Guest guest Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 On Mar 14, 2006, at 9:13 PM, Nisargadatta wrote: > As soon as the subject attempts to follow the instruction that he is to > randomly click the mouse, he understands that this is to occur without > conscious > cognition, otherwise it would not qualify as random but rather > premeditated, > or pre-conscious. The cognition involved is less than that required > to place > one foot in front of the other and isn't exactly brain surgery. (No > pun > intended.) > > P: Are you a neurologist? Or is this just your uninformed opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 In a message dated 3/15/2006 1:45:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:29:30 -0800 Pete S <pedsie5 Re: Controlling Phil On Mar 14, 2006, at 9:13 PM, Nisargadatta wrote: > As soon as the subject attempts to follow the instruction that he is to > randomly click the mouse, he understands that this is to occur without > conscious > cognition, otherwise it would not qualify as random but rather > premeditated, > or pre-conscious. The cognition involved is less than that required > to place > one foot in front of the other and isn't exactly brain surgery. (No > pun > intended.) > > P: Are you a neurologist? Or is this just your uninformed opinion? Not suggesting that you accept it based on my credentials. You're free, of course, to offer your thoughts, or not, informed or otherwise. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 On Mar 16, 2006, at 3:04 AM, Nisargadatta wrote: > On Mar 14, 2006, at 9:13 PM, Nisargadatta wrote: > >> PHIL:As soon as the subject attempts to follow the instruction that >> he is to >> randomly click the mouse, he understands that this is to occur >> without >> conscious >> cognition, otherwise it would not qualify as random but rather >> premeditated, >> or pre-conscious. The cognition involved is less than that required >> to place >> one foot in front of the other and isn't exactly brain surgery. (No >> pun >> intended.) >> > > P: Are you a neurologist? Or is this just your uninformed opinion? > > PHIL:Not suggesting that you accept it based on my credentials. You're > free, of > course, to offer your thoughts, or not, informed or otherwise. > > Phil P: Well, Phil, to understand the experiment, let alone to invalidate it, one must know the meaning of the words used. You don't even know the meaning of the word " random. " Random means without any particular order. An action could be random, and at the same time, premeditated and conscious. If someone decides to kill the next person he sees, without any motive or reason. That action although conscious and premeditated is called a random act of violence. If, on the other hand, someone decides to kill you because of your careless use of words, that is not a random act. So, because the subjects knew the meaning of the word 'random' they knew they couldn't click at regular intervals, such as every 10 seconds, but had to make a choice when to click without following a pattern. If they have followed a pattern, it would have been a mechanical action. So when I said, your opinion was uninformed, I meant you don't even know the meaning of the words which described the experiment. See your own words at Top of message. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 In a message dated 3/16/2006 3:13:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:51:23 -0800 Pete S <pedsie5 Re: Controlling Phil On Mar 16, 2006, at 3:04 AM, Nisargadatta wrote: > On Mar 14, 2006, at 9:13 PM, Nisargadatta wrote: > >> PHIL:As soon as the subject attempts to follow the instruction that >> he is to >> randomly click the mouse, he understands that this is to occur >> without >> conscious >> cognition, otherwise it would not qualify as random but rather >> premeditated, >> or pre-conscious. The cognition involved is less than that required >> to place >> one foot in front of the other and isn't exactly brain surgery. (No >> pun >> intended.) >> > > P: Are you a neurologist? Or is this just your uninformed opinion? > > PHIL:Not suggesting that you accept it based on my credentials. You're > free, of > course, to offer your thoughts, or not, informed or otherwise. > > Phil P: Well, Phil, to understand the experiment, let alone to invalidate it, one must know the meaning of the words used. You don't even know the meaning of the word " random. " Random means without any particular order. An action could be random, and at the same time, premeditated and conscious. If someone decides to kill the next person he sees, without any motive or reason. That action although conscious and premeditated is called a random act of violence. If, on the other hand, someone decides to kill you because of your careless use of words, that is not a random act. So, because the subjects knew the meaning of the word 'random' they knew they couldn't click at regular intervals, such as every 10 seconds, but had to make a choice when to click without following a pattern. If they have followed a pattern, it would have been a mechanical action. So when I said, your opinion was uninformed, I meant you don't even know the meaning of the words which described the experiment. See your own words at Top of message. The subjects were not instructed to mentate on the act of pressing the mouse button 'randomly'. As such, why would cognition be expected to occur. Attempting to dismiss an argument by personal attack instead of looking for any truth in it is the exact same bias that results in such faulty experimental design. How much cognitive processing does it require for you to 'randomly' press a mouse button? (If you go brain dead on me again, the conversation is over. ~ Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 On Mar 17, 2006, at 1:50 AM, Nisargadatta wrote: > P: Well, Phil, to understand the experiment, let alone > to invalidate it, one must know the meaning of the > words used. You don't even know the meaning of the > word " random. " Random means without any particular > order. An action could be random, and at the same time, > premeditated and conscious. If someone decides to kill > the next person he sees, without any motive or reason. > That action although conscious and premeditated is > called a random act of violence. > > If, on the other hand, someone decides to kill you because of > your careless use of words, that is not a random act. > > So, because the subjects knew the meaning of the word 'random' > they knew they couldn't click at regular intervals, such as every > 10 seconds, but had to make a choice when to click without > following a pattern. If they have followed a pattern, it would have > been a mechanical action. So when I said, your opinion was > uninformed, I meant you don't even know the meaning of the > words which described the experiment. See your own words at > Top of message. > > > > The subjects were not instructed to mentate on the act of pressing the > mouse > button 'randomly'. As such, why would cognition be expected to occur. > Attempting to dismiss an argument by personal attack instead of > looking for any > truth in it is the exact same bias that results in such faulty > experimental > design. > > How much cognitive processing does it require for you to 'randomly' > press a > mouse button? (If you go brain dead on me again, the conversation is > over. ~ > > Phil > > > P: Yes, too bad! Conversing with you who, doesn't understand the exact meaning of words, is useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.