The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:19 pm

Poodle wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:18 pm
Your response is exceptionally creative, Steve. The fact is (that's FACT) that there is no agreement amongst researchers within your own field whether there exists a hard problem AT ALL. You, on the other hand, are pushing out statements which do not even mention this disagreement. On a sliding scale of 1 to 10, your slip-showing score comes in at a massive 20.
That is no way to treat a discussion. It is DISHONEST, Steve. You are loading your thread with data which you think supports you whilst not even whispering that there are professional researchers in the field who strongly disagree with you. A simple Google search brings up a lot of them - they're not difficult to find. That's a bit on the sneaky side - shameful, in fact. However, now I have a better idea of the variety of ideas being put forward I can simply dismiss yours as so full of bias as to be useless.
I just said that Most Scientists will say that Consciousness has not been Explained by Science yet. I think that indicates that they understand the Hard Problem. This implies that there are Some Scientists that do think Consciousness has been Explained. This indicates that they do not understand the Hard Problem. When you say that I push arguments that don't even mention this disagreement you are being ridiculous. I certainly have mentioned this. Your requirement of me having to mention this with every post I make is a laughable and rhetorical Diversion from the point of this thread. Of course I am going to Argue enthusiastically for the positions I take.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:21 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:41 am
SteveKlinko wrote: First of all Ill tell you a little bit about my background.
About Digiphase Electronics
Hello: I am the owner of Digiphase Electronics Inc. located in the central Florida area. Since 1994 my company has produced various Digital Signal Processing products such as the Compact Disc Interface (CDIF) board, the Finite Impulse Response Processor (FIRP) board, and the Finite Impulse Response Stereo Transceiver (FIRST) board............


http://www.digiphase.com/Pages/StereoWo ... ronics.asp

"STEREO WORKSTATION SOFTWARE / THE ULTIMATE HOME STEREO MUSIC PLAYBACK SOFTWARE PACKAGE
Stereo Workstation Software is the essential Home Music Playback tool for people who like to sit down and really listen to their Music. The Version 2.2 release enables your home office computer, your home entertainment system computer, or even your laptop or tablet computer to become a powerful Stereo Workstation and Stereo Music Server.
http://www.digiphase.com/Index.asp
That's my side business. I have a day job too. Thank You for the Advertisement.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:01 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:05 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:45 pm
Nice screed. Reminds me of the comedy skit where a guy is being fired or being dumped by his girl friend and he just keeps asking "What are you trying to tell me?" You know: a complete negation of what is right in front of him. ……………. Goes to the definition of what sensate means? ((I joke!))
You will eventually recognize that the Conscious Visual Scene that is embedded in the front of your face (literally) as a Special Category of Phenomenon that must be Explained. Think more Deeply about the actual Conscious Visual Experience.
What is so special about it? Using "English" as our mode of communication, it is WILDLY inappropriate to mix and match metaphors with privately defined words/concepts and think you can communicate any ideas at all. FER Instance: to me "Conscious Visual Scene" is what I perceive with my open eyes? I don't know what to think when you say it is "embedded in the front of your face" ===which it is not which becomes all the more Woo when you add "literally." Because literally==it is not. It is also not imbedded figuratively either. There is external reality which is processed by our senses and brains.

You know, you post as if you are the only person who has recognized this series of issues but the truth is it IS an area greatly studied by Science and there is a body of literature that has been built up. Every year, progress is made in understanding just what the conscious phenomenon is. You might have a few of your questions answered if you studied this literature and ADOPTED ITS LANGUAGE and current state of understanding. There will always be the unknown in which an active curiosity can be applied.....but why not make it worthwhile?

I apologize up front: while I have dipped into this discussion for pages at a time, in one sense it would be "fair" to say I should read the entire thread from start to finish before asking the following, but there is a fairness to ask you to answer the questions in light of the 60 pages that have taken place, eg: have you gained anything from it or just some masochistic pleasure in having to repeat what is obvious to you that is denied by everyone else?

Every worthwhile discussion starts with definitions. I have to wonder how much confusion you have sewn in your own "mind" when you utilize your own private definitions rather than the common definition for key words/ideas in your posts. This first arises with your second post where you totally confuse brain with mind.
I say there is a definite Physical Mind (The Brain) but that there is a whole separate Conscious Mind. It is unknown how the Conscious Mind interacts with the Physical Mind so the Inter Mind is proposed to connect the two together.
Note the following generally accepted definitions that you really should use:

brain: That part of the central nervous system that includes all the higher nervous centers; enclosed within the skull; continuous with the spinal cord ((re reading, I see you do put "The Brain" in parens just after writing "Physical Mind" but you continue all the discussion using Physical Mind. This creates ambiguity and miscommunication and disconnect. Use the right word for the right idea and you may track closer to objective truth/understanding and avoid the Woo.

Mind: That which is responsible for one's thoughts and feelings; the seat of the faculty of reason ((This definition is wholly inadequate for illuminating this discussion but I also restrict myself to common definitions when I want to better understand a subject. But....see the wiki on Emergent Properties as the mind is an EP of the Brain))

Physical Mind: Word not found./// If it is Brain, then use Brain. Why not?

Conscious Mind: Word not found. /// If it is Consciousness or Mind then use either but not both together. Why not?

Inter Mind: Word not found. //// this is important. You are well on your way to being totally nuts saved if only completely irrelevant living in the basement of your mind when you make up your own language to relate to this world. Heh, heh: STICK WITH THE DICTIONARY. It will keep you tethered to reality and provide clues to the huge body of knowledge that has built up over the ages. ie: control yourself.

To your quote: of course it is unknown how the Conscious Mind interacts with the Physical Mind because there is no such thing as a Physical Mind and Conscious Mind is totally redundant of your own creation. Now, there is a HUGE body of work concerning how the brain, reality (aka stimulus), and consciousness all interact with one another. You are not posting seriously without delving deeper into this material than you have: ie: adopt the generally accepted language of the subject so that anyone other than yourself has a change to understand what you are talking about.

Please define in the length and detail you think appropriate the following terms. It would help me, and perhaps everyone else including yourself, to be able to footnote these terms:

1. Hard Problem. /// This actually sparked my post but I see it has been superseded by a request to simply use standard English?....and reviewing the thread from the start, I do confirm all the relevant issues were brought up immediately...and yet here we are rehashing the very same issues of page 60? Ha, ha: thats a whole lot of no progress at all. It is amusing.

/////////////// From page one:
It's just semantics. There's basically nothing wrong with saying that the Brain an aspect of the Mind. It is the Physical Mind. The Mind you speak of is the Conscious Mind in the Inter Mind Model of Consciousness. Hate to say it but the Inter Mind itself is but yet another aspect of Mind in the Inter Mind Model. The Inter Mind Model is a Triplistic Model of Consciousness.
Semantics can be just semantics, but it is also "the way we think." ie: read more as semantics does play a huge role in the brain/mind/reality interaction.

You have cause and effect backwards. The mind is an emergent property of the Brain....not the other way around.

There is no Physical Mind. No Conscious Mind. No Inter mind. ……….OH GOD!!!!!!!!! My EYES==My Mind==My Brain: I just saw:
The Inter Mind Model is a Triplistic Model of Consciousness.
…..I feel nauseous.

You know Steve: actual science is much more interesting than made up stuff. Check it out.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Nov 07, 2018 12:47 am

SteveKlinko wrote: That's my side business. I have a day job too. Thank You for the Advertisement.
I already know that you sell home stereo equipment on the internet and are attempting to expand and sell "Inter mind" T-Shirts. That's why you are posting your nonsense on our forum.

"Inter Mind T-shirts" $20.50
https://the-inter-mind.myshopify.com/co ... /frontpage

You are trying to promote your fairy tales to make money. :lol: :lol: :lol:

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:11 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:01 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:05 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:45 pm
Nice screed. Reminds me of the comedy skit where a guy is being fired or being dumped by his girl friend and he just keeps asking "What are you trying to tell me?" You know: a complete negation of what is right in front of him. ……………. Goes to the definition of what sensate means? ((I joke!))
You will eventually recognize that the Conscious Visual Scene that is embedded in the front of your face (literally) as a Special Category of Phenomenon that must be Explained. Think more Deeply about the actual Conscious Visual Experience.
What is so special about it? Using "English" as our mode of communication, it is WILDLY inappropriate to mix and match metaphors with privately defined words/concepts and think you can communicate any ideas at all. FER Instance: to me "Conscious Visual Scene" is what I perceive with my open eyes? I don't know what to think when you say it is "embedded in the front of your face" ===which it is not which becomes all the more Woo when you add "literally." Because literally==it is not. It is also not imbedded figuratively either. There is external reality which is processed by our senses and brains.
See Exploring the Human Conscious Light Screen at http://theintermind.com/?SourceTag=None ... ightScreen.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:01 pm
You know, you post as if you are the only person who has recognized this series of issues but the truth is it IS an area greatly studied by Science and there is a body of literature that has been built up. Every year, progress is made in understanding just what the conscious phenomenon is. You might have a few of your questions answered if you studied this literature and ADOPTED ITS LANGUAGE and current state of understanding. There will always be the unknown in which an active curiosity can be applied.....but why not make it worthwhile?
So exactly How does Neural Activity produce the experience of Red, from any of this Literature and with any Language of Science that you would like to use? It's the simplest of questions. I have read all the Literature that I can find for the main theories and I never can get an answer to that simple question. Of course there has to be more out there. So if I have missed the answer to my question then tell me what the answer is.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:01 pm
I apologize up front: while I have dipped into this discussion for pages at a time, in one sense it would be "fair" to say I should read the entire thread from start to finish before asking the following, but there is a fairness to ask you to answer the questions in light of the 60 pages that have taken place, eg: have you gained anything from it or just some masochistic pleasure in having to repeat what is obvious to you that is denied by everyone else?
Over the last 1.5 years on this forum I have learned many things that helped me make a better Website. I took many of the criticisms for the Website and fixed them. Some criticisms were more just stylistic peeves and I continued with my style.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:01 pm
Every worthwhile discussion starts with definitions. I have to wonder how much confusion you have sewn in your own "mind" when you utilize your own private definitions rather than the common definition for key words/ideas in your posts. This first arises with your second post where you totally confuse brain with mind.
I say there is a definite Physical Mind (The Brain) but that there is a whole separate Conscious Mind. It is unknown how the Conscious Mind interacts with the Physical Mind so the Inter Mind is proposed to connect the two together.
Note the following generally accepted definitions that you really should use:

brain: That part of the central nervous system that includes all the higher nervous centers; enclosed within the skull; continuous with the spinal cord ((re reading, I see you do put "The Brain" in parens just after writing "Physical Mind" but you continue all the discussion using Physical Mind. This creates ambiguity and miscommunication and disconnect. Use the right word for the right idea and you may track closer to objective truth/understanding and avoid the Woo.

Mind: That which is responsible for one's thoughts and feelings; the seat of the faculty of reason ((This definition is wholly inadequate for illuminating this discussion but I also restrict myself to common definitions when I want to better understand a subject. But....see the wiki on Emergent Properties as the mind is an EP of the Brain))

Physical Mind: Word not found./// If it is Brain, then use Brain. Why not?

Conscious Mind: Word not found. /// If it is Consciousness or Mind then use either but not both together. Why not?

Inter Mind: Word not found. //// this is important. You are well on your way to being totally nuts saved if only completely irrelevant living in the basement of your mind when you make up your own language to relate to this world. Heh, heh: STICK WITH THE DICTIONARY. It will keep you tethered to reality and provide clues to the huge body of knowledge that has built up over the ages. ie: control yourself.
I think we all agree that Brain and Mind are intertwined. The Physicalists basically say that the Mind is the Brain. I try to emphasize the difference between the Brain and the Mind, but I do recognize their interconnectedness. Since the Brain and the Mind are so intertwined it is sensible to recognize that the Brain really is part of the Front End Processing stage of the total Mind concept. Since the Brain is a fundamental component of the Mind it seems reasonable to qualify, the Functional part of the Brain associated with the Mind and Consciousness, and call it the Physical Mind to emphasize this fact. And as for the Mind itself, it is too ambiguous a word. The Mind has all kinds of meanings to different people. So I like to qualify it by calling it the Conscious Mind. I then define exactly what I am going to deal with in this Conscious Mind. I am going to deal with Conscious Sensory Perception and nothing else. You have to narrow any study down somewhere and somehow for it to be manageable. Note that I defined these two different Minds because the traditional words imply things that are not part of my analysis. In other words the Traditional terminology is inadequate. It is perfectly legitimate and sensible make these kinds of Definitions. Now that I have these two aspects of Mind defined and separated out for the readers, the question arises as to How does the Conscious Mind interact with the Physical Mind? You can not just say that the Conscious Mind IS the Physical Mind and think that that Explains anything. What is that Connection that must exist between the Physical Mind and the Conscious Mind? Many Arguments, on the Website, show that this is not merely a Connection problem but it is also a Processing problem. There is just not enough Processing in the Physical Mind to satisfy the Binding Problem for example. The Website then proposes that there must be some other aspect of Mind that exists between the Physical Mind and The Conscious Mind. The Website calls this new Mind the Inter Mind because it is the Interface between the other two Minds in the Model. So now we have a three part Mind concept. The website shows this three part mind as a simple Functional block diagram with the Physical Mind feeding into the Inter Mind which feeds into the Conscious Mind. The Website is clear in stating that these three Minds could all be located in the Brain. The Inter Mind Model is a Framework for Consciousness. It is a Functional diagram. It isn't a Schematic. What must be true is the Functionality that is indicated in the diagram.


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:01 pm
To your quote: of course it is unknown how the Conscious Mind interacts with the Physical Mind because there is no such thing as a Physical Mind and Conscious Mind is totally redundant of your own creation. Now, there is a HUGE body of work concerning how the brain, reality (aka stimulus), and consciousness all interact with one another. You are not posting seriously without delving deeper into this material than you have: ie: adopt the generally accepted language of the subject so that anyone other than yourself has a change to understand what you are talking about.
The generally accepted language is inadequate.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:01 pm
Please define in the length and detail you think appropriate the following terms. It would help me, and perhaps everyone else including yourself, to be able to footnote these terms:

1. Hard Problem. /// This actually sparked my post but I see it has been superseded by a request to simply use standard English?....and reviewing the thread from the start, I do confirm all the relevant issues were brought up immediately...and yet here we are rehashing the very same issues of page 60? Ha, ha: thats a whole lot of no progress at all. It is amusing.
There is the easy Problem and there is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. This should have been one of the first things you learned while studying Consciousness. But here is what that is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_prob ... sciousness
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:01 pm
/////////////// From page one:
It's just semantics. There's basically nothing wrong with saying that the Brain an aspect of the Mind. It is the Physical Mind. The Mind you speak of is the Conscious Mind in the Inter Mind Model of Consciousness. Hate to say it but the Inter Mind itself is but yet another aspect of Mind in the Inter Mind Model. The Inter Mind Model is a Triplistic Model of Consciousness.
Semantics can be just semantics, but it is also "the way we think." ie: read more as semantics does play a huge role in the brain/mind/reality interaction.

You have cause and effect backwards. The mind is an emergent property of the Brain....not the other way around.

There is no Physical Mind. No Conscious Mind. No Inter mind. ……….OH GOD!!!!!!!!! My EYES==My Mind==My Brain: I just saw:
The Inter Mind Model is a Triplistic Model of Consciousness.
…..I feel nauseous.

You know Steve: actual science is much more interesting than made up stuff. Check it out.
I can see you really are having trouble understanding. Don't be frustrated but don't ignore what I keep telling all the Physicalists on this thread. You should think more Deeply about the Conscious experience itself. What is that Redness of the Red that you have always Known and Seen but never understood? The redness is not Describable and is truly a Mystery. Not religious, but just Mysterious. Mysterious only because we don't understand it yet. The Redness exists only in your Conscious Mind. Think about it, you will See some day. It is an amazing Self evident Reality of the Universe. It must be Explained.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:20 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 12:47 am
SteveKlinko wrote: That's my side business. I have a day job too. Thank You for the Advertisement.
I already know that you sell home stereo equipment on the internet and are attempting to expand and sell "Inter mind" T-Shirts. That's why you are posting your nonsense on our forum.

"Inter Mind T-shirts" $20.50
https://the-inter-mind.myshopify.com/co ... /frontpage

You are trying to promote your fairy tales to make money. :lol: :lol: :lol:
I sell Stereo Workstation Software. I do not sell Stereo Equipment. The two activities are separate. Only you have brought them together on this forum. I have never tried or even wanted to market Stereo Workstation Software on this forum.

So I see you Believe that Self Evident Realities of the Universe are Fairy Tails. Think about the Redness of the Red. It only Exists in your Conscious Mind. That is a Self Evident realization to anyone that has thought even a little Deeper about things.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 792
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dimebag » Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:12 pm

SteveKilnko wrote:Many Arguments, on the Website, show that this is not merely a Connection problem but it is also a Processing problem. There is just not enough Processing in the Physical Mind to satisfy the Binding Problem for example. The Website then proposes that there must be some other aspect of Mind that exists between the Physical Mind and The Conscious Mind.
Hey Steve, I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but a recent scientific effort involving a study and catalogueing of the different neurotransmitters and receptors found in the mouse brain found that no two synapses are the same when it comes to the neurotransmitter and receptor makeup. This means each synapse, yes, synapse not Neuron (there are multiple synapses per neuron) contains within it the ability to receive multiple coded signals, effectively making it a kind of complex logic gate/ram for the brain. Based on this information, I’m sure you can imagine how the processing power of the brain would increase several times, and the memory formation and recall could potentially be due to synapse states, not wide arrays of neurons, as previously thought. If the problem is how the brain sends, receives, stores and works with information, this problem might have an answer.

I would recommend listening to this podcast for more information: http://brainsciencepodcast.com/bsp/2018 ... -synaptome

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Nov 07, 2018 11:15 pm

Steve: thanks for the link to Hard Problem. I can one up it though: the Hard Problem IS: why is there "anything." ….. and everything proceeds from there.

Words; The English language has many more words than any other language. If you can't find the right word....its because you are on a flight of fantasy to satisfy yourself and no one else. so...yeah...claim X that no one else recognizes and then explain it in words that don't exist. Smell anything?

You could even be "right" in some aspect of what it is you think you perceive or have recognized but if you can't explain it to other people, you might as well be ignorant (thats a famous quote from whom I forget). Know what I mean???===>so use the dictionary and stop making stuff up. You might even be better for it.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:31 am

Dimebag wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:12 pm
SteveKilnko wrote:Many Arguments, on the Website, show that this is not merely a Connection problem but it is also a Processing problem. There is just not enough Processing in the Physical Mind to satisfy the Binding Problem for example. The Website then proposes that there must be some other aspect of Mind that exists between the Physical Mind and The Conscious Mind.
Hey Steve, I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but a recent scientific effort involving a study and catalogueing of the different neurotransmitters and receptors found in the mouse brain found that no two synapses are the same when it comes to the neurotransmitter and receptor makeup. This means each synapse, yes, synapse not Neuron (there are multiple synapses per neuron) contains within it the ability to receive multiple coded signals, effectively making it a kind of complex logic gate/ram for the brain. Based on this information, I’m sure you can imagine how the processing power of the brain would increase several times, and the memory formation and recall could potentially be due to synapse states, not wide arrays of neurons, as previously thought. If the problem is how the brain sends, receives, stores and works with information, this problem might have an answer.

I would recommend listening to this podcast for more information: http://brainsciencepodcast.com/bsp/2018 ... -synaptome
Very good. That extra complexity could have consequences for the field of Neural Nets.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:07 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 11:15 pm
Steve: thanks for the link to Hard Problem. I can one up it though: the Hard Problem IS: why is there "anything." ….. and everything proceeds from there.

Words; The English language has many more words than any other language. If you can't find the right word....its because you are on a flight of fantasy to satisfy yourself and no one else. so...yeah...claim X that no one else recognizes and then explain it in words that don't exist. Smell anything?

You could even be "right" in some aspect of what it is you think you perceive or have recognized but if you can't explain it to other people, you might as well be ignorant (thats a famous quote from whom I forget). Know what I mean???===>so use the dictionary and stop making stuff up. You might even be better for it.
Saying that I might as well be Ignorant because you can not Understand what I'm saying is quite a weird twist of non logic. I actually did think it would be easier to explain my ideas than it is. I thought that people would at least already understand the Easy Problem, the Hard Problem, the Explanatory Gap, Qualia, and etc. of Consciousness. It's like trying to teach Calculus to people that haven't taken Algebra yet. But when the people literally reject the validity of Algebra then it is impossible to teach Calculus. I am trying to introduce the concept of the derivative and they are still demanding that I prove 1+1=2 or actually denying that 1+1=2. The Physicalists on this thread need to brush up on their basic Philosophy with regard to Consciousness before they complain about my arguments. By the way, Philosophy is all there is when it comes to Consciousness. The Philosophy is the Science at this point in time. You have to come to the point where you can understand that current Science deals with the Neural Correlates of Consciousness and Philosophy deals with the actual Phenomenon of Consciousness itself. You need to at least understand that there is a big difference between these two endeavors.

If you don't like my Terminology and that is your only complaint and you actually do understand the Hard and Easy Problems, the Gap, and you do understand Qualia then I can't help you any further.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:33 am

SteveKlinko wrote: It's like trying to teach Calculus to people that haven't taken Algebra yet.
That's hilarious. I have used standard evolutionary theory to debunk your ridiculous claim, several times and because you don't understand evolution, you don't have a clue what I was showing you.

Does your separate "non physical consciousness thingee from another dimension" universally create colour for all animals or does there have to be a separate evolved "thingee" for each different species?

You will refuse to answer that question because it shows the huge error in your claims. :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9746
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:59 am

This is beginning to remind me of 'There's a Hole in my Bucket'.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:13 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:33 am
SteveKlinko wrote: It's like trying to teach Calculus to people that haven't taken Algebra yet.
That's hilarious. I have used standard evolutionary theory to debunk your ridiculous claim, several times and because you don't understand evolution, you don't have a clue what I was showing you.

Does your separate "non physical consciousness thingee from another dimension" universally create colour for all animals or does there have to be a separate evolved "thingee" for each different species?

You will refuse to answer that question because it shows the huge error in your claims. :lol: :lol:
Your Huge error is in perpetrating the Lie that I don't know anything about Evolution. I read the Origin of Species cover to cover over 40 years ago, and over the years have read other more modern approaches to Evolution. I have a pretty good understanding of how it works. You could not possibly have known my background with Evolution but you have been saying I don't know anything about Evolution for months. You are simply a Liar.

You have not used any standard Evolutionary Theory to debunk anything. You are Lying again.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9746
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:25 pm

You may claim to understand evolution, Steve, but your intermind claim belies that. Anyway, how about responding to the point I keep trying to make ... at least half of your fraternity of researchers into the field deny that a hard problem exists, so how do you expect mere skeptics to understand it? As far as I can see (and I've now read quite a lot about it), you are fraudulently presenting your ideas as de rigeur knowledge within the field. Is that why you keep ignoring the same questions?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:53 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:Does your separate "non physical consciousness thingee from another dimension" universally create colour for all animals or does there have to be a separate evolved "thingee" for each different species? You will refuse to answer that question because it shows the huge error in your claims. :lol: :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote: Your Huge error is in perpetrating the Lie that I don't know anything about Evolution. I read the Origin of Species cover to cover over 40 years ago, and over the years have read other more modern approaches to Evolution. I have a pretty good understanding of how it works.
Yet here you are totally unable to answer my basic question about your claim, and why evolution means your claim is 100% wrong. :lol: :lol:

Try to answer this really basic question about your claim.

Does your separate "non physical consciousness thingee from another dimension" universally create colour for all animals or does there have to be a separate evolved "thingee" for each different species?
///////////////////////////////

(You are probably already aware of the massive holes in your claim. Your "non physical consciousness thingee from another dimension" must exchange DNA and gene pool data across different dimensions to "match" evolved species in our dimension. That means, according to your own claim, it is not just "colour" that is exchanged, by magic, but also DNA sequences. If you disagree, explain your logic. :lol: :lol:

Secondly, it means your "non physical consciousness thingee from another dimension" must have simultaneously evolved from the very first T-RNA life on Earth, to allow for DNA matching to occur, when cones evolved in the eye. :lol: :lol:

Thirdly this means your non physical consciousness thingee from another dimension" is unique to life on Earth which means your claim is debunked with any alien life we meet that can perceive colour. :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Nov 10, 2018 12:01 am

Poodle wrote: You may claim to understand evolution, Steve, but your intermind claim belies that.
You got it. Steve Klinko is now stuck. The theory of evolution knocks out his claim on many many levels. He doesn't know what the theory of evolution is, so he has to deny the entire theory of evolution AND make his fairy tale claim AND claim there is another dimension yet he can't even set out any of its required characteristics. Worse that that, Steve Klinko has to respond to people who actually know about evolution and physics.

Steve Klinko suffers a classical case of Dunning Kruger Syndrome. :lol: :lol:

"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:55 am

SteveKlinko wrote:. I read the Origin of Species cover to cover over 40 years ago, and over the years have read other more modern approaches to Evolution. I have a pretty good understanding of how it works.
Excellent.

You are therefore aware you are claiming an evolved obligate symbiotic relationship has evolved between animals that see colour and your "non-physical evolved consciousness thingee from another dimension".

So tell us all..........

What is the adaptive advantage your "non-physical evolved consciousness thingee from another dimension." gets from converting neuron data from this data into colours in their dimension and sending it back to our dimension?

Secondly, as two species in a symbiotic relation have to co-evolve, then how did your "non-physical evolved consciousness thingee from another dimension." co-evolve with humans in our dimension?

Thirdly, is there a unique "non-physical evolved consciousness thingee from another dimension." for each color seeing species on Earth or one "universal fits-all-sizes" "non-physical evolved consciousness thingee from another dimension." . You see the problem is that according to evolution there has to be a unique "non-physical evolved consciousness thingee from another dimension." for every colour seeing animal on Earth otherwise species cannot separate from a common ancestor with their respective gene pool frequencies.


You do understand evolution, right? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:50 am

Poodle wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:25 pm
You may claim to understand evolution, Steve, but your intermind claim belies that. Anyway, how about responding to the point I keep trying to make ... at least half of your fraternity of researchers into the field deny that a hard problem exists, so how do you expect mere skeptics to understand it? As far as I can see (and I've now read quite a lot about it), you are fraudulently presenting your ideas as de rigeur knowledge within the field. Is that why you keep ignoring the same questions?
If half deny then then half understand. I'm in the camp that understands, and you are in the camp that denies. That is why we are debating. What's your point.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Nov 10, 2018 12:00 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:55 am
SteveKlinko wrote:. I read the Origin of Species cover to cover over 40 years ago, and over the years have read other more modern approaches to Evolution. I have a pretty good understanding of how it works.
Excellent.

You are therefore aware you are claiming an evolved obligate symbiotic relationship has evolved between animals that see colour and your "non-physical evolved consciousness thingee from another dimension".

So tell us all..........

What is the adaptive advantage your "non-physical evolved consciousness thingee from another dimension." gets from converting neuron data from this data into colours in their dimension and sending it back to our dimension?

Secondly, as two species in a symbiotic relation have to co-evolve, then how did your "non-physical evolved consciousness thingee from another dimension." co-evolve with humans in our dimension?

Thirdly, is there a unique "non-physical evolved consciousness thingee from another dimension." for each color seeing species on Earth or one "universal fits-all-sizes" "non-physical evolved consciousness thingee from another dimension." . You see the problem is that according to evolution there has to be a unique "non-physical evolved consciousness thingee from another dimension." for every colour seeing animal on Earth otherwise species cannot separate from a common ancestor with their respective gene pool frequencies.


You do understand evolution, right? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
So you are claiming that the Conscious experience of Pain does not enhance the survival probabilities of any Organism. Seems sensible to me that Pain would indeed enhance the survival probabilities of an Organism. Do you only think that Humans experience Pain? A good question would be: How early in Evolutionary history did the experience of Pain enter the scene?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Nov 10, 2018 12:32 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 12:01 am
Poodle wrote: You may claim to understand evolution, Steve, but your intermind claim belies that.
You got it. Steve Klinko is now stuck. The theory of evolution knocks out his claim on many many levels. He doesn't know what the theory of evolution is, so he has to deny the entire theory of evolution AND make his fairy tale claim AND claim there is another dimension yet he can't even set out any of its required characteristics. Worse that that, Steve Klinko has to respond to people who actually know about evolution and physics.

Steve Klinko suffers a classical case of Dunning Kruger Syndrome. :lol: :lol:

"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect
You are a Pathological Liar so the things you say are Irrelevant.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9746
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:26 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:50 am
Poodle wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:25 pm
You may claim to understand evolution, Steve, but your intermind claim belies that. Anyway, how about responding to the point I keep trying to make ... at least half of your fraternity of researchers into the field deny that a hard problem exists, so how do you expect mere skeptics to understand it? As far as I can see (and I've now read quite a lot about it), you are fraudulently presenting your ideas as de rigeur knowledge within the field. Is that why you keep ignoring the same questions?
If half deny then then half understand. I'm in the camp that understands, and you are in the camp that denies. That is why we are debating. What's your point.
And there's another of your errors, Steve. It is simply not so easily explicable as a binary situation. You cannot know if half understand. You cannot know if half know/do not know the truth. You cannot claim that you are in the camp that understands. You cannot know these things because there is no evidence for either standpoint. There is not a single bit of data within your argument which is either provable or disprovable. There is only opinion - but you fail to recognise this. In all of your posts (and yes, I've been back through the whole lot) you merely make claims - not a single one of them with anything approaching evidence to back it up. Despite this truism, you constantly insist that every other opinion but your own is wrong. But you cannot establish this in any way, shape or form.
In your field, there are arguments and opinions. However, to date, no conclusions have been formulated, although you often appear to claim that they have. But that would be a claim too many, Steve - it's simply wrong. So why don't you stop doing it?
Do you see THAT point?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:50 pm

Poodle wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:26 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:50 am
Poodle wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:25 pm
You may claim to understand evolution, Steve, but your intermind claim belies that. Anyway, how about responding to the point I keep trying to make ... at least half of your fraternity of researchers into the field deny that a hard problem exists, so how do you expect mere skeptics to understand it? As far as I can see (and I've now read quite a lot about it), you are fraudulently presenting your ideas as de rigeur knowledge within the field. Is that why you keep ignoring the same questions?
If half deny then then half understand. I'm in the camp that understands, and you are in the camp that denies. That is why we are debating. What's your point.
And there's another of your errors, Steve. It is simply not so easily explicable as a binary situation. You cannot know if half understand. You cannot know if half know/do not know the truth. You cannot claim that you are in the camp that understands. You cannot know these things because there is no evidence for either standpoint. There is not a single bit of data within your argument which is either provable or disprovable. There is only opinion - but you fail to recognise this. In all of your posts (and yes, I've been back through the whole lot) you merely make claims - not a single one of them with anything approaching evidence to back it up. Despite this truism, you constantly insist that every other opinion but your own is wrong. But you cannot establish this in any way, shape or form.
In your field, there are arguments and opinions. However, to date, no conclusions have been formulated, although you often appear to claim that they have. But that would be a claim too many, Steve - it's simply wrong. So why don't you stop doing it?
Do you see THAT point?
Whatever the percentage is, the point is the same. We're having a debate. What is the point of your irrelevant argument except as a Diversion away from the topic of this thread which is: How can the experience of the Redness of Red happen as a result of Neural Activity. Do you still claim that Red is an Illusion of Neural Activity? How do we experience this Illusion? What exactly is Redness? Stop Obfuscating and get back to the topic.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9746
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Sat Nov 10, 2018 4:57 pm

Obfuscating? Moi?
This is the question you really SHOULD be asking, Steve ... How can the experience of colour be anything other than a result of neural activity?
The difference there is that I haven't pre-loaded the question with an implication which needn't be there (see Ockham's Razor once more).

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8409
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by landrew » Sat Nov 10, 2018 5:00 pm

Poodle wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 4:57 pm
Obfuscating? Moi?
This is the question you really SHOULD be asking, Steve ... How can the experience of colour be anything other than a result of neural activity?
The difference there is that I haven't pre-loaded the question with an implication which needn't be there (see Ockham's Razor once more).
How can any experience be anything other than a result of neural activity?
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Nov 11, 2018 12:33 am

SteveKlinko wrote: So you are claiming that the Conscious experience of Pain does not enhance the survival probabilities of any Organism.
You didn't understand the question because you don't know what evolution is.

You are falsely claiming an evolved obligate symbiotic relationship has evolved between animals that see colour and your "non-physical evolved consciousness thingee from another dimension".

That means there are two separate evolving species. The animals that see colour in our dimension and your magical "non-physical evolved consciousness thingee from another dimension".

I ask again. What is the evolutionary advantage for your "non-physical evolved consciousness thingee from another dimension" in converting neural data from our dimension into colour and sending it back to our dimension?

Obviously there is no advantage because your claim is a fairy tale. :lol: :lol: :lol:

////////////////////////////////////////////////////
SteveKlinko wrote: Seems sensible to me that Pain would indeed enhance the survival probabilities of an Organism.
Plant life does not feel pain you complete idiot. Animals that feel pain only arose 500 million years ago. Evolution was already going on for 3.8 billion years.

You really don't know anything about evolution, do you?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8409
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by landrew » Sun Nov 11, 2018 12:35 am

:dil:
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Nov 11, 2018 12:38 am

SteveKlinko wrote:. I read the Origin of Species cover to cover over 40 years ago, and over the years have read other more modern approaches to Evolution. I have a pretty good understanding of how it works.
No you don't. "Origin of the Species" was Darwin's book from 1859 and discusses natural selection. It does not discuss genetics, gene frequencies, DNA, or any of the actual evolutionary mechanisms.

You really don't have a clue what evolution actually is. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Nov 11, 2018 12:41 am

Dodgeball.jpg
Answer these basic questions about the evolution of your "non-physical evolved consciousness thingee from another dimension." .

What is the adaptive advantage your "non-physical evolved consciousness thingee from another dimension." gets from converting neuron data from this data into colours in their dimension and sending it back to our dimension?

Secondly, as two species in a symbiotic relation have to co-evolve, then how did your "non-physical evolved consciousness thingee from another dimension." co-evolve with humans in our dimension?

Thirdly, is there a unique "non-physical evolved consciousness thingee from another dimension." for each color seeing species on Earth or one "universal fits-all-sizes" "non-physical evolved consciousness thingee from another dimension." . You see the problem is that according to evolution there has to be a unique "non-physical evolved consciousness thingee from another dimension." for every colour seeing animal on Earth otherwise species cannot separate from a common ancestor with their respective gene pool frequencies.
Klinko 5.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8409
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by landrew » Sun Nov 11, 2018 12:48 am

Gregor Mendel didn't need to know anything about DNA to develop his rules of inheritance.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 11, 2018 12:49 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:07 pm
By the way, Philosophy is all there is when it comes to Consciousness.
LORD HELP ME. I can't stop the kibbitz. but the quote above is humorous in its flat falsity. There is a long running show on PBS called "Closer to Truth" mostly an atheists claiming to want to believe, but he covers a lot of mind/brain issues a la "How do we know....whatever." Last week he had a "father" of modern Physics on and the question was the role of Philosophy in Modern Day Science. He poo poo'd philosophy as only asking questions and perhaps pointing out some flaws but that KNOWLEDGE only cones from testable SCIENCE. With a moments reflection: who can deny this?????

So, the "There are two kinds of people in this world game." those who believe/use/understand/accept SCIENCE.............and those who don't.

Choose ..................as there are two kinds of people in this world: those who choose wisely, and those who choose anything exept materialist SCIENCE.

hEH, HEH.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 11, 2018 12:55 am

Poodle wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:25 pm
You may claim to understand evolution, Steve, but your intermind claim belies that.
Yeah Verily. I'm thinking: take any CAUSE and EFFECT relationship (there are Billions of them like Brain => Consciousness) and simply interpose an "inter thingee" (TM by Matthew) between the two and claim its a Hard Problem rather than made up BS.

It works with any well understood reality. You really don't understand 2 + 2 = 4 unless you understand the Hard Problem of the Essence of what any two numbers are. See? any rebuttable??? Just copy and paste any extended post from Steve and then for impact add in that you have read from cover to cover any book on the subject.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:06 am

landrew post wrote: Gregor Mendel didn't need to know anything about DNA to develop his rules of inheritance.
I'll keep that in mind for agricultural purposes concerning dominant and recessive inherited characteristics.

By your logic, the bronze age sheep herders that hated agriculture also had evolutionary insight as they keep talking about "who begat who....."

By your same logic, as cows were domesticated 30,000 years ago some blokes, with stone tools, also had evolutionary insight.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8409
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by landrew » Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:12 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:06 am
landrew post wrote: Gregor Mendel didn't need to know anything about DNA to develop his rules of inheritance.
I'll keep that in mind for agricultural purposes concerning dominant and recessive inherited characteristics.

By your logic, the bronze age sheep herders that hated agriculture also had evolutionary insight as they keep talking about "who begat who....."

By your same logic, as cows were domesticated 30,000 years ago some blokes, with stone tools, also had evolutionary insight.
Yeah. Logic. OK.
Actually cows became domesticated mainly because the wildest ones ran away, while the docile one stayed put. Very logical.
Last edited by landrew on Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:12 am

All Landrew said was "rules of inheritance"...not evolution. In context, that "should have been" his point....but he didn't expressly go there. It is a hard problem after all to differentiate the Experience of Green vs the Experience of Yellow. and today: we have peas too sweet to eat.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:23 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: LORD HELP ME.
At least you can laugh.

Steve Klinko makes home stereo equipment software and sells it on the internet. He is trying to expand this into internet T-shirt sales, promoting his "Inter Mind" philosophy.

I could not stop laughing when I realised his "Inter mind" philosophy web-page was accompanied by his diagrams........that strongly resemble PCB (printed circuit board) diagrams. He is just using his experience from home stereo electronics, to create a bogus claim, to sell T-shirts. :lol:

Steve Klinko's Inter-Mind explanatory diagram.
Inter mind PCB diagram.JPG
PCB schematic
PCB schematic.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:45 am

I don't know electricity very well at all. Its a very Hard Problem for me...….but.....if the Inter-Mind Diagram was an electronic circuit, wouldn't there be several short circuits? …..aka...….Steve may understand his theory quite well.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8409
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by landrew » Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:50 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:45 am
I don't know electricity very well at all. Its a very Hard Problem for me...….but.....if the Inter-Mind Diagram was an electronic circuit, wouldn't there be several short circuits? …..aka...….Steve may understand his theory quite well.
It's much more like a flow chart than an electrical schematic.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:57 am

Thats the foundation for my comment, yes.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Nov 11, 2018 5:31 am

landrew wrote: It's much more like a flow chart than an electrical schematic.
That's right. Notice how Steve Klinko can't actually state what is "flowing" but has a "flow chart". Think about that. :lol: :lol:

Even sillier, is that light is a collapsible dual particle /wave form. As soon as it is measured or sampled it collapses. Yet somehow, magically, Steve Klinko's paranormal non-physical thingee from another dimension can somehow move this data across dimensions and send it back to our dimension

Even more amazingly, if I were to take information from neurons there should be an energy loss, Yet there are millions of millions of colour seeing animals continuously processing colour and no one has ever noticed a energy loss in neurons. Were is the increase in energy when this magical paranormal non-physical thingee from another dimension, sends back the colour information? :lol: :lol:

There are holes in Steve Klinko's claim that you can drive a truck through. Steve Klinko knows that and that's why he doesn't answer direct questions.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9746
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Poodle » Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:59 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 5:31 am
... There are holes in Steve Klinko's claim that you can drive a truck through. Steve Klinko knows that and that's why he doesn't answer direct questions.
I'm sorry to say (no - I really am) that this is correct. Steve has consistently appealed to the supernatural on the grounds that there is no agency/structure which can explain human sensory maps without recourse to some kind of database residing in fairyland. Steve's only argument for the existence of this Extra-Sensory Process (which I'll probably call ESP in future assuming someone hasn't already grabbed that one - what? Oh. OK. Maybe not.) is that there exists a group of researchers who think along those lines. Steve hasn't yet realised that appeal to authority belongs to a set of things called fallacies.
The intermind explanation is no better than (is the same as) any old religious appeal. It's certainly not science and I'm not sure it would even get into the category of pseudoscience. It's simply excruciatingly bad thinking based upon an inability to appreciate that the brain is an immensely complex bit of kit. I can't see that there's anything left to say (but that probably won't stop me doing it just as Steve does).