Quote:
Originally Posted by neeeel
I addressed this in my post no 242, which you just ignored, and decided to go on veiled personal attack instead. I get that its frustrating for you, its frustrating for me too. For cerebellum, read "pins in a fairground game"
That was not the psych paper I was referring to (hence the "more than a month to respond").
Regardless, if you seriously think your pinball examples is a considered response I don't know how to progress. I've given you the context that every other human uses "control" and you're just returning to your own personal definition like a chatbot that's got stuck in a loop.
Let me make this explicit: if you are going to make claims that no-one can control thoughts (e.g. attention) then you need to be defining 'control' (and 'thoughts', and 'you') the same way other people are. Just circling back to your own definition is pointless.
Let me make the super-explicit: since your views on attentional control directly contradict established science, there are two hypotheses that might explain it. 1) that you misunderstand the relationship between determinism/materialism and control. 2) that every other person who spends their lives studying these sorts of things misunderstand it.
Quote:
If you damage a pin in the fairground game, will this affect the result? yes, of course. And you can claim that this proves that the pins control the result. But I am trying to point out that this isnt the whole story.
And?
Quote:
I keep addressing this as well. The science does not show that a self exists. In the same way that showing that lapland exists, that christmas day exists, that sledges and reindeer exist, does not show that santa claus exists.
Firstly, your claim is meaningless, as you've demonstrated no understanding of what "self" means. It sounds here a hell of a lot like you're back to imagining the self as some homunculus that could be extracted from the brain, kicking and squealing "help me! help me!" in a tiny chipmunk voice.
Secondly, if you actually do understand what 'self' means, what you are asking is the same thing as asking me to prove that proprioception exists, and then denying that the ability to sense the position of ones limbs (and that disorders can remove this ability) is sufficient to show there is some model worth calling proprioception.
You remember (some of) your life. You don't remember my life. You have dispositions and preferences that differ (sometimes) from my dispositions and preferences. This is the self. That's essentially all there is to it. You're arguing against a position that was refuted when men wore tights and bubonic plague was still a major concern.