Chaos Magic

[carlitos]

annnnoid, if you could be a wee bit more concise, you might inspire more to read your posts.

Just a friendly reminder that masking profanity is against the Membership Agreement. I don't report people, and frankly don't give a **** about profanity, but you are picking fights and no doubt someone will report this. Why not just remove such things from your posts and remove the problem?

[Pure Argent]

Every one of these ‘ignorant assertions’ (as you called them) was either written or reviewed and explicitly confirmed by Professor Geraint Rees, Director… Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London…who is the one of the authors of (among other things) the following paper: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/jocn.2011.21631?prevSearch=allfield%253A%2528decod ing%2Bfmri%2529&searchHistoryKey=

Then source it. The paper you linked to does not support your assertions. Or, at least, the synopsis doesn't. I don't have access to the site (and I doubt that you do, either).

As for that link you included (whatever happened to 'google it' ?), did you even read it?

Yes. Did you?

It actually does far more to confirm the conclusions I presented than anything you presented.

Then explain why.

<snip>

As for ‘free will’….I have presented massive amounts of evidence to support the existence of the phenomenon.

No, you haven't.

The explicitly stated positions of some of the most brilliant philosophers who have ever lived: Descartes, Hegel, Plato, Kant…to name a few. Just about every major religious tradition that has ever existed. The constitutions and founding documents of every liberal democracy in the world. Only a complete and utter fool would insist that ‘free will’ does not figure fundamentally and prominently in the metaphysics of these individuals and social phenomenon.

It's a good thing that I never said that, then, isn't it? I said that their opinions are not evidence, not that the existence of free will was not important to them.

Your arguments would be greatly improved if you stopped strawmanning.

<snip>

…and yet, somehow all of these are ‘ignorant assertions’…and there is ‘no supporting evidence’ ?!?!?!?!?!?

Yes. That you continue to insist that they are doesn't make you look very good. This is very, very basic logic, annnnoid. Opinions, even the opinions of famous people who are considered very intelligent, mean nothing. Do you understand that? Nothing. Evidence means everything. What they believe means nothing if they cannot produce the evidence.

They can't.

<snip repetition>

You say your position is supported by the evidence…

…yet once again…

ARGENT DOES NOT SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!!

Straw man. My position that there is no free will is supported by the lack of evidence for your position that there is free will.

Try again.

Or perhaps one of your fellow skeptics has this magical information available (you claim this is the reason no one has been critical…let’s see if you’re right).

The information about consciousness? Yes. I imagine they do. It's right there on Google.

I’d sure like to know what it is…and if they don’t (present it), I’ll just assume they don’t know what it is either (which will establish your claim to be wrong)

It's very telling that your position includes this little catch. It's a totally unwarranted leap. Just another one in a long line of them, for you.

[annnnoid]

Absolutely amazing.

STILL NO EVIDENCE!....dozens of posts…and STILL NO EVIDENCE!...and yet somehow you have the nerve to complain about the evidence I provide!?!?!?!?!?

The first discussion ended at the last post. The second discussion is now over as well.

You have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to brain-state decoding and you have even less of an idea when it comes to ‘free will’. You make endless excuses that you can’t submit supporting evidence….you make absolutely idiotic claims and substantiate them with nothing more than ‘google it’…you make no argument what-so-ever except that you’re right because your opponent can’t prove otherwise….you play endless games about what your position actually is and then make endless excuses about ever presenting one. I could go on and on but I simply can’t be bothered any more. If you are an example of skeptic achievement then the religious world has absolutely nothing to worry about.

You are now the second skeptic to graduate to my ignore list. Congratulations. No more Argent…I feel better already.

[PixyMisa]

Not sure about Hegel, but Descartes, Kant, and Plato were wrong about just about everything, philosophically speaking. Waving their names about doesn't help your case in any way.

Oh yeah, Hegel. Now that I recall what he was into, yep, dead wrong about everything.

[tsig]

Absolutely amazing.

STILL NO EVIDENCE!....dozens of posts…and STILL NO EVIDENCE!...and yet somehow you have the nerve to complain about the evidence I provide!?!?!?!?!?

The first discussion ended at the last post. The second discussion is now over as well.

You have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to brain-state decoding and you have even less of an idea when it comes to ‘free will’. You make endless excuses that you can’t submit supporting evidence….you make absolutely idiotic claims and substantiate them with nothing more than ‘google it’…you make no argument what-so-ever except that you’re right because your opponent can’t prove otherwise….you play endless games about what your position actually is and then make endless excuses about ever presenting one. I could go on and on but I simply can’t be bothered any more. If you are an example of skeptic achievement then the religious world has absolutely nothing to worry about.

You are now the second skeptic to graduate to my ignore list. Congratulations. No more Argent…I feel better already.

What particular religious world were you thinking of?

[PixyMisa]

Then source it. The paper you linked to does not support your assertions. Or, at least, the synopsis doesn't. I don't have access to the site (and I doubt that you do, either).
Take a look at Professor Rees' own website (http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/%7Egrees//index.html). It's painfully obvious that he's a materialist and a computationalist and agrees with us - or, rather, he being the expert here, we agree with him:We spend a lot of our time using multivariate algorithms to predict behavior and subjective states such as the contents of consciousness from patterns of brain activity measured using fMRI. More recently we have become interested in using MEG to accomplish similar goals.

Most research involves functional MRI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_MRI) at high field, in combination with behavioral studies, transcranial magnetic stimulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulation) and EEG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography)/MEG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoencephalography). Previous work by Rees has suggested that subjective awareness of objects in the visual environment is associated not just with enhanced activation in visual areas of the occipital lobe, but also areas of parietal and prefrontal cortex often associated with attention. A major focus of this work is therefore in studying interactions between visual cortex and these areas, both in the context of attention, and with respect to eye movements.

annnnoid is living in a bizarre fantasy land.

[The Man]

What, "subjective awareness of objects in the visual environment" involves "areas of parietal and prefrontal cortex often associated with attention"?!?!

I might agree, were I more attentive.

Dang parietal and prefrontal cortex, get to doing some work, break time is over.

[Pure Argent]

Absolutely amazing.

STILL NO EVIDENCE!....dozens of posts…and STILL NO EVIDENCE!...and yet somehow you have the nerve to complain about the evidence I provide!?!?!?!?!?

Burden of proof fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html), lie.

On the subject of free will, I am not required to give any evidence. I have explained this before, but you didn't understand it then, either, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it still escapes your grasp.

On the subject of neurology, I have given you evidence, even though you very obviously didn't want it and would simply dismiss it out of hand. And you did, as expected. Now, in my last post, I asked for the justification for your dismissal, as in your last post you said nothing more than "It actually does far more to confirm the conclusions I presented than anything you presented" with no justification given. And, seeing as it directly contradicts your statement that you cannot decode visual data via neuroscanners (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6925494#post6925494), I can only conclude that you did not read the paper.

Because, you see, I was right. Finding evidence for you is pointless. You aren't interested in the truth. You just want to live in your smug, self-satisfied fantasy world. You aren't interested in reality.

You have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to brain-state decoding and you have even less of an idea when it comes to ‘free will’.

Funny, then, that I'm the one whose position is backed by the evidence.

And basic logic.

You make endless excuses that you can’t submit supporting evidence….

Straw man (again). I make no excuses. I state baldly and unequivocally that I can, but will not find evidence for you. I have tried in the past, and it earned nothing more than your present shameless denial.

If you want to know (you don't), Google it.

you make absolutely idiotic claims and substantiate them with nothing more than ‘google it’…

Half-right.

you make no argument what-so-ever except that you’re right because your opponent can’t prove otherwise…

No. Straw man again. When are you going to get it through your head that the burden of proof is on you?

you play endless games about what your position actually is and then make endless excuses about ever presenting one.

I haven't done any such thing. But then, we already knew that you were deluded.

I could go on and on

Oh, I don't doubt you could.

but I simply can’t be bothered any more. If you are an example of skeptic achievement then the religious world has absolutely nothing to worry about.

You are now the second skeptic to graduate to my ignore list. Congratulations. No more Argent…I feel better already.

That makes two people who have me on ignore put me there immediately following a discussion like this. The other was 9/11-investigator, just after I pointed out that his pet fantasy of Auschwitz being a vacation resort for Jews (not kidding) was a steaming pile of crap.

I wonder why that is.

[Pure Argent]

annnnoid is living in a bizarre fantasy land.

But we knew that already.

[annnnoid]

So Reess is one of ‘us’ is he. I guess you completely missed what that whole discussion was about didn’t you Pixy (read much?…only when necessary). It actually had nothing what-so-ever to do with materialism or computationlism… but you get a jelly bean for trying anyway.

But I’m glad to hear you agree with him. Just confirms that Argent was wrong about all his points…which was the point to begin with.

Kant, Hegel, Descartes, and Plato were all idiots…wrong about just about everything. Funny Pixy…when I check the Wiki philosophy website, I don’t see your name featured anywhere. Is that some kind of oversight d’ya suppose. Those four philosophers get chunks of space, and you get….none. But you’re right, and they’re all wrong. I guess you must be ahead of your time. Doubtless in a hundred years Wiki will have been renamed Pixy and we’ll all be referring to Pixypedia to get all our facts on life, the universe and everything.

[Pure Argent]

So Reess is one of ‘us’ is he. I guess you completely missed what that whole discussion was about didn’t you Pixy (read much?…only when necessary). It actually had nothing what-so-ever to do with materialism or computationlism… but you get a jelly bean for trying anyway.

So you aren't paying attention to your own arguments, either?

But I’m glad to hear you agree with him. Just confirms that Argent was wrong about all his points…which was the point to begin with.

Funny, then, that he agrees with me.

Kant, Hegel, Descartes, and Plato were all idiots…

No.

wrong about just about everything.

Yes.

Why is it that you can't seem to grasp this simple concept?

[P.J. Denyer]

In the past, I have been known to commune with spirits -- I'd begin my ritual by unscrewing the cap from the whiskey or vodka bottle and pouring out a glass.

After a while, I would be levitating too!

I hope this counts as chaos magic.

Once when I tried that I must have gotten an Evil Spirit as it ended with projectile vomiting like 'The Exorcist'!

[PixyMisa]

So Reess is one of ‘us’ is he.
Materialist and computationalist, yes.

I guess you completely missed what that whole discussion was about didn’t you Pixy (read much?…only when necessary). It actually had nothing what-so-ever to do with materialism or computationlism… but you get a jelly bean for trying anyway.It was also about you asserting that we don't know things that we do, in fact, know perfectly well.

Kant, Hegel, Descartes, and Plato were all idiots…wrong about just about everything.When it comes to philosophy, yes. Descartes was also a scientist and mathematician. Plato was entirely wrong; on the other hand, he didn't a whole lot of earlier philosophers to learn from.

If you wish to describe Kant and Hegel as idiots, I won't argue.

Funny Pixy…when I check the Wiki philosophy website, I don’t see your name featured anywhere.No, but you will find, for example, Bertrand Russell saying that almost everything Hegel ever said was wrong.

Is that some kind of oversight d’ya suppose. Those four philosophers get chunks of space, and you get….none. But you’re right, and they’re all wrong. I guess you must be ahead of your time. Doubtless in a hundred years Wiki will have been renamed Pixy and we’ll all be referring to Pixypedia to get all our facts on life, the universe and everything.Argumentum ad populum. You'll find Lamarck in Wikipedia, and phlogiston, and the luminiferous aether. And astrology and homeopathy and iridology. And von Daniken and Cayce and Annie Besant.

If you want to argue that having a Wikipedia page about something makes it true, then you should go right ahead and start a new thread. That will be fun.

[PixyMisa]

On the subject of neurology, I have given you evidence, even though you very obviously didn't want it and would simply dismiss it out of hand. And you did, as expected. Now, in my last post, I asked for the justification for your dismissal, as in your last post you said nothing more than "It actually does far more to confirm the conclusions I presented than anything you presented" with no justification given. And, seeing as it directly contradicts your statement that you cannot decode visual data via neuroscanners (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6925494#post6925494), I can only conclude that you did not read the paper.
Yes, I was very amused when he took that as a rock on which to stand.

[annnnoid]

Yes, I was very amused when he took that as a rock on which to stand.

Then I’m sure you’ll find what follows equally amusing.

Just for your enlightenment Pixy…I reviewed the entire situation with Rees point by point…including both your and Argents idiotic claims. He flat out rejected both of them as utter nonsense (…his specific words were “I’ve personally never made such claims and I know of no scientists anywhere in the world who have or would”…). I asked him specifically about a range of conclusions and observations he and other researches had made in various papers. They clearly describe the current state of brain decoding. He explicitly wrote or approved every one of them. They all came directly from him. They’re all in my previous post. None of them agree with either your position or Argents.

Rees is the director of the cognitive science department at university college London. You’ve dismissed Kant, Hegel, Descartes, and Plato (and Argent has dismissed what is regarded as the foundation of the civilized world and human nature). Are you gonna dismiss Rees as well?

Go right ahead if it makes you happy, I no longer give a crap. Neither of you have the faintest idea what you’re talking about and I’ve no intention of wasting another second on Argents utterly worthless point of view. ‘Ignore’ is a great idea. I should have used it a long time ago.

Staggeringly ignorant now belongs to you Argent. If you can’t handle being wrong, take it up with Rees. Maybe you’d actually learn something.

…and just a final point Argent. Referring to that little quote in Pixy’s post. Do you have any idea how hysterically laughable it is for you, of all people, to be insisting that someone else explain, justify, or support their claim! Coming from you…the king of ‘google it’ and ‘I don't have to define my terms, I don't hare to provide an argument, I don’t have to give you any evidence…oh no I don’t’.. What a f’in joke. What I included in my previous post came straight from the horses mouth. Rees wrote or approved every one of those points. There’s nothing to argue, nothing to discuss, nothing to debate. You, and Pixy, are wrong. End of story. Boo hoo.

[Pure Argent]

I reviewed the entire situation with Rees point by point…

Hands up everyone who believes this.

…and just a final point Argent. Referring to that little quote in Pixy’s post. Do you have any idea how hysterically laughable it is for you, of all people, to be insisting that someone else explain, justify, or support their claim! Coming from you…the king of ‘google it’ and ‘I don't have to define my terms, I don't hare to provide an argument, I don’t have to give you any evidence…oh no I don’t’.. What a f’in joke.

So you still would rather resort to strawmanning and denial than admit that the burden of proof is on you? Sad, but unsurprising.

[PixyMisa]

Then I’m sure you’ll find what follows equally amusing.
Researchers have demonstrated that it is possible to read words right out of the visual cortex using fMRI. This has been referenced multiple times by multiple posters. It doesn't matter what you believe Rees may have said; you are simply wrong.

[PixyMisa]

I reviewed the entire situation with Rees point by point…
[citation needed]

[Pure Argent]

If I am not mistaken, annnnoid has managed, in the space of maybe two days, to put everyone on this forum who attempts to actually engage him in discussion on ignore.

I wonder why he would do that?

[annnnoid]

Wallowing in desperation are we? You’re beginning to sound pathetic.

You’re both wrong.
The director of cog sci at university college London says so.
I’d be happy to show the emails to anyone at JREF who wants proof that Pixy and Argent don’t know what they’re talking about. That Pixy and Argent fabricate facts and manipulate evidence. They’re clearly dated and they clearly have Rees email address on them and they clearly include all the statements written in my post…word.…for….word.

Deal with it.

I won’t bother asking for a citation for your claim Pixy. Your credibility vanished a long time ago. No citation needed. When it comes from you, we already know it’s a waste of time.

[Pure Argent]

You’re both wrong.
The director of cog sci at university college London says so.

Liar.

[PixyMisa]

Wallowing in desperation are we? You’re beginning to sound pathetic.

You’re both wrong.
The director of cog sci at university college London says so.
[citation needed]

I’d be happy to show the emails to anyone at JREF who wants proof that Pixy and Argent don’t know what they’re talking about. That Pixy and Argent fabricate facts and manipulate evidence. They’re clearly dated and they clearly have Rees email address on them and they clearly include all the statements written in my post…word.…for….word.

Deal with it.
You do realise that even if Rees said exactly what you claim he said, you are still wrong?

I won’t bother asking for a citation for your claim Pixy.
Citation has already been given multiple times.

Here's the abstract: http://www.cell.com/neuron/retrieve/pii/S0896627308009586
Here's a quick summary for the layman: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/soon_well_be_reading_your_mind.php
Here's the full original paper: http://www.scribd.com/doc/8857889/Visual-Image-Reconstruction-from-Human-Brain-Activity-using-a-Combination-of-Multiscale-Local-Image-Decoders
Here's a Youtube video showing it working in real time: daY7uO0eftA

Your credibility vanished a long time ago. No citation needed. When it comes from you, we already know it’s a waste of time.
Your opinion as to my credibility doesn't change the facts. We're still right, and you're still wrong.

[annnnoid]

Unfortunately…’ignore’ only functions when I’m not signed in. What a shame. As it stands, there’s only one on that list now. Norseman actually presented some reasonable posts, so I took him off. You’re the only one left Argent. You’re there because you’re utterly worthless (amusing…but still utterly worthless)…and you lie.

As I said Argent….I’d be happy to show the emails to anyone at JREF…then everyone will see who is the liar. I don’t expect anyone to care…but if it ever comes to a question of who is the liar…I have proof. What do you have?

Thought so.

You’re like a little school-boy who’s been caught out and simply can’t handle it. What a shame.

As for your desperate attempt at a rebuttal Pixy. I’m not even going to waste my time on it. Read the thing. EXTREMELY simple conditions, EXTREMELY simple results, won't work for just about any other modality, doubt it will work for visualization / cognition / memory, time consuming, subject has to fixate on the test image for 12 seconds, serious limitations….and somehow from this you claim it’s possible to extrapolate to that huge list I presented?!?!?!?!?? Is that seriously the best you can do??????

You are a joke Pixy.

You think Rees wasn’t aware of exactly that kind of result when we discussed this stuff. He lives right in the middle of one of the biggest cog sci research centers in the world. Do you honestly think he’s not fully cognizant of what an fMRI is capable of?


This discussion is now over.

[PixyMisa]

As I said Argent….I’d be happy to show the emails to anyone at JREF
Go ahead then.

As for your desperate attempt at a rebuttal Pixy. I’m not even going to waste my time on it. Read the thing. EXTREMELY simple conditions, EXTREMELY simple results, won't work for just about any other modality, doubt it will work for visualization / cognition / memory, time consuming, subject has to fixate on the test image for 12 seconds, serious limitations….and somehow from this you claim it’s possible to extrapolate to that huge list I presented?!?!?!?!?? Is that seriously the best you can do??????
Did you have a point here?

We can read images out of the visual cortex using fMRI, which you said we can't do. We can do that because the visual cortex retains a one-to-one representation of the image falling on the retina. Other parts of the brain contain progressively more abstract representations of the image, and we need correspondinly more subtle approaches to interpret those representations.

Similar situations apply to the other senses.

This is, of course, entirely to be expected given what was already known from earlier studies in neuroscience and psychology, exactly in alignment with what we've been saying, and supports rather than undermines the position of materialism and computationalism.

I really don't understand why you think there's a problem. If those were Professor Rees' words, then he was advising caution in interpreting the results of recent research, not making any sort of absolute statement.

Can we read your mind? No.

We can read simple, high-contrast images out of your visual cortex, right now.
We can get a good general idea of your emotional state, right now.

I'm not sure where work on the other senses is up to right now; visual perception is the big thing, but there is similar work going on in hearing as well.

We'd welcome the original emails, posts, or other statements from your sources. Go right ahead.

The thing is, if they are actual neuroscience researchers, you'll find that their positions coincide with ours, because we arrived at our positions by following neuroscientific research. Sure, they'll know more about this than we do. But we know perfectly well that they're not going to support the existence of libertarian free will, because such a thing is a physical impossibility.

You think Rees wasn’t aware of exactly that kind of result when we discussed this stuff. He lives right in the middle of one of the biggest cog sci research centers in the world. Do you honestly think he’s not fully cognizant of what an fMRI is capable of?
I know perfectly well that he does. So?

This discussion is now over.
What discussion?

[Mirrorglass]

I don't think I've ever seen a poster write so many rants directed at posters they claim to have on ignore. It rather makes me wonder whether the word means what you think it means.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

As I said Argent….I’d be happy to show the emails to anyone at JREF…then everyone will see who is the liar.

Please do. Please post them in this thread.

[dlorde]

‘Ignore’ is a great idea. I should have used it a long time ago.

I can't help feeling that's a somewhat defeatist, escapist attitude - small children stick their fingers in their ears and chant "na-na-na-na, I can't hear you", but adults really ought to cope better. If you put people you don't agree with on ignore, it defeats the point of the forum...

YMMV.

[dlorde]

...I’d be happy to show the emails to anyone at JREF…

Yes please - if you don't feel they can be posted on the forum, please forward them via pm. Your communication with Rees would be particularly welcome.

[dafydd]

Unfortunately…’ignore’ only functions when I’m not signed in. What a shame. As it stands, there’s only one on that list now. Norseman actually presented some reasonable posts, so I took him off. You’re the only one left Argent. You’re there because you’re utterly worthless (amusing…but still utterly worthless)…and you lie.

As I said Argent….I’d be happy to show the emails to anyone at JREF…then everyone will see who is the liar. I don’t expect anyone to care…but if it ever comes to a question of who is the liar…I have proof. What do you have?

Thought so.

You’re like a little school-boy who’s been caught out and simply can’t handle it. What a shame.

As for your desperate attempt at a rebuttal Pixy. I’m not even going to waste my time on it. Read the thing. EXTREMELY simple conditions, EXTREMELY simple results, won't work for just about any other modality, doubt it will work for visualization / cognition / memory, time consuming, subject has to fixate on the test image for 12 seconds, serious limitations….and somehow from this you claim it’s possible to extrapolate to that huge list I presented?!?!?!?!?? Is that seriously the best you can do??????

You are a joke Pixy.

You think Rees wasn’t aware of exactly that kind of result when we discussed this stuff. He lives right in the middle of one of the biggest cog sci research centers in the world. Do you honestly think he’s not fully cognizant of what an fMRI is capable of?


This discussion is now over.

Which discussion? All you have done is rant and rave with a remarkable mixture of ignorance and arrogance.

[Robin]

There are actually well-known metaphysical objections to the existence of free will, but you haven’t even managed to reference any of those.
I believe I mentioned C D Broad's essay "Libertarianism" earlier. I have brought this essay up a few times in this forum over the years, mainly because it is the only place I have ever seen where someone has actually attempted to define what libertarian free will is.

I don't believe that you have defined it or cited anyone who has.

In the past I have also cited Hume's point in "A Treatise of Human Nature":

According to my definitions, necessity makes an essential part of causation; and consequently liberty, by removing necessity, removes also causes, and is the very same thing with chance.

I recall that Kant makes a similar point in "A Critique of Practial Reason" putting it more explicitly than Hume, that an action that is determined is not free and an act that is random is not will.

He goes on to outline what he believes is a way out of the problem but then says that he also foresees that his way out would probably involve great difficulties of it's own.

I have been quite surprised to hear you line Kant up on your side of the fence - I can't agree that he was any convinced supporter of libertarian free will.

By the way, although Mandela was fond of saying "I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul." he did not originate the lines, that was William Ernest Henley.

Personally I don't see the contradiction between "I am the master of my fate" and reductionist mind theories. As I said before if the brain is a physical object then would expect it to play a causal role in the physical world.

[edit]My recollection of Broad's essay title was faulty, it is called "Determinism, Indeterminism and Libertarianism". Online here (http://www.ditext.com/broad/dil.html)

[Robin]

As I said Argent….I’d be happy to show the emails to anyone at JREF…then everyone will see who is the liar.
I also would like to see these.

[annnnoid]

I also would like to see these.

Explain why.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Explain why.

Because you offered to show them to anyone who asked.

[carlitos]

Then I’m sure you’ll find what follows equally amusing.

Just for your enlightenment Pixy…I reviewed the entire situation with Rees point by point…including both your and Argents idiotic claims. He flat out rejected both of them as utter nonsense (…his specific words were “I’ve personally never made such claims and I know of no scientists anywhere in the world who have or would”…). I asked him specifically about a range of conclusions and observations he and other researches had made in various papers. They clearly describe the current state of brain decoding. He explicitly wrote or approved every one of them. They all came directly from him. They’re all in my previous post. None of them agree with either your position or Argents.

Rees is the director of the cognitive science department at university college London. You’ve dismissed Kant, Hegel, Descartes, and Plato (and Argent has dismissed what is regarded as the foundation of the civilized world and human nature). Are you gonna dismiss Rees as well?


Wallowing in desperation are we? You’re beginning to sound pathetic.

You’re both wrong.
The director of cog sci at university college London says so.
I’d be happy to show the emails to anyone at JREF who wants proof that Pixy and Argent don’t know what they’re talking about. That Pixy and Argent fabricate facts and manipulate evidence. They’re clearly dated and they clearly have Rees email address on them and they clearly include all the statements written in my post…word.…for….word.


As someone new to this whole argument about "free will," I'd be keen to see those emails and determine whether the posters in question "don't know what they're talking about." PM is fine, or why not just post them in this thread? The guy's contact details are available in a 5 second google search; I'm sure he wouldn't mind.

[Pure Argent]

As I said Argent….I’d be happy to show the emails to anyone at JREF…then everyone will see who is the liar.

And yet you respond to a request for the emails with:

Explain why.

Not exactly a great start, there.

[catsmate1]

You’re both wrong.
The director of cog sci at university college London says so.
I’d be happy to show the emails to anyone at JREF who wants proof that Pixy and Argent don’t know what they’re talking about. That Pixy and Argent fabricate facts and manipulate evidence. They’re clearly dated and they clearly have Rees email address on them and they clearly include all the statements written in my post…word.…for….word.
I would also like to see your purported proof; so far all I've seen from you is the all too common mix of ignorance and arrogant ranting.

[dafydd]

I would also like to see your purported proof; so far all I've seen from you is the all too common mix of ignorance and arrogant ranting.

This seems to be a general delusionaut trait.

[Pure Argent]

I have just received an e-mail from Professor Rees. However, he has asked me not to post it on an online forum. Take that as you will. annnnoid, if he ever reads this post, might start saying that I am lying. I'm not, even though I can't prove it without violating what Professor Rees has asked of me.

He did not answer my question about whether or not he received any communication from annnnoid (I suppose he might just like to keep his e-mail conversations private, so that's why he didn't tell me), but he did say that annnnoid is not fully correct.

annnnoid's list (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6925494#post6925494) is, in some areas, generally correct. According to Professor Rees, in many areas of neurology, we don't know the limits of what we can do. Which is fine; I can accept that, and in fact I've never argued against that. I've only objected to annnnoid's claims that we cannot detect the things he has listed. But he does agree that neurological scans can "read minds" in specific cases, like the ones that Pixy and I brought up. We can't determine exactly what someone is thinking, but we can determine if they're thinking of a specific thing, or feeling a specific emotion - which is what Pixy and I have been saying all along. annnnoid is wrong in saying that emotions and visual data cannot be decoded.

So either annnnoid lied to us about e-mailing Rees - who does not disagree with what Pixy and I have said - or he lied to Rees about what we were saying, or he lied to us about the response. Which is it, I wonder?

[annnnoid]

How about I give you a few examples of things that are in no way shape or form detectable by any known scientific instrument.

Adoration, fondness, liking, attraction, caring, tenderness, compassion, sentimentality, Arousal, desire, lust, passion, infatuation, longing, Amusement, bliss, cheerfulness, gaiety, glee, jolliness, joviality, joy, delight, enjoyment, gladness, happiness, jubilation, elation, satisfaction, ecstasy, euphoria, Enthusiasm, zeal, zest, excitement, thrill, exhilaration, Contentment, pleasure, Pride, triumph, Eagerness, hope, optimism, Enthrallment, rapture, relief, Amazement, surprise, astonishment, Aggravation, irritation, agitation, annoyance, grouchiness, grumpiness, crosspatch, Exasperation, frustration, Anger, rage, outrage, fury, wrath, hostility, ferocity, bitterness, hate, scorn, spite, vengefullness, dislike, resentment, Disgust, revulsion, contempt, loathing, Envy, jealousy, torment, agony, suffering, hurt, anguish, Depression, despair, hopelessness, gloom, glumness, sadness, unhappiness, grief, sorrow, woe, misery, melancholy, Dismay, disappointment, displeasure, Guilt, shame, regret, remorse, Alienation, isolation, neglect, loneliness, rejection, homesickness, defeat, dejection, insecurity, embarrassment, humiliation, insult, Pity, sympathy, Alarm, shock, fear, fright, horror, terror, panic, hysteria, mortification, Anxiety, nervousness, tenseness, uneasiness, apprehension, worry, distress, dread.


To which you replied:

Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments.

Your ignorance is staggering.


Why don’t we at least be clear about who’s lying about what. Typical Argent. Change the facts as you go along. We’ll see about the rest later.

[Pure Argent]

To which you replied:

Why don’t we at least be clear about who’s lying about what. Typical Argent. Change the facts as you go along. We’ll see about the rest later.

I've changed nothing. What are you babbling about now?

Oh, and am I not on your ignore list?

Oh, and are you going to produce the e-mails from Professor Rees who, for some reason, didn't ask you not to?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Oh, and are you going to produce the e-mails from Professor Rees who, for some reason, didn't ask you not to?

Yes please. You said you would, and have been asked by several people to do so. I thought you were interested in showing everybody who is the liar?

[dlorde]

Yup, still waiting here for a pm or posting of the emails annnnoid is happy to let us see...

[annnnoid]

Why would Rees ask me not to publish anything? The list of unanswered questions was taken directly from a paper he himself published. It’s readily available for anyone to read.

http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/igert/boot_camp_2007/IGERT-fMRIrecommendedArticles/haynes-NatureNeuroscience2006-multivariateAnalysis.pdf

Since the paper was published a few years ago I gave him the list (of unanswered questions) and simply asked if the questions were still unanswered. This was the list:

-How accurately and efficiently a mental state can be inferred?
-Whether a person’s compliance is required?
-Whether it is possible to decode concealed thoughts or even unconscious mental states?
-The maximum temporal resolution?
-The degree to which it is possible to provide a quasi-online estimate of an individual’s current cognitive or perceptual state?
-The problem of inverse referencing?
-Whether decoding methods are sensitive enough to reliably reveal personal information for individual subjects?
-Brain reading will be restricted to simple cases with a fixed number of alternatives...for all of which training date are available....because of the all but infinite number of cognitive states and necessarily limited training categories.

This was his reply:

I think everything remains more or less at the point where we wrote the article, so the questions are more or less the same. Of course, this is to be expected as science makes progress reasonably slowly. There have been studies published in the meanwhile (including my own) that improve accuracy and generalisability of predictive approaches to decoding hidden mental states, and some early work with MEG that dramatically improves the temporal resolution. But the overall picture remains very similar.

“…the overall picture remains very similar…”

I figured it might be helpful if things were clarified a little more, so I created a few more questions on my own and sent him a second email.

A simple hypothetical scenario. I walk in off the street and am ‘plugged into an fMRI. The fMRI operates according to the level of interpretative programming currently available (no pre-screening, calibration, alignment, testing, etc. etc. etc.)

From the fMRI results can you:
1 Provide an explicit description of what I am seeing?
2 Provide a general description of what I am seeing?
3 Provide an explicit description of what I am hearing?
4 Provide a general description of what I am hearing?
5 Provide an explicit description of what I am smelling?
6 Provide a general description of what I am smelling?
7 Provide an explicit description of what I am touching?
8 Provide a general description of what I am touching?
9 Provide an explicit description of what I am imagining (eyes closed)?
10 Provide a general description of what I am imagining (eyes closed)?
11 Provide an explicit description of what I am thinking?
12 Provide a general description of what I am thinking?
13 Provide an explicit description of how I am feeling?
14 Provide a general description of how I am feeling?

This was his reply:

The answer to all 14 questions in the situation you pose is a very clear 'no'. I am one hundred percent confident that no-one doing this sort of science anywhere in the world would disagree with me. If you are asking these kinds of questions, then I am concerned you may be radically mis-interpreting the scientific literature. While some people make slightly over-zealous claims, I have never in my entire scientific career ever read any claim that any of your 14 questions could be answered 'yes'.

Essentially, Rees position would appear to be reflected by his statement: “brain reading will be restricted to simple cases with a fixed number of alternatives...for all of which training date are available'....because of the all but infinite number of cognitive states and necessarily limited training categories.”

By the way Argent, this is what you had to say about Rees statements before you emailed him:

Rees: How accurately and efficiently a mental state can be inferred is unknown.
Argent: No, it's known quite precisely. We know what the limits of neural scanning are.

Rees: Whether a person’s compliance is required is unknown.
Argent: No, it’s known.

Rees: Whether it is possible to decode concealed thoughts or even unconscious mental states is unknown.
Argent; No. We know it's possible.

Rees: The maximum temporal resolution is unknown.
Argent: The what now? (apparently this is something you don’t understand)

Rees: The degree to which it is possible to provide a quasi-online estimate of an individual’s current cognitive or perceptual state is unknown.
Argent: No, it’s entirely known.

Rees: The problem of inverse referencing remains, essentially, unresolved.
Argent: Don’t understand that one either.

Rees: Whether decoding methods are sensitive enough to reliably reveal personal information for individual subjects in unknown.
Argent: No, it's known, and the answer is "yes, it can, with about seventy-five percent accuracy in people trying to fool the machine and up to ninety-five percent in people who are cooperative".

Rees:....and outright ‘no’ to every one of the fourteen points.
Argent: Wrong. Do your research.

Once again…you make a whole bunch of massive claims…without a shred of substantiation. No-evidence-Argent.

…but then Argent decides it’s time to go look for his own evidence. This is a first Argent. You…actually presenting evidence. No ‘google it’?


Annnnoid’s list is, in some areas, generally correct.


…now isn’t that interesting. Why don’t the members of our audience have a look above and note just how many times Argent flatly rejected the points made on that very same list! Argent either generally or completely dismissed every single statement Rees made. But now, for some mysterious reason, the list is generally correct. Which areas Argent? Do we have to change some of your no’s to yes’s? Which ones?


I've only objected to annnnoid's claims that we cannot detect the things he has listed.


No Argent, you flat out insisted that:

Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments.


…a list that (as I clearly stated when I wrote it) goes on forever and includes every variety of human experience (there was another clearly stated qualification but you’ve ignored everything else so I’m not at all surprised you ignored that as well). But now, once again, Argent’s position changes. Only in ‘specific cases’ can neural scanning read minds.

So before it was…’EVERYTHING’….but now it’s …’only in specific cases’.

Care to specify which ones Argent. I could give you a list of few million, but why don’t we restrict ourselves to just the words on that list. Which ones can be detected? Oh yeah…google it.

…but this is what you and Pixy have been saying all along. Except…all along, neither one of you has produced a shred of evidence to support your position. Oh yeah, I forgot, ‘google it’.


annnnoid is wrong in saying that emotions and visual data cannot be decoded.


Please provide a specific link where I have claimed that emotions and visual data cannot be decoded. I never once said this. The only position I have ever taken, and argued extensively, is that there are substantial limits to what can be decoded. This was explicitly confirmed and supported by Rees: “Brain reading will be restricted to simple cases with a fixed number of alternatives...for all of which training date are available....because of the all but infinite number of cognitive states and necessarily limited training categories.”

So we go from:

Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments.


To: “Brain reading will be restricted to simple cases with a fixed number of alternatives...for all of which training date are available....because of the all but infinite number of cognitive states and necessarily limited training categories.”

[Pure Argent]

Why would Rees ask me not to publish anything? The list of unanswered questions was taken directly from a paper he himself published. It’s readily available for anyone to read.

I was talking about the e-mails you claimed that you would produce. In his e-mails to me, he said that he did not want anything he sent reproduced on a forum.

-How accurately and efficiently a mental state can be inferred?
-Whether a person’s compliance is required?
-Whether it is possible to decode concealed thoughts or even unconscious mental states?
-The maximum temporal resolution?
-The degree to which it is possible to provide a quasi-online estimate of an individual’s current cognitive or perceptual state?
-The problem of inverse referencing?
-Whether decoding methods are sensitive enough to reliably reveal personal information for individual subjects?
-Brain reading will be restricted to simple cases with a fixed number of alternatives...for all of which training date are available....because of the all but infinite number of cognitive states and necessarily limited training categories.

This was his reply:

I think everything remains more or less at the point where we wrote the article, so the questions are more or less the same. Of course, this is to be expected as science makes progress reasonably slowly. There have been studies published in the meanwhile (including my own) that improve accuracy and generalisability of predictive approaches to decoding hidden mental states, and some early work with MEG that dramatically improves the temporal resolution. But the overall picture remains very similar.

“…the overall picture remains very similar…”

Hence what he said to me: you are correct in a general sense. There are many areas of neurology where these questions do remain unanswered. However, in the context of reading emotions and constructing visual images - which is what we've been talking about - these questions can be answered.

A simple hypothetical scenario. I walk in off the street and am ‘plugged into an fMRI. The fMRI operates according to the level of interpretative programming currently available (no pre-screening, calibration, alignment, testing, etc. etc. etc.)

From the fMRI results can you:

<snip for brevity>

This was his reply:

The answer to all 14 questions in the situation you pose is a very clear 'no'. I am one hundred percent confident that no-one doing this sort of science anywhere in the world would disagree with me. If you are asking these kinds of questions, then I am concerned you may be radically mis-interpreting the scientific literature. While some people make slightly over-zealous claims, I have never in my entire scientific career ever read any claim that any of your 14 questions could be answered 'yes'.

Essentially, Rees position would appear to be reflected by his statement: “brain reading will be restricted to simple cases with a fixed number of alternatives...for all of which training date are available'....because of the all but infinite number of cognitive states and necessarily limited training categories.”

And I never said otherwise. But you, on the other hand, claimed that it was entirely impossible to get even a general idea of what someone was saying under any circumstances.

Essentially…with currently available technology and processing and interpretive software …if you or anyone were to walk off the street into a lab and be wired into a neural scanner (fMRI for example) the results would NOT be able to show EITHER an explicit or even general representation of:
- what your are seeing

Rees is not stating that it is impossible to extract visual - or any other type of sensory - data from the brain, as you are. He is stating that it is possible to do so with limitations, which is what I have been saying all along.

By the way Argent, this is what you had to say about Rees statements before you emailed him

Yes, some of my statements were wrong. I admit that. Your point?

Once again…you make a whole bunch of massive claims…without a shred of substantiation. No-evidence-Argent.

Actually, I have presented the evidence. It's still there, for anyone who cares to look back a couple of pages.

…now isn’t that interesting. Why don’t the members of our audience have a look above and note just how many times Argent flatly rejected the points made on that very same list! Argent either generally or completely dismissed every single statement Rees made. But now, for some mysterious reason, the list is generally correct. Which areas Argent? Do we have to change some of your no’s to yes’s? Which one’s?

I explained it in that very post. These questions remain unanswered in many areas of neurology. I admitted that.

…a list that (as I clearly stated when I wrote it) goes on forever and includes every variety of human experience (there was another clearly stated qualification but you’ve ignored everything else so I’m not at all surprised you ignored that as well). But now, once again, Argent’s position changes. Only in ‘specific cases’ can neural scanning read minds.

I have said this from the beginning.

So before it was…’EVERYTHING’….but now it’s …’only in specific cases’.

It was never "everything". It was always regarding emotions. And, later, when you expanded it, visual data.

Please provide a specific link where I have claimed that emotions and visual data cannot be decoded. I never once said this.

Essentially…with currently available technology and processing and interpretive software …if you or anyone were to walk off the street into a lab and be wired into a neural scanner (fMRI for example) the results would NOT be able to show EITHER an explicit or even general representation of:
- what your are seeing

The only position I have ever taken, and argued extensively, is that there are substantial limits to what can be decoded.

If that's all you're arguing, fine. We have no argument, except in that the limits you are positing are incorrect.

[Robin]

Explain why.
Obviously because it is best to judge what somebody says by seeing it in their own words and in context of what they were asked.

[carlitos]

Why didn't annnnoid just paste the emails? I missed something.

I had some cool chaos magick last night. I think if I intentionally close my eyes only partially when going to sleep, it improves my chances for hypnagogia. I actually had a freaking vision. Cool stuff.