Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

And when you say telepathy is communication ("by no mode known to our science") and you add nothing else, you are losing how it differs from hypnosis and from mind-reading.

These distinctions are not "provincial". They are central to the matter at hand!

[I'm one of the few who'd look and learn… But who cares? ]

Our system of justice is new to this "guilty until proven innocent" style of Justice… You'll forgive me if I'm somewhat behind the curve…

Hypnosis is manipulation of a (possibly) sub-conscious…

Mind-reading is (if it's real) is "hearing" the thoughts of others, unbeknownst to them?

The matter at hand is -for the nonce- Sam Harris' scientism: He seldom talks about the statistical massage his fMRIs go through before anyone ever sees them…
[I'm one of the few who'd look and learn… But who cares? ]

You don't like to consider the requirements and implications of statistical reasoning, I well know… But you do know that statistical argument cannot yield proof of causality?

This one's close enough to a yawn 

My earlier statement was this: "...logically this means that thoughts, memories, dreams, imagination etc. are physically in the brain and neuroscientists, when they study the brain, should be able to directly see those things, i.e. neuroscientists should be mind-readers."

And now I say this: "They scan people's brains to determine whether they are religious or not."

What is unsimilar?

For example, mind-reading is supposed to not exist, because the mind as a non-physical entity cannot exist, because everything is physical and that's it. However, logically this means that thoughts, memories, dreams, imagination etc. are physically in the brain and neuroscientists, when they study the brain, should be able to directly see those things, i.e. neuroscientists should be mind-readers. Somehow logic, which serves atheists so well otherwise, is lost to them on this point.

Well, this simply shows how little you care about things of the mind. Surely you would laugh me away if I mixed up physical reading and writing, but this is precisely how mind-reading and telepathy differ, and you are insisting we should mix them up. I say that the work of neuroscientists, given their presuppositions, implies mind-reading, and I say mind-reading precisely because this is what I mean, not telepathy.

"Hearing" or "seeing" the thoughts, ideas, emotions, memories, etc. of other  - by the "mind's eye" of the seer. I hope Frenzie is paying attention.

Again, you're equivocating two meanings of the term mind reading and seem to think that somehow makes a point. It does not.

That is not how I'm familiar with the term. One can telepathically send (speak/write) and telepathically receive (hear/read). The whole is known as telepathy.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-05-30, 08:41:05

"Hearing" or "seeing" the thoughts, ideas, emotions, memories, etc. of other  - by the "mind's eye" of the seer. I hope Frenzie is paying attention.

And typically it is said that this "hearing" or "seeing" occurs through the unconscious telepathic transmission of such thoughts, think micro expressions. In any case, the salient point is that it's non-physical.

But wasn't it enough, that he rejected free will? (There is, then, no morality…)

Given no free will, there remains morality a la Sam Harris. (Don't let this take up much of your valuable time.)

The salient point is that what's being read is really what the other one thinks, as distinguished from what he says he thinks or thinks he thinks.

The salient point is that what's being read is really what the other one thinks, as distinguished from what he says he thinks or thinks he thinks.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-05-30, 01:24:06

The salient point is that what's being read is really what the other one thinks, as distinguished from what he says he thinks or thinks he thinks.

That was the point of the science fiction I'd read 50 years ago… That lying was no longer possible, that any prevarication was precluded… Mind meets mind, and there are no barriers! That is the kind of psi-fiction I grew up with. (Your society, ersi, wouldn't even admit the possibility… But I think Frensie's would…) Why do you make it a philosophical debate?
I really do wonder…

Mind reading may refer to:

• Telepathy, the transfer of information between individuals by means other than the five senses


• The illusion of telepathy in the performing art of mentalism


• Thought identification, the use of neuroimaging techniques to read human minds


• In cognitive-behavioral therapy, mind-reading is considered a common cognitive distortion or cognitive error that usually contributes to irrational thinking. The concept runs counter to evolutionary psychology.

• There's a distinction between telepathy and thought identification. I meant thought identification all along. Wikipedia even gives neuroscientific legitimacy to thought identification, so this is not a point to dispute. Further, let's remember that I accuse the mind-reading neuroscientific presuppositions, assumptions, presumptions, and practices of the phrenologist fallacies.


• Wikipedia rejects Frenzie's salient point and stands by my salient point (the phrase in bold above). Let's call my salient point "the lie/truth-detector function" in mind-reading. It's inseparable from what I mean by mind-reading.

Seriously, you are equivocating on mind-reading and telepathy. This is not about how you are familiar with the terms. This is about the fact that you are not familiar with the terms and this is why I have to explain them to you.

Your false equivocation of telepathy and thought identification through neuroimaging says nothing of interest...

And, Belfrager, the juicy part is that Frenzie - evidently familiar with the term earlier and knowing what it's about - fails to see (or at least fails to acknowledge) the connection to phrenology along with its embarrassing implications. This is quite a discovery 

It's rather modern neuroscience that quite obviously shares some assumptions with phrenology. Assumptions which are proved every day through successful brain surgeries that weren't possible as recently as a decade ago, I might add.

And, Belfrager, the juicy part is that Frenzie - evidently familiar with the term earlier and knowing what it's about - fails to see (or at least fails to acknowledge) the connection to phrenology along with its embarrassing implications. This is quite a discovery 

Maybe a discovery for you, Frenzie fails to see many things but he also see many others.
Not someone that I would chose for amusing myself.

Preaching to the Converted

I’ve never understood the appeal of preaching to the converted. What’s the point? Why bother bashing believers in ghosts, homeopathy and Allah or non-believers in global warming, childhood vaccines and evolution in ways that cannot persuade but only annoy those who don’t pre-agree with you?

And how do you relate to those assumptions? Guilty or no contest?

So, here's a guy who thinks that you should preach only to those who pre-agree with you, because others can only be annoyed by it and that's not nice. He thinks that "preaching to the converted" means preaching to those converted to something else than oneself is preaching about. This is how he means he "never understood the appeal of preaching to the converted".

I wouldn't call the connection between the brain and the faculties of the mind an assumption, especially in a post-Broca world.

Like I said, the astounding success of modern brain surgeries (like the removal of brain tumors) depends on it.

Americans (presumably including Harris) tend to state things with less nuance, especially in titles and summaries. (Or maybe it's American editors? Either way.)

From our perspective that often sounds outrageous and the middle of the text usually paints a very different picture. Although when I say "our" I suppose I have no idea if and to what extent that includes eastern Europe.

I can't read it (paywall), but besides disagreeing wholeheartedly with the premise that sounds like an oddly contradictory opinion piece.

Facts don't organise themselves. Logic organises facts. Sure enough, physical facts or delusions may drown a weak mind, but a strong mind can work miracles - and does.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-05-31, 11:04:18

Facts don't organise themselves. Logic organises facts. Sure enough, physical facts or delusions may drown a weak mind, but a strong mind can work miracles - and does.

Weak and strong (minds)... as a result of Logic. I don't agree, I think it's reductionist because it takes in no consideration Will. Will it's no part of Logic, it has it's own mechanisms and probably nature (which are hard, very hard to identify) and it's certainly a most (the most?) important part of mind.

Then, there's emotions. Emotions can eliminate facts, play with facts and even create facts much more than logic.
We're entering unstable terrains.

Here's my view of the relationship of the mind and the brain. It's like with any other sense and sensory organ. For example vision (which is the sense) and the eye (which is the organ). The sense and the organ are distinct, must be because the loss of the organ is not loss of the sense.

This just in from CNN...sort of.

The same start alec self aggrandisement thinking is rather selective. They go out to attack Christianity and show how free they are to do it. However they are as open-minded as a certified idiot. They don't exercise their wonderful liberal smugness regarding religion when it comes to Islam do they? And why - because they know they would be harried, lives threatened and all hell let loose.