is pointed out numerous times, you persist. You persist in the assumption that you as an unqualified commentator can dismiss research, carried out by professionals in the field, that doesn't comply with your own beliefs.

You are not qualified to comment on anything I say.

You don't have any qualifications in any real world activity as far as I can see.

The error is the absurdity that wild guesses about invisible events are objective data.

But you are totally unqualified and can't understand that.

I could just as easily teach a pig calculus.

''You are not qualified to comment on anything I say. You don't have any qualifications in any real world activity as far as I can see.''

I have qualifications, just not neuroscience. I have no reason to cater to your demands. You are no more qualified than me. I can support everything I post on the subject by citing studies and and analysis by researcher in the field....something that you are not.

Neither of us are.

Which does not stop you from rejecting not what only I say (which is supported) but actual research carried out by those who are qualified, which you are not.

Can you not see the absurdity of your position?

 

[untermensche]

I have qualifications, just not neuroscience.

Anybody who can read can understand one study.

What makes a specialist is their width and depth of knowledge.

But all a person needs is a tiny bit of training to know that wild subjective guesses about the precise timing of the start of invisible "urges" is not objective data.

 

[DBT]

I have qualifications, just not neuroscience.

Anybody who can read can understand one study.

What makes a specialist is their width and depth of knowledge.

But all a person needs is a tiny bit of training to know that wild subjective guesses about the precise timing of the start of invisible "urges" is not objective data.

Sour grapes. It is clear to any objective reader that it is you (being unqualified) who rejects the work and analysis (you are on record) of those who are qualified, even while asserting your own beliefs. Extremely poor form.

 

[untermensche]

I have qualifications, just not neuroscience.

Anybody who can read can understand one study.

What makes a specialist is their width and depth of knowledge.

But all a person needs is a tiny bit of training to know that wild subjective guesses about the precise timing of the start of invisible "urges" is not objective data.

Sour grapes. It is clear to any objective reader that it is you (being unqualified) who rejects the work and analysis (you are on record) of those who are qualified, even while asserting your own beliefs. Extremely poor form.

Delusion.

You want to pretend your ignorance is not your ignorance.

You don't comprehend the difference between objective evidence and subjective evidence.

You are clearly not qualified to comment on this matter and are nothing but a pest.

 

[DBT]

Sour grapes. It is clear to any objective reader that it is you (being unqualified) who rejects the work and analysis (you are on record) of those who are qualified, even while asserting your own beliefs. Extremely poor form.

Delusion.

You want to pretend your ignorance is not your ignorance.

You don't comprehend the difference between objective evidence and subjective evidence.

You are clearly not qualified to comment on this matter and are nothing but a pest.

Chew on this, sweety:

Mind, Brain and Consciousness:

''Ask yourself, is the functioning brain identical to the mind? If your answer is no, you are a closet dualist. You believe that brain and mind are made of different kinds of stuff. Such a stance will make it hard for you to understand the nature of consciousness. It will make the mental aspects of our lives mysterious and unknowable.

I am a working neurologist who sees brain disease causing mental dysfunction every day. Take the case of Representative Gabrielle Giffords. If she does not recover pretty much full brain function, her mental states will be altered, and she may not be able to function in Congress as she did before the bullet damaged her brain. If the bullet had done more damage than it apparently did, she might not now be fully conscious. Hopefully she will recover. There is the famous case of Phineas Gage, however, in which brain damage to the frontal lobes of the brain by a railroad spike turned a sober, hard-working man into a lout. His mind was altered because his brain was altered. He was a different person after that spike went through his brain.


''As a neurologist, I contend that consciousness is nothing more than the ability of our brain to acquire information (which is the state of being awake) AND all the content that the information contains AND the ability to get all that information into and out of memory. The key word is "ALL". If you have all that, you are conscious of the blue sky and the red sun. Nothing more is needed to be conscious of that beautiful sky. My contention is that the brain can do all that, and, therefore, a functioning brain is identical to a conscious mind. That makes me a materialist and not a dualist.''

 

[untermensche]

The guy is an MD.

He is not a Neuroscientist.

He has no credibility.

As a neurologist, I contend that consciousness is nothing more than the ability of our brain to acquire information (which is the state of being awake) AND all the content that the information contains AND the ability to get all that information into and out of memory.

He contends.

Worthless opinion.

He does not have the first clue what consciousness is.

Knowing you are seeing a rabbit is more than having information. It is a thing that knows it has information.

He is nothing but a neurologist and does not have one study to tell him what consciousness is.

Your continual hero worship of bad opinion is noted.

 

[fromderinside]

I love the way the author used 'information' don't you DBT?

 

[DBT]

The guy is an MD.

He is not a Neuroscientist.

He has no credibility.

As a neurologist, I contend that consciousness is nothing more than the ability of our brain to acquire information (which is the state of being awake) AND all the content that the information contains AND the ability to get all that information into and out of memory.

He contends.

Worthless opinion.

He does not have the first clue what consciousness is.

Knowing you are seeing a rabbit is more than having information. It is a thing that knows it has information.

He is nothing but a neurologist and does not have one study to tell him what consciousness is.

Your continual hero worship of bad opinion is noted.

Ahem, from the article: ''Jacob Sage, M.D., is Professor of Neurology at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. His latest book is Mind, Brain, and Consciousness.''

Your response was completely predictable.

You being unqualified in the field of neuroscience reject the work and analysis of a Professor of Neurology.