The Illusion of Self

[untermensche]

You think the timing of subjective guesses about invisible events can be done with accuracy.

What is your background?

If it is laughable then that explains a lot.

My background is none of your business. Resorting to ad homs means that you have lost the argument. Not that you had one to begin with. Why don't you answer questions? What do you believe is the connection between brain and mind? Do you believe the brain is the receiver of cosmic consciousness? A ghost in the machine? What do you believe? Can you not give a clear account of your beliefs?

There is no ad hominem in that.

That is the problem.

You can't even seem to understand the most simple things.

You merely ape things you don't understand.

What is your background?

Your evasions are very curious.

To me you are someone who can't defend a thing you say beyond "It was the conclusion of the researcher so therefore I believe it without question".

 

[DBT]

You think the timing of subjective guesses about invisible events can be done with accuracy.

What is your background?

If it is laughable then that explains a lot.

My background is none of your business. Resorting to ad homs means that you have lost the argument. Not that you had one to begin with. Why don't you answer questions? What do you believe is the connection between brain and mind? Do you believe the brain is the receiver of cosmic consciousness? A ghost in the machine? What do you believe? Can you not give a clear account of your beliefs?

There is no ad hominem in that.

That is the problem.

You can't even seem to understand the most simple things.

You merely ape things you don't understand.

What is your background?

Your evasions are very curious.

To me you are someone who can't defend a thing you say beyond "It was the conclusion of the researcher so therefore I believe it without question".

Ad hominem literally means directed at the man. Demanding personal information in a debate (that's being generous), rather than dealing the point of the argument, is by definition an ad hom.

I shouldn't have to explain the basics for your benefit. You should know the rules. You have no business demanding personal information, which I have no reason to provide you with.

All you have to is address the points and issues as they are raised. But clearly you know that, just like any objective reader can clearly see through your ploy.

 

[untermensche]

A person who does nothing but kiss the ass of researchers and spew their claims as if they are holy scripture is lacking education.

Guesses about the time an invisible "urge" to move begins is not objective data and never will be objective data.

If you don't see that there must be reasons.

No education is one.

 

[fromderinside]

Untermensche we react to you because you spout from your arse as if it was scripture.

Why would one call conducting a psychophysical study without analysis of the method as guesses?

Ah yes. You wrote it. "No education is one."

 

[DBT]

A person who does nothing but kiss the ass of researchers and spew their claims as if they are holy scripture is lacking education.

Guesses about the time an invisible "urge" to move begins is not objective data and never will be objective data.

If you don't see that there must be reasons.

No education is one.

Now you are showing your true colours.

According to what you say, qualified researchers who work diligently towards gaining a better understanding of brain, mind and consciousness are "are ignoranty spewing claims" and anyone who refers to their research is "uneducated."

While you, yourself by inference are at the height of enlightenment and education...and there we have it.

 

[untermensche]

Untermensche we react to you because you spout from your arse as if it was scripture.

Why would one call conducting a psychophysical study without analysis of the method as guesses?

Ah yes. You wrote it. "No education is one."

Just speak for yourSELF.

You do not speak for any "we".

I know you want to hide in some crowd to pretend to bolster your third rate conclusions.

 

[untermensche]

A person who does nothing but kiss the ass of researchers and spew their claims as if they are holy scripture is lacking education.

Guesses about the time an invisible "urge" to move begins is not objective data and never will be objective data.

If you don't see that there must be reasons.

No education is one.

Now you are showing your true colours.

According to what you say, qualified researchers who work diligently towards gaining a better understanding of brain, mind and consciousness are "are ignoranty spewing claims" and anyone who refers to their research is "uneducated."

While you, yourself by inference are at the height of enlightenment and education...and there we have it.

The conclusions of Einstein were doubted and evidence was needed before anything he concluded was believed.

I question your background because you don't seem to comprehend the real world of scientific research.

EVERYTHING is questioned. Every claim and conclusion made by researchers is continually questioned.

And when research includes wild guesses about the precise time an invisible "urge" to move begins it is flawed research using subjective data.

 

[DBT]

A person who does nothing but kiss the ass of researchers and spew their claims as if they are holy scripture is lacking education.

Guesses about the time an invisible "urge" to move begins is not objective data and never will be objective data.

If you don't see that there must be reasons.

No education is one.

Now you are showing your true colours.

According to what you say, qualified researchers who work diligently towards gaining a better understanding of brain, mind and consciousness are "are ignoranty spewing claims" and anyone who refers to their research is "uneducated."

While you, yourself by inference are at the height of enlightenment and education...and there we have it.

The conclusions of Einstein were doubted and evidence was needed before anything he concluded was believed.

I question your background because you don't seem to comprehend the real world of scientific research.

EVERYTHING is questioned. Every claim and conclusion made by researchers is continually questioned.

And when research includes wild guesses about the precise time an invisible "urge" to move begins it is flawed research using subjective data.

Yep, clueless.

 

[untermensche]

You simply make me see you as someone not to take seriously with stupidity like that.

You worship the conclusions of researchers in the real world.

That is child-like behavior.

 

[DBT]

You simply make me see you as someone not to take seriously with stupidity like that.

You worship the conclusions of researchers in the real world.

That is child-like behavior.

Being stupid is to ignore or dismiss actual research into the brain function by qualified professionals, while peddling woo. Which is what you do. Speaking of qualifications, which you demand, you dismiss the research carried out by highly qualified professionals while you yourself quite obviously have no qualifications in neuroscience.

 

[untermensche]

It is not the research talking to you.

It is researchers making claims.

When they claim that wild guesses about the start of an invisible "urge" are objective data I laugh at the self delusion.

 

[fromderinside]

Signature of propagandist is to make emotion laden claims.

For instance: Untermensche proclaims

"When they [

Show

claim

] that [

Show

wild guesses

] about the start of

Show

[an invisible]

"urge" are objective data I [

Show

laugh at the self delusion

]."

4 Full up claim house.

 

[untermensche]

You are also making a claim.

You are making the laughable claim that subjective and wild guesses about the start of "urges" can be done with temporal precision.

Your claim makes you look foolish.

You can't support it in any way.

 

[fromderinside]

You just did it again. Where is your support for your made up statement of what you say I claimed?

 

[untermensche]

The support is the fact that "urges" are invisible and subjectively guessing about precisely when they begin is not objective data.

It is folly.

The guess is subjective.

Nothing can make it objective.

Even recording some arbitrary activity in the brain concurrently.

 

[fromderinside]

Here goes your education on the topic of addressing subjective using objective methods then.

Would you agree one's hearing limits are subjective?

Of course you would. No one can hear your hearing threshold - threshold is the minimum level of physical signal one can experience physical external physical stimuli - no one can see your visual threshold to red light. Those are subjective experiences helped along by ones internal noises like breathing and blood flow and adaptation to differing sense environments, all of which have been extensively studied and standardized since first measured in 1820s by tens of thousands of psychophysicists, published in millions of studies in thousands of refereed publications.

Yet we know that individual humans have hearing and visual limits and that those limits are more or less the same among normal hearing and seeing individuals whatever sex they may be.

Yet scientists claim humans can see light in the presence of as few as two to four photons striking a receptor cell in the retina¹ or hear sounds of as little amplitude as that causing the basilar membrane to move vertically by about one angstrom².

Ho can this be so? How can one specify limits of subjective experience so precisely in objective terms.

We can because about 200 years ago Ernst Weber (1834) found stimuli differences ( Weber-Fechner law ) could be described in terms of magnitude ratios. Shortly thereafter his student William Fechner (1850) normalized Weber's law

Thusly

'
Fechner's law states that the subjective sensation is proportional to the logarithm of the stimulus intensity. According to this law, human perceptions of sight and sound work as follows: Perceived loudness/brightness is proportional to logarithm of the actual intensity measured with an accurate nonhuman instrument.^[7]

.

1.

In 1972 Sakitt conducted an experiment that combined elements of signal detection and threshold theory. Two key elements of the study were a high tolerance for false positives and a multiple-choice option on deciding whether or not a light was seen. In the classic studies described above, the tolerance for false positives was so low that threshold was biased upward. Based on statistical analysis of a large number of trials, 6 photons each absorbed by one rod near-simultaneously looked "very bright," 5 photons looked "bright," 4 photons "a moderate light," 3 photons "a dim light." Two observers were able to see 2 photons as "slightly doubtful if a light was seen." One observer saw a single photon as "very doubtful if a light was seen." Zero photons were seen as "did not see anything."^[9][10][11]

2.

The threshold of hearing is generally reported as the RMSsound pressure of 20 μPa (micropascals) = 2×10⁻⁵pascal (Pa). It is approximately the quietest sound a young human with undamaged hearing can detect at 1,000 Hz.^[15] The threshold of hearing is frequency dependent and it has been shown that the ear's sensitivity is best at frequencies between 1 kHz and 5 kHz.^[15]

Whoopsie.

 

[untermensche]

Would you agree one's hearing limits are subjective?

They are not a wild guess because there is an actual stimulus but each subject will understand the faintest sounds differently.

In fact you could have some people claim to hear a faint sound when no sound occurred with the proper coaching.

Identical hearing tests if complex will yield different results between subjects.

threshold is the minimum level of physical signal one can experience physical external physical stimuli

You don't experience the stimulus. A cell is stimulated by it.

Vibrating air hits a thin membrane. The membrane vibrates as well.

You don't experience vibrating air or a vibrating membrane. You experience a sound.

Sound like color only exists as an experience.

Vibrating air is not sound. It is a stimulus that causes a brain to create the experience of sound.

It is another hand hitting another switch.

When the hand turns on the radio and the radio plays Led Zeppelin the hand did not give the radio information about Led Zeppelin.

A vibration is not passing information about sound.

It is stimulating the evolved brain to reflexively create the experience of sound.

no one can see your visual threshold to red light.

There is no such thing as red light.

There is energy that a brain turns into the experience of red.

And a person can say with much more accuracy when they perceive a stimulus than when they perceive an "urge".

But it is subjective information.

Yet we know that individual humans have hearing and visual limits and that those limits are more or less the same among normal hearing and seeing individuals whatever sex they may be.

All biological traits have scope and limits.

More or less the same means they are all slightly different. If you did complex hearing tests you would only find variation.

Variation is what drives evolution.

A random set of numbers has a mean and a standard deviation.

Statistics can be used to pretend variation is not what exists.

 

[DBT]

It is not the research talking to you.

It is researchers making claims.

When they claim that wild guesses about the start of an invisible "urge" are objective data I laugh at the self delusion.

No, that is your own claim.

You demand to see qualification even while you yourself have none.

Having no qualifications in the field, you flippantly dismiss the work of those who are qualified.

You do this because the research and the its results do not suit your own beliefs, which are not supported by the research.

 

[fromderinside]

They are not a wild guess because there is an actual stimulus but each subject will understand the faintest sounds differently.

Why do you presume that. All humans hear. All human hearing mechanisms are very similar.

Then there's your litany. Not a speck of evidence it is true, just declaration after declaration with no justification.

I said one's hearing limits are subjective. Nothing about stimulus, the product is one's hearing threshold which, while generated by different systems, comes to be well represented by population samples.

We don't need your stimulus song and dance. It's a diversion. It's not relevant.

I provide my description which I can defend. You are not permitted to substitute your declaration unless you can justify it. For that, as I said, physical evidence is important.

You need to support your declarations if you want to continue to use them as argument. Hence forth if you declare you need to justify, the best justification would be evidence, else your contrary declarations is all that remains which cannot stand.

Sure there are individual differences but those can be fit in a thimble compared with the similarities with which humans hear.

The fact that we can understand others spoken words are testimony to how similar our hearing and sound producing systems must be.

So why the insistence that a human urge quantitatively different. different to the extent you apply time estimation of their occurrence by humans are wild guesses?

As I said earlier one can mask a persons urge with stimuli from external sources such that there may even be no urge, otherwise invoked, generated.

All you have is your guess of why time may not be really consistent. Yet want to convey the notion that it is impossible to do otherwise without evidence.

Fail.

 

[untermensche]

With biological entities:

Similarity, yes.

Exact same thing, never.

How do I know that variation is all that is possible with biological entities?

I understand genetics.

I understand Evolutionary Theory.

I understand development.

Identical twins have different brains. They have different experiences and different motivations.

All biological traits have scope and limits.

Finding humans with similar abilities to perceive any experience is not surprising.

Members of a species are closely related.