jfraatz wrote:So in other words, when you're faced with a counter argument you can't address, you dismiss it and act like it doesn't exist...
No, it was dismissed because the whole thing was built on a fallacious premise: that empirical neuroscience actually studies the non-empirical subjective properties of mentality.
This isn't science, it's scientism, and I have better things to do with my time than to keep repeating why it is wrong.
You're being intentionally obtuse here. So you're claiming that we have all the knowledge regarding the system of the brain (ignoring neuroscience aka internet trolls but we'll get to that) and that your position has it all? Prove it? Show me there is nothing else for us to learn regarding the biological system we know as the human brain.
I didn't say that. What I was saying is that we have everything there is to know about the brain AS FAR AS the Hard Problem is concerned. Meaning we can find more out about the brain, but it will never be able to solve the Hard Problem because it will all be categorically empirical only, and subjective mentality is by definition not empirical.
The brain still exists. If those firings stop indefinitely, you're dead. The structure of the brain still exists. When surgeries are done, the brain's activity decreases until you are clinically brain dead due to anesthesiology. You cannot and will not remember anything from the surgery under those conditions. When the brain is taken of of the drugs, it resumes its normal activity. If your position was right, you'd still remember the surgery if your brain's activity was slowed to that critical number. In cases where people have remembered their surgeries, it was because somebody messed up on anesthesiology.
From the reality frame of the neurosurgeon yes. That's not a problem for my position though.
Aka, I can't argue against them.
Ok, let's "take it seriously" then.
Please empirically verify the verification principle for me. Go and give me some peer-reviewed papers as to where the verification principle was located, and what means they used to empirically verify it's existence.
Until then, you have no evidence for positivism.
What beef do you have against science?
I don't have a beef against science. I have a beef against conflating science with scientism.
We're having this round and round discussion and you fail to understand the methodology of how one goes about determining what is correct and what is not.
Huh? Oh no, I understand proper epistemology. A priori knowledge comes PRIOR (hence why it is called a PRIORi) to a posteriori knowledge which comes POSTERIOR (hence why it is called a POSTERIORi). Makes sense now?
You dismiss my argument summarily out of hand because you can't and will not address it. I hold my position. a priori is conclusions first then force fit data to say, "look fire" when in reality it's fluttering painted paper.
Ok, let's "take this seriously" as well. Without a priori knowledge that it is, how do you even know that your sensory data is reliable anyway? Might your senses be fooling you? How do you know?
Saying that we know because the data told us so, is the same as saying that "We know the Bible is God's Holy Word, because we looked it up in the Bible." (in this case it's "We know sensory data about the world is valid, because we looked it up in the world")
Please take your argument to Sye Ten Bruggencate. I'm sure you and he will get along very well!
Really? Yet here we are arguing. Why am I not reading about you in Nature if your position is testable? Oh that's right, anyone who does actual peer reviewed science is a troll. Makes perfect sense.
Again, dodging what neuroscience is showing us.
Actually neuroscience does not show us anything about the mind, because neuroscience does not study the mind -only its empirical correlates.
by 
