Mind

[Luc Turpin]

Unacceptable to me what just occurred!

A voice that was contributing to defending the other side of the story has been nullified.

The first part only of my post was taken, not the second which stated clearly that I was setting things up for science.

An arbitrary-unilateral decision.

Just waiting for the shoe to drop, then pounce.

It was unconventional, but not-not science.

I presented evidence like no one does on this forum.

It was biased, but for reasons that I indicated.

How many were not in agreement with my position, but turned up regularly anyways. some to scorn me, but others, maybe, to understand the position that I was defending.

There were many very interesting conversations that occurred in this post. That too has been silenced. Even a discussion between amateur and professional science people is a worthwhile conversation to have.

I do know that discoveries were made by many forum members, even if grudgingly so.

Who can state that the discussions left them indifferent?

At the very least, you know more about how the "man on the street" thinks about science.

And you know much more about mind through brain than before, even if you disagree with it.

Never, ever did I say that I was right.

I stuck to the mind thread as required and rarely ventured elsewhere.

It was also implied by you that I could present my point of view of mind in this thread, not elsewhere, and I complied.

Is there a mechanism for contesting this decision?

Or of transferring all of the existing mind posts into the speculations section?

I believe in objectivity and plurality of opinions.

A sad day indeed it is for me!

[TheVat]

11 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

How many were not in agreement with my position, but turned up regularly anyways. some to scorn me, but others, maybe, to understand the position that I was defending.

There were many very interesting conversations that occurred in this post. That too has been silenced. Even a discussion between amateur and professional science people is a worthwhile conversation to have.

An interesting thread, I agree.  I am confused as to why the whole thread wasn't just moved to Spec.  Now we have to navigate over to the other thread to reference earlier posts?

[Luc Turpin]

9 minutes ago, TheVat said:

An interesting thread, I agree.  I am confused as to why the whole thread wasn't just moved to Spec.  Now we have to navigate over to the other thread to reference earlier posts?

Entirely agree!

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Unacceptable to me what just occurred!

You should ask for your money back

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

An interesting thread, I agree.  I am confused as to why the whole thread wasn't just moved to Spec.  Now we have to navigate over to the other thread to reference earlier posts?

I think Luc needs to decide if they’re going to present a scientific argument, a philosophical one or a mystical one, make an actual argument and provide answers.

Starting with: if the mind is not located in the brain, where is it located? The big toe?

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

There were many very interesting conversations that occurred in this post. That too has been silenced

I think you need to look up “silenced” in a dictionary.

[Luc Turpin]

53 minutes ago, swansont said:

You should ask for your money back

I think Luc needs to decide if they’re going to present a scientific argument, a philosophical one or a mystical one, make an actual argument and provide answers.

Starting with: if the mind is not located in the brain, where is it located? The big toe?

I think you need to look up “silenced” in a dictionary.

1- matter of principle, not money

2- I have been arguing both scientific, philosophical with no mysticism since the get go.

3- I mentioned often times in the thread that it may very well be a field like the higg’s field

4- the casual- general definition of the word is what was intended

why not just bring the whole former mind thread into the new one and that will be a good decision for all parties.

 

 

[Mordred]

You might be thankful this site allows Speculations while under the Moderator guidelines. Other sites don't allow any non mainstream topic or any Speculations while several do but no Moderation so you get every random wild guess possible.

 Quite frankly the guidelines are easy to adhere to and doing so helps  prevent circular arguments. 

 

Edited July 12 by Mordred

[swansont]

46 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

1- matter of principle, not money

It was sarcasm, which you apparently missed.

 

46 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

2- I have been arguing both scientific, philosophical with no mysticism since the get go.

So when you said you weren't arguing science, you were...lying?

46 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

3- I mentioned often times in the thread that it may very well be a field like the higg’s field

That's a hand-wave, not a scientific proposal. A field is a mathematical construct and in the case of the Higgs describes interactions. You've presented no math and no description of an interaction, much less any reason to think that a field is responsible.

Quote

4- the casual- general definition of the word is what was intended

Your words remain and you can continue to post. So "silenced" seems more like rhetoric and hyperbole. It's not a tactic that endears you to the moderators.

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

An interesting thread, I agree.  I am confused as to why the whole thread wasn't just moved to Spec.  Now we have to navigate over to the other thread to reference earlier posts?

!

Moderator Note

If there are references to earlier posts in the other thread, I'll close this one. There's NO SCIENCE there. 

We'll let Luc figure out which of his arguments will be persuasive here, and if they aren't, this won't go to 14 pages, promise.

 

[Luc Turpin]

24 minutes ago, swansont said:

It was sarcasm, which you apparently missed.

 

So when you said you weren't arguing science, you were...lying?

That's a hand-wave, not a scientific proposal. A field is a mathematical construct and in the case of the Higgs describes interactions. You've presented no math and no description of an interaction, much less any reason to think that a field is responsible.

Your words remain and you can continue to post. So "silenced" seems more like rhetoric and hyperbole. It's not a tactic that endears you to the moderators.

1- did not get 

2- Please read the pst….I was se

28 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

If there are references to earlier posts in the other thread, I'll close this one. There's NO SCIENCE there. 

We'll let Luc figure out which of his arguments will be persuasive here, and if they aren't, this won't go to 14 pages, promise.

 

Then please cancel my account

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

If there are references to earlier posts in the other thread, I'll close this one. There's NO SCIENCE there. 

We'll let Luc figure out which of his arguments will be persuasive here, and if they aren't, this won't go to 14 pages, promise.

Well I can't speak for others who posted there, but some of my comments there were reflecting a scientific perspective on this topic.  You may be right that he can tighten his focus - perhaps on a metascience analysis of panpsychism, perhaps something else that takes a focused look at observed anomalies (and pursuant Replication Problem, the old bugbear of fringe research).  Call me unduly optimistic (an Obamaish feeling that takes hold of me sometimes), but I think we can do a better 14 pages.  

And Luc is now familiar with the Ten Commandments of Science I posted over yonder in the Dark Place of Which We Do Not Speak.

 

52 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Then please cancel my account

NOOOO!  WAIIIIIT!  Please take a moment, my friend.  We can carve out a better space for this topic, with all its metascientific challenges.

.

.

.

Je t'en supplie, attends.

Edited July 13 by TheVat
typo that would haunt me forever

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, TheVat said:

NOOOO!  WAIIIIIT!  Please take a moment, my friend.  We can carve out a better space for this topic, with all its metascientific challenges.

I think he needs a spell on the side-line, just to ponder the advice he's been given; he can return refreshed and perhpas a little wiser, and hopefully with a much requested (at least by me) better question.

I look forward to it...

[Phi for All]

13 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Then please cancel my account

!

Moderator Note

I can ban you if you like, we don't delete accounts.

Or you could make your arguments without linking to your old thread (which the staff gave far too much leeway to for a mainstream topic), shore up your sketchy science, and try to persuade the members about the validity of your ideas. Please stop throwing out anything and everything, hoping something will stick. Use the arguments from the other thread that were valid; many were shown to be false, so throw those away. Focus and present your arguments with rigor and reason.

Or I can ban you if you like, we don't delete accounts.

 

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

I can ban you if you like, we don't delete accounts.

Or you could make your arguments without linking to your old thread (which the staff gave far too much leeway to for a mainstream topic), shore up your sketchy science, and try to persuade the members about the validity of your ideas. Please stop throwing out anything and everything, hoping something will stick. Use the arguments from the other thread that were valid; many were shown to be false, so throw those away. Focus and present your arguments with rigor and reason.

Or I can ban you if you like, we don't delete accounts.

 

I will try and do what is being suggested. If i am allowed, I will explain in my next post how things in the former thread were all related.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I will try and do what is being suggested. If i am allowed, I will explain in my next post how things in the former thread were all related.

 

I think what you need to do is make a compelling case for whatever you think the answer is.

An alleged failure of science does not mean a particular alternative is correct. (i.e. not knowing the identity of a creature does not mean it’s Bigfoot. You need positive evidence to support the latter)