(February 20, 2020 at 10:13 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(February 20, 2020 at 4:16 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You just repeated it again.  Right there, directly, no need to dig up any old posts, because you just said, and I refuse to quote it since it's sitting right up there above these remarks.. that you think that science can't observe consciousness.

If you say science can't currently do it, I agree. But if you just say science can't, then you've given the sentence a different meaning, and made it up.

My exact quote was: "You can observe the neural correlates of consciousness and the behavioral correlates of consciousness, but not consciousness itself...".

Notice there's no mention of what science can or can't do, only what we can or can't do.

"I didn't say what I said and I'll say it again, cuz you made it up!".............. get out of here with that silly bullshit, lol.

I see; so you've built your whole case on having misread a sentence?

We're not having a discussion about science fiction or the future. You're acting like a child.

You believe that science cannot observe consciousness. That's what you said, that's what I've been commenting on.

Then say it correctly: science cant currently do it. Here's an earlier comment of mine: "...it's unknowable with our current tools and methods."

(February 20, 2020 at 10:23 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Your question? I have no beliefs about whether we'll achieve such technology. I hope we do.

OK, then the debate is over, because we have already done it. You lose. We can already read images out of the brain in real time of memories.

The research has moved beyond that to the point of considering replaying memory as a frakkin' movie.

You are no cognitive scientist.

---

For anyone interested...


Top row is the original images. Subsequent rows are extracted from subjects recalling those images by fMRI.

Breezy is lying.

Cite your reference.

(February 20, 2020 at 12:43 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Cite your reference.

What's the point? You could google it, I suppose, but we all know you wont. 

I could cite you this years old and still ongoing research, replete with peer reviewed papers aplenty.

But so could you. 

Is that because you are such a lazy arse bastard that you need spoon feeding? Nope, not at all.

It is because you are ideologically committed to an imaginary sky fairy who micro-manages the universe.

I could hurl the scholarly peer reviewed papers, no problem. There are plenty of them. But I also know that you will not read them because "gawd".

You have no interest in anything real. Your magic book and magic sky fairy is all you want. All else must be false. That is what your sky daddy demands. That is what you grovel about.

I cannot stop you grovelling before your imaginary master. I could (and I can) provide peer reviewed papers all day long.

But I wont. Your education is not my job, it is yours. Sure you can abdicate that responsibility as much as you like. That is also not my problem.  

You can wallow in ignorance as long as you like for all I care.



But you have now welched on your commitment. That makes you a liar. Yet another liar for jebus.

---

(February 20, 2020 at 12:43 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Cite your reference.

Oh sorry, I forgot. Cite my reference? A mere dumb image search would get you there, but even that is beyond you.

If you cannot operate google, then you should not have a device in your charge more complex than a fireplace.

I intentionally provided no references. Not because I didn't have them, I do.

I was interested to see if you would venture beyond whinging for them because you were too bone ass lazy.

Turns out you are indeed too bone ass lazy.

This is not my problem.

Is this the preprint awaiting peer-review which you are referencing: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/...7.full.pdf

(February 20, 2020 at 12:06 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Then say it correctly: science cant currently do it. Here's an earlier comment of mine: "...it's unknowable with our current tools and methods."

John, this is -always- what we've been commenting on.  You're not correcting anyone, or anything. The tense is not not problem, lol.

Good, then we've avoided misunderstanding. Proceed.