« first day    last day (23 days later) » 

1:45 AM
That’s just a hypothesis. We don’t fully understand pain but we do have drugs that turn certain physical circuits or nerves off that do inhibit pain. And there are certain mental events that dissappear when tinkering with the brain. Note that the other way around doesn’t occur. We cannot for example permanently change the physical structure of anything with our mental events
 
 
2 hours later…
3:49 AM
@Baby_philosopher There are multitudes of studies showing that perceived pain is dependent on attention, IE it is explicitly not identical to C fiber firing.

And the mental caused physical events every time we complete a syllogism, or decide to move.

You can choose to ignore inconvenient facts for yourself, but you can’t force your ideological blindness on others.
 
 
2 hours later…
5:59 AM
@Dcleve In the past, I've referenced various points in a survey of philosophers to argue against you acting as if what you're saying is any sort of consensus. You provided zero references to support your case in return, and you just keep spewing this nonsense. I've repeated challenged your claims and I'm not sure you provided even 1 single reference to support any of what I challenged at any point.
Based on that, the only reasonable conclusion I can draw is that you're willing to blatantly and obviously lie, and continue to do so even in the face of clear evidence against what you say.
 
6:14 AM
As some examples, here I repeatedly asked for you to provide literally just one single person who holds the view that is your strawman of coherentism, and you just completely ignored me:
in Discussion on answer by Dcleve: Why use a concept of free will in reasoning if it's unproven?, Jul 29, 2023 at 21:02, by NotThatGuy
@Dcleve You can disagree with me all you want. The issue is when you (egregiously) misrepresent the views of others in order rebut them. I'm still waiting for you to provide even one single philosopher who calls themselves a coherentist, who agrees with what you've said. Literally the only citation you provided there was to support that "logical consistency" is important to coherentism (which isn't disputed) ...
Here I cited various statistics from the philosopher survey to refute you presenting coherentism as fringe and presenting my view as a "very minority view", and you just completely ignored me:
in Discussion on answer by Dcleve: Does the distinction between "weak" and "strong" emergence make any sense?, Nov 20, 2023 at 5:27, by NotThatGuy
But even with that said, I'll yet again challenge that claim (conveniently you didn't respond last time). I couldn't find opinions on reductionism or emergence specifically, but according to the PhilPapers survey, a majority of philosophers accept physicalism while rejecting both dualism and libertarianism.
Both of those were parts of larger discussions where I argued my case fairly concretely, and in response you continuously gaslit, strawmanned and lied.
 
6:29 AM
Why would I keep trying to debate you when you just ignore evidence people present against what you say and you just carry on acting as if that didn't happen (while asserting that anyone you disagree with is intellectually dishonesty, or just regular dishonest)?
 
 
15 hours later…
9:04 PM
@Dcleve You’re missing the point. There is no evidence that consciousness or any sort of mental event can occur without the physical. However, there are or atleast seem to be examples of physical things existing without corresponding mental events. Now of course, you can argue that the whole universe contains mental events, but I bet if a gun was placed to your head, you would never pick that option
 

« first day    last day (23 days later) »