Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you want to engage me in debate, fine.
I wasn't engaging with you. I was engaging with [|]. My experience with you has shown that you don't address the points others raise; you just retreat to your echo chamber.
--------------------
> If that
> includes quoting me, and providing a specific,
> argumentative, response, fine. But don't ask me
> to wade through a bunch of prior posts. . .
You denied saying what you have said. I linked to your statements to document your contradictions. If refreshing your memory about those claims is too much bother--or, pointedly, otherwise inconvenient--so be it.
--------------------
, or read
> through linked or referenced articles, or assess
> general scientific discoveries, without making
> specific points.
I did make specific points. It doesn't surprise me that you would rather ignore them since facts have sharp edges and may puncture your hermetically sealed bubble.
------------------
> As usual, your scientific assessments are wrong at
> worst, or at best grossly overstated. In this
> case, your conclusion as to neuroscience's ability
> to map human cognition "one-on-one" is flat out
> wrong, and frankly ridiculous.
Did I say "human cognition?" No, I did not.
------------------
> Certainly, some
> such general mapping has been achieved,
> particularly in the area of visual perception,
> which is the easiest system to correlate; and
> there are certainly correlations between brain
> pathology and psychology, none of which I have
> ever doubted, or called into question.
Utter nonsense. We argued at length about dyslexia and about brain injury and your position was that it is impossible to localize reading or any other functions. Then you started to slide away from that manifestly false argument all the while denying your that anything had changed.
https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2315589,2316207#msg-2316207------------------
> But as to
> more advanced cognitive functions, and memory
> tracing, neuroscience remains essentially in the
> dark.
I never mentioned "advanced cognitive functions" or "memory tracing." Those are your straw men, your means of avoiding honest discussion.
------------
> But, again, if you want to make specific points,
> or provide specific quotes, either as a challenge
> to my statements, or in support of your own
> position, fine. We can then have a fun debate.
> But I am not going to spend hours digging through
> prior posts, or considering your general,
> unsupported comments, or watching videos, or
> reading long essays, to refute your often
> ill-informed positions.
This is ironic on several scores. First, you have often asked me to read your litany of not articles but entire books. To assert now that you are too busy to learn from others smacks of the condescension that [|] noted. In addition, you have on numerous occasions asked me for specific sources, which I provided. For instance, here:
https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2304518,2305193#msg-2305193But then you retreated to your bubble, saying you didn't really want sources.
Finally, discussing these matters with you is not "fun." It's tiresome. You have constructed a cozy little intellectual home and, recognizing that truth can be awkward, will not let science intrude. When people present empirically established facts like the one-to-one nature of visual processing (you'd have to watch the video or read an article), the neurological basis of dyslexia or HDHD or autism (you'd have to read Shaywitz or other experts whose names you've never encountered), the impact of injury to specific brain regions on the type and nature of memory impairment (ibid), or the fact that animals dream (see above), you declare those things impossible and retreat to what you perceive as a dream castle but the rest of us recognize as a mere hovel.
What is the point of discussing scientific matters with someone who's convinced himself that the inside of the cave is perfectly cozy and those lights and shadows from outside are mere illusion?