And so it will ever be! .........and did you REALLY expect otherwise? I know that it is Christmas but the miracles you seem to expect simply do not happen: The lines were drawn so long ago that no amount of science based proof [or spurious non-science] will make a whit of difference to the protagonists!
It is really time as JC suggested earlier to get back on subject.
__________________
"Upgrading" is an expensive way of trading one set of problems for a new set of problems!
Try 'mistaken' just as one alternative. Yet, so far its an unsubstantiated assertion that its 'ridiculously incorrect'.
Never claimed they were; reasoning breakdown.
Homeopathic dilutions being used as placebos in trials? Certainly a new one on me. Got any references? As far as I was aware, homeopathic dilutions are just water. What goes for sugar goes equally well for water. Not even subjectivists are asserting that water cures headaches.
Here you go. In fact, that's EXACTLY the analogous argument made by the folks who have a belief (or make a profit from) in the efficacy of magic dots, silver wire, green CD markers, batteries in USB interfaces, exotic resistors, "quantum purifiers," CD demagnetizers, DC-biased speaker cables, exotic power cords, whatever-the-tweak-of-the-month: that it's the sugar which cures the headache (or the quantum purifier that reduces the noise in some magical way that cannot be measured).
No need to trouble google for that. So you're arguing that eating sugar causes hyper-glycaemia which results in a headache? Or that if a person's got a headache caused by hypo-glycaemia, it'll go away with a sugar pill? How many people in a sample for a drug trial for a new headache remedy do you reckon will come into these categories? Enough to make a statistical difference ya think?
I think we're still at crossroads. I agree that both our visual and auditory perceptions are an 'interpretation', so to speak, of reality by our brain. I was under the impression you agreed to that.
From that, I expressed my amazement that people have no propblem accepting it (possibly totally unconciously), like when listening to stereo, while on the other hand in uncontrolled testing maintaining that what they hear is the exact factual reality.
Are we now on the same sheet?
jan didden
Last edited:
I may or may not agree with you, but your shamelessly changing the quoted post to mean something completely different than was said borders on dishonesty.
What he said was:
/qoute
(or the quantum purifier that reduces the noise in some magical way that cannot be measured).
/unquote.
Can YOU measure that?
jan didden
You can't 'agree' with me on this because its not how I see things. Let's take the visual cortex - what we see (i.e. what's fed into awareness) from V6 is not 'an interpretation of reality' rather its a construct, and it is visual reality as we take it to be. What goes into V1 (i.e. what comes out of what we take to be our eyes) we have no idea of knowing until we untangle brain operation. This input to V1 is the closest we get to what 'reality' is, and of course its two dimensional (X2 for the two eyes) because that's how retinas are. No amount of 'interpretation' can conjure up 3 dimensions from 2 (too many interpretations possible - how to decide?) that's just one reason why it has to be a process of construction based on intelligent guessing going on in the brain.
Nope because 'exact factual reality' doesn't exist (or it does exist but we cannot know it which is pretty much the same thing) - everyone is relying on perception.
OK, full quote above. What a stupid thing to say. Just because you can't measure any effect in the case of batteries in USB interfaces, you make this statement. The effects were clearly shown in the digital domain. Your tests in the analogue domian were flawed & inept (& unfit for publicly airing) yet you make this statement. SY, your ineptitude & bias is revealed!
Is that better Jan?
See this is where you went wrong.
Exact factual reality is perfectly real, and may I add, measurable thus factual.
Magura
No, I don't see. Please explain where I went wrong, rather than merely claim that I did. Note that I'm not saying perception isn't real (quite the opposite), rather I'm saying that drawing a distinction between 'perceived' and 'real' is a mistake. Perceived reality is the only reality we have in allowing us to know the 'objective' world.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.