Recent content by Lievo

No it's you who self-promoted yourself, and in a ridiculous way (I've talk to Chalmer!). Don't count I will do the same. You also insulted me several times, and others too, and you're again insulting me by pretending it was dishonest to edit my poost, even though I let an explicit note of...

Your usual line when you got it wrong, isn't it? :redface:

Another example of these claims you're making everywhere about the status of neuroscientific questions. There are hundred if not thousand of neuroscientist trying to figure out this question. Your statement just mean that you're not really interest in how it's works, not that we know how it is...

That's considered as the most likely explanation. However, there is also the possibility that http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.120&rep=rep1&type=pdf" could be implicated somehow.

I would expect the main effect is to increase survival because you would also put sugar. But you'll have to experiment if you want to know.

I won't guess there's a link, but I don't think we know where this effect comes from. Maybe seems the best we can say now.

I gave you five and add comment for the two you were not understanding. I guess this is your spicy way to say thank you. :rolleyes:

I think what you have in mind is accomodating all known evidence, whereas I was talking about accomodating any possible evidence. The first is what you want in science, the latter is not even wrong. Suppose one claim that a given bunch of evidences support one's view. Then question yourself...

(some detailed comments where it seems necessary) Yes. I agree this is tentative, not to the extent to call it hype. No, this is interesting but too linked to older studies to meet your requierement. I was thinking at the variations we now find in adults...

That's very instructive. So I understand now, that when you say your claim are supported by evidence, what you mean is that your claim are general enough to accommodate any evidence. Good to know, I won't have to lose my time next time. :redface:

Absolutly not. You said something stupid. Context doesn't change it was stupid. If I wanted to challenge the context, I'd have quote the context. Any fMRI experiment cost at least 5000$. I don't think many master student are allowed to whip up an fMRI study in a few day. Regarding...

One precision please: here do you equate physicalist and mathematical language?

That's you who pretend to know that. I personnaly don't know -altough it would be my guess. What I know, is that if QM applies correctly describe reality, then reality is computationnal. Yep. An hilarious standard technics. Yep. For each paper mentionning single unit, 6 mention brain...

No pb. I think this is the heart of what I don't get in your position, surely we will have to discuss it at one point.

How do you know? C'mon. You have to search MRI because fMRI does not appears in functionnal MRI, echo-planar MRI, sparse sampling MRI, event-related MRI, block designed MRI, ... and yes also anatomical MRI. A lot to look at with this technics alone. Alternativley, search for brain imaging...