but you said the brain creates “agents.” which is not true. Agents create behaviors with their actions, the brain processes information.
That would be uncommon behavior.
however you could not explain why those brains are “uncommon” and that is what we were discussing.
Don’t pretend you know anything about the scientific standards these studies hold themselves to, it’s not like you’ve read any of them.
Oh wait, I forgot that this community is now infested with conspiracy theorists and science-skeptics.
They are uncommon because their prevalance in their relevant population is like 3 standard deviations from the mean!
edit: I need to start compiling my disbelief to one post, in case it looks like I’m spamming.
The brain processes information, as well as determining physical actions. I’m not sure if you are trying to be clever or if you actually think there is anything else ‘in control’. I think you know what I mean.
I would be the first person to testify that I do not know ANYTHING about the “scientific standards” that whatever studies you speak of allegedly held themselves to. Thats kind of the point of me asking you questions.
are you implying that it would be somehow preferable to have faith in (whatever it is one happens to call) “science”? Skepticism is a bad thing, since when? And dont forget to poison the well, you person who doesnt support the troops!
Thats a truism. If you cant answer the question, which conclusion seems inescapable at this point, just bow out gracefully.
“Thats a truism. If you cant answer the question, which conclusion seems inescapable at this point, just bow out gracefully.”
Hah. You asked how I knew that brains that exhibit syaesthesia were uncommon. You accept as a truism that a sample 3 standard deviations from the mean is uncommon. 1 in 60 people have colored grapheme synaesthesia. That is beyond your accepted threshold for being classified ‘uncommon’. The physiological peculiarity that causes colored grapheme synaesthesia is known. Therefor that physiological peculiarity is ‘uncommon’. The brain that has that physiological peculiarity is ‘uncommon’.
“so its even easier to plausibly connect potentially unrelated things! Thanks scientific method, for takng a break!”
Right, you are not implying anything about the scientific standards held by cognitive scientists. Just asking questions.
“are you implying that it would be somehow preferable to have faith in (whatever it is one happens to call) “science”? Skepticism is a bad thing, since when?”
Motivated skepticism is a bad thing. For example, someone who has done 0 research into cognitive science who is ‘skeptical’ of the scientific veracity of its findings is not being a skeptic, they are being lazy. Just an example.
that wasnt so hard, was it? Youre almost done. “uncommon” within what population?
well I do think its nontrivial that your definition of a single behavior is recursive to include disparate behaviors that have a single similarity, while arbitrarily excluding behaviors that are more uncommon by orders of magnitude. But we already know you dont like skeptical inquiry as it applies to cognitive science so go wild.
I would like to parse this but I dont know where to begin. I am guilty of “skepticism with intent”? You would rather me question you for the hell of it, rather than to discern truth? Or did you only intend to refer to certain motives?
well call me crazy, I kind of thought the burden of proof was on the person making the claim. I guess from now on whenever anyone says anything, I will go find my own reasons to believe or disbelieve them, rather than ask them mean questions about why they believe the things they believe. I’m sorry made you discuss a subject you obviously have an interest in, I hope it wasnt too painful for you.
I’m hesitant, because you dont like questions, but I am going to ask anyway: how do you conclude that the brain “determines” physical actions? Is this science or faith?
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Motivated_skepticism
As for the rest of your questions, if you were educated enough in the field to have a general understanding of the basic findings/reasoning behind their conclusions, we could debate specific points. At this point, the amount of information I would have to spoon feed you is honestly too much for me to bother.
Maybe it’s your method of arguement that is the problem. I would much rather you state your objections clearly than bullshit around asking me leading questions as if I had all day to reach your point for you. I recommend doing a little reading about cognitive science, it’s general findings and the methodology they use. It’s not one study that the conclusions regarding the relationship between brain and personality/behavior come from. It’s thousand of individual findings that coherently support one another, each additional finding adding confidence to the hypothesis.
As for how I conclude that the brain ‘determines’ physical actions, the heuristic used is called ‘Occam’s razor’ and its modern mathematical form is Solomonoff Induction. Of course, you would have to do plenty of research on the subject in order to build up the evidential basis to the point where you are persuaded, and I don’t expect that to happen. If you have any specific objections however, or any data points that you think cannot be explained by materialistic determinism, please bring them to my attention.
Well, I tend to think that bias is inherent in human thought, so I disagree that motivated skepticism can be avoided. And I am educated enough to be aware of some limitations on modern scientific inquiry, there isnt really a debate about any of that. I’m sorry that you felt my inquiries were abrasive, I guess I should learn to be more respectful of other people’s belief systems. I will tell you that I am familiar with parsimony I dont feel that makes your case for you. As for whether materialistic determinism explains anything at all, the day is too short for that. But it was fun have a good day zefreak.