Bullshit you are. You’re just a condescending clown. In real life I would gather that my job as an actuary is a lot more scientific than anything you’ve ever seen busing tables at the drive-thru.
You really don’t know the rules for this forum, do you? You might want to look into them, before somebody does it for you.
But regardless, if anybody is interested in the actual subject at hand, it’s worth noting how little my casual errors-from-apathy effect the outcome. So I misread that the mother had had the dreams or the prayers or whatever she had, instead of whichever non-mother person actually had them. Does who had the dream actually matter? It is substantively more or less plausible as an accurate report of events when correctly attributed? Are non-mother people less capable of re-interpreting events to better reflect an expected outcome?
Hardly. As I said before, this is just sniping at me without substantantively contesting my point, which is simply that when dealing with anecdotes that don’t involve much in the way of independent verification of the events that occurred, there is a lot of potential for things to be ‘re-interpreted’. This potential comes squarely from the way humans categorize and remember their observations, and the fact that such misreporting can occur isn’t really something that’s under dispute. Unless admitting that takes the air out of the sails of a favored anecdote or theory, anyway.
Yes, how can something totally material produce non-material events.
How can total water produce gold? How can total sound produce sight?
How can anything pure, produce unpure events?
etc.,etc.,etc.
Thanks for calling me a moron, friend. Usually I do understand your ramblings; I just don’t agree with your assertions. It’s just that this crossed the line into complete incoherence.
It’s an increasingly common tactic around here to accuse other posters of having failed to read or comprehend the posts they make, when in reality what is happening is the original poster is being understood just fine and is getting their argumentive butt kicked. The purpose of such accusations is to slide an ad-homenim under the table and under the forum rules - to insult the other poster and dismiss their arguments that way.
It’s a slimy dishonest scummy underhanded hateful cowardly tactic, and IS exactly equivalent to calling them a moron, and NOBODY uses it on their friends. No matter what they say they meant after the fact.
Ok, it is generally believed, wrongly, that there is nothing but material things in this world, and everything can be accounted for with natural or materialist explanations.
Using that as a given and realizing thoughts, emotions, dreams, and consciousness itself is not materialistic, can not be seen, measured, etc. then how does one produce the other?
I NEVER said they could not be measured. I said, and still say, that they cannot be seen
The same way we measure electrons, gravity and all those other things we cannot see.
All evidence points to consciousness being in the brain. When pressed for evidence, you produce anecdotes, studies that don’t say what you claim, and similar non-evidence.