Yup, not reading my posts.
It had already been linked. What was the point in spamming the thread with quotations you wouldn't discuss?
Yeah, he's definitely just ignoring me and not trying to interact with me at all
ah, okay. so while the truth value of "consciousness is metaphysical" in itself in principle has no effects, believing in it and the philosophical analysis surrounding it may have some of the pragmatic benefits you listed.
my viewpoint in this context would be to suppose real consciousness is physical and for study purposes construct a metaphysical abstraction of consciousness (as we implicitly do all the time) and proceed with the philosophical study, remembering that it does not, in principle, necessarily capture the whole thing. doing this would also clearly not preclude neuroscience as a study of consciousness (i am not saying your metaphysical view precludes it).
but, your way is probably fine too if you dont think there is basis to have the same fears i do of "believing too hard" in the metaphysical model. so most of my objections are cleared up. thanks.
Why add the extra layer of complexity when it gives us nothing? What does supposing it's physical here buy us?
at face value what asoul is saying is kind of legit. by trollposting blocks of text he incited conflict which led to discussion for certain definitions of discussion.
i don't think you should be referencing the "dota metoo" bullshit as a thread to make any upstanding points about. if that's your take i think there's a lot of soul searching to do
Stop debating pointless shit you know it's bullshit and he's just doing it to be a cunt. Dan should not be enabling him
can you define "trollposting" here? and "inciting" conflict? and "face value" while we're at it
Except he didn't. What did invite the discussion between us was me posting a few quotes at you showing the paper agreed with me. The only quote from him that got any discussions was the one he actually provided a comment, albeit sarcastic and vacuous, on: the rocks being sentient. I didn't flag that block quote because, though it was a bad faith comment, he did comment on it. Unlike the rest of the block quotes.
You know exactly what you were doing. The one block quote post I didn't flag is the only one you offered any commentary on. "Coincidentally," it was the only one that generated any discussion in the thread
I was never trollposting or spamming anything. I went through the paper and quoted things I found interesting/thought others would be interested in discussing.
I let others weigh in, joked around about some of the dumber stuff, then shared my own thoughts. This is how discussion works. There are just some people in the thread with some compulsive behavior issues and when they did not get the endorphins from a response from me they had to start trying other methods
Congrats on your responses, good luck with your personal issues.
i have no idea what you're taking issue with, and it appears that emotionally you're escalated
Until the rock post, you didn't discuss anything about the other long blocks of text you quoted. You didn't when you posted them, and you didn't later on. No one discussed them.
LMAO
Asoul having a meltdown because one of his posts got hidden for spamming the thread
1 Like
I'm taking issue with the guy being obviously unhinged and me avoiding him, then when he does something dumb to get more attention and dan enables it, you respond to me pointing it out by arguing with me over something dumb
It's irritating and you're 100% an enabler here too
I have been furiously digging through OE dictionaries from the 1890s for yeet so I can provide proof
1 Like
glad to see philosophy battle is still going on