If the brain is necessary to have a vision

stevevw said:

Why

Click to expand...

For someone who likes to claim any criticism against you is logical fallacies, you seem unable to spot yourself using them. Like circular logic for example.

stevevw said:

Actually the field is way more advanced since the last time I looked a couple of years ago.

Universal consciousness as foundational field: A theoretical bridge between quantum physics and non-dual philosophy
Building upon insights from quantum field theory and non-dual philosophy, a model based on the three principles of universal mind, universal consciousness, and universal thought is introduced.

https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/15/11/115319/3372193/Universal-consciousness-as-foundational-field-A

Click to expand...

Another one of your fairy tales or putting it less diplomatically an outright lie for implying the interpretation of the role of consciousness in QM is on the rise.

Since a lot of ‘research’ in consciousness is based on QM lets stick to the QM theme from my post #91 involving electron spin.
According to the Copenhagen interpretation the wavefunction for a spinning electron undergoes wavefunction collapse in the act of measurement by a conscious observer or test equipment revealing the electron either spins up or down according to the equation.




However by 1970 a physical theory of QM came out involving quantum decoherence where a quantum mechanical system is entangled with the external environment E and can undergo information leaking into the environment if not fully isolated.
Factors such as heat and photons in the environment can cause decoherence and in the case of electron spin the relevant equation is:





In this case wavefunction collapse does not occur in the Copenhagen sense but the expectation or average value for the measured electron spin are time related and take on classical probabilistic values with the following physical effects, magnetic field noise, hyperfine coupling to nuclear spins, spin–orbit coupling, phonons (lattice vibrations), charge noise (in solids), all of which contribute to a measurable decoherence rate.

While wavefunction collapse does not occur, decoherence does resemble it which reinforces the Copenhagen interpretation including others such as the Many Worlds because of the physical effects which are measurable.
By comparison Eugene Wigner one of the originators of the role of consciousness in QM abandoned the idea because of quantum decoherence and as it stands today very few physicists support the role of consciousness in QM because of the measurable physical effects of quantum decoherence.

In the development of quantum computers the key is to keep the system coherent for as long as possible to allow for quantum calculations on qubits to occur, no consciousness is required.

Fervent said:

Sure, though given the ontological/metaphysical nature of the question I'm not sure such posturing is genuinely possible.

Click to expand...

Then the question has little use and can be discarded until such time that it does.

Fervent said:

So your thoughts are spatially located, and have mass?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Fervent said:

So how is it obvious?

Click to expand...

We text thoughts in brains. Not absent brains.

stevevw said:

The articles literally state there has been an increase. Are you saying they are lying.

Click to expand...

Just for once try thinking about what is being said and about how you have misunderstood it. (Really think, please.)

1. Your submitted articles are random articles.
2. Few if any have been peer reviewed.
3. They contain weak arguments, limited evidence and, in some cases, misinterpretations of that evidence, or unjustified selection of a particular interpretation of the evidence.
4. Moreover some, arguably, have been produced for motives other than arriving at "the truth".
5. Regardless of the foregoing you have made no effort to demonstrate that a) the number of these articles versus those presenting a "conventional" view is significant, and b) that the proportion of these articles is increasing.
6. Hans has asked you multiple times to produce a study that demonstrates that point b) from above is a valid viewpoint. You have failed to do so.

I am bewildered, astounded and somewhat disgusted that something prevents you from grasping this very straightforward idea. By all means ask for further clarification, but this charade* really needs to end soon. It will not end if your response to this post is to nit pick something in points 1 to 4. I ask that you address point b), ideally by correcting that failure. Anything else should and will be ignored. Thank you in advance.

* Irrelevant sidebar: "Charade" is a poor word choice. It's not really a charade and Charade is one of my favourite films, so I shouldn't have sullied it in that way.

Stopped_lurking said:

No, sadly there is no longitudinal data on that particular question.

Click to expand...

Actually there is in that the peer review articles I linked clearly state that there has been an increase in openness of ideas of consciousness beyond brain.

I am surprised people even contest this. The simple fact that consciousness studies have had a major increase in recent decades shows that naturally this will include investigation all possible ideas. We see that with dozens of new theories on consciousness beyond brain. I linked several. I can find you another 100 if you like. They are everywhere and this would not have been the case 20 or 30 years ago.

Stopped_lurking said:

It shows that a mind-body divide haven't been established, as you expressed in post #36.

Click to expand...

Yes it has actually. Are you saying that the idea of there being a Mind and Body divide is itself not established. Not that its been proven either way. But that there is not wide spread agreement that there is a Mind and Body divide when it comes to understanding consciousness.

I think this has been established for 100s years with people like Descartes. Its just a case on the ongoing debate over what is the evidence.

Stopped_lurking said:

Also they asked philosophers generally, not only those who work in theory of mind. You can see their specific results by using filters in the link.

Click to expand...

Yes so its not a good source. I think the peer reviewed articles I link are good enough to establish that openness to ideas beyond the physical basis for consciousness is well established and continuing to grow. This seems to be the biggest area of growth that offers the most potential.

Ophiolite said:

Just for once try thinking about what is being said and about how you have misunderstood it. (Really think, please.)

1. Your submitted articles are random articles.

Click to expand...

A falsehood. The vast majority are peer reviewed or refer to peer reviwed sciences.

Ophiolite said:

1. Few if any have been peer reviewed.

Click to expand...

A falsehood. The vast majority are peer reviewed or refer to peer reviwed sciences.

Ophiolite said:

1. They contain weak arguments, limited evidence and, in some cases, misinterpretations of that evidence, or unjustified selection of a particular interpretation of the evidence.

Click to expand...

A falsehood. Have you read then because if you did you could not have made this claim. Show me where they provide no arguements or weak ones.

Ophiolite said:

1. Moreover some, arguably, have been produced for motives other than arriving at "the truth".

Click to expand...

Another personal opinion and falsehood. Now you are appealing to some motive you subjectively percieve. If funny how you object that theres no real science and then you appeal of feeling as evidence. Show me the facts.

Ophiolite said:

1. Regardless of the foregoing you have made no effort to demonstrate that a) the number of these articles versus those presenting a "conventional" view is significant, and b) that the proportion of these articles is increasing.

Click to expand...

I provided several peer reviwed articles that categorically state there has been an increase. How about dealing with the facts instead of making stuff up.

Ophiolite said:

1. Hans has asked you multiple times to produce a study that demonstrates that point b) from above is a valid viewpoint. You have failed to do so.

Click to expand...

Because there are no stats and another poster acknowledge this. But I did provide the next best thing which was longitude studies from peer review which show there has been an increase. So deal with the facts.

Ophiolite said:

I am bewildered, astounded and somewhat disgusted that something prevents you from grasping this very straightforward idea.

Click to expand...

Why are you bring morality into this. It seem you are investing more than just facts but personal beliefs on morality.

Ophiolite said:

By all means ask for further clarification, but this charade* really needs to end soon. It will not end if your response to this post is to nit pick something in points 1 to 4. I ask that you address point b), ideally by correcting that failure. Anything else should and will be ignored. Thank you in advance.

Click to expand...

No charade, I have shown the fallacies created above. So now you need to deal with the facts.

Ophiolite said:

* Irrelevant sidebar: "Charade" is a poor word choice. It's not really a charade and Charade is one of my favourite films, so I shouldn't have sullied it in that way.

Click to expand...

Actually its the exact language I have become use to lol.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

For someone who likes to claim any criticism against you is logical fallacies, you seem unable to spot yourself using them. Like circular logic for example.

Click to expand...

Well point them out. Its easy to make claims without actually showing them lol.

You do this for every topic. According to you nothing I say is correct no matter what topic it is. You seem to have this personal reason question everything I say lol.

What have I said. That the idea of consciousness beyond brain is not such a crazy idea considering that more and more people including mainstream sciences are being open to.

I provided peer reviewed evidence for this. How is this wrong and how are the arguements that want to dispute this are not logical fallacies. The fact its a fact and you want to somehow make out its not is the fallacy.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

For someone who likes to claim any criticism against you is logical fallacies, you seem unable to spot yourself using them. Like circular logic for example.

Click to expand...

You can't just answer a simple question. You have to turn it into a personal jibe. Show methen. Answer the simple question.

stevevw said:

A falsehood. The vast majority are peer reviewed or refer to peer reviwed sciences.

Click to expand...

I shall deal with one point at a time.

First, I note that despite my request that you deal with the specific point raised in my item 5 and no other you maintain your practice of ignoring almost every request made of you. At the very least the courteous thing would have been to address item 5 first, then turn to the others.

Second, I described your articles as being "random". You challenge this, declaring that most of them are "peer reviewed, or refer to peer reviewed sciences". So what? Irrelevant. Your response suggests you do not know the meaning of the word "random". Your selection gives the appearance of you choosing articles that you ran across in your search for papers supporting your belief. That's random. It's haphazard. It is not systematic. It is not organised. That is my claim, that whether the papers are peer reviewed or not is irrelevant to my assertion that they are random.

This, FYI, is one of the most frustrating aspects of trying to debate with you. I say, "The weather is warm today" and you reply, "There is no evidence that tropical circulation cells have a major influence on bird migration. Here's a Readers' Digest article about it. "

Sheridan condensed the concept of misapplied non sequitur and created Mrs. Malaprop. Your unedited approach lacks her entertainment value.

Hans Blaster said:

We cannot. Magazine editors and fanatics are not sufficient.

Click to expand...

Within those magazine articles were links to the peer review science. I also linked peer review sciences that did longitude research and support that theres been an increase.

Hans Blaster said:

Not how this works.

Click to expand...

Then how does it work when theres no stats to find. We go to the next best thing peer review. I said if you want to keep demanding stats then I said find them yourself as you are the one insisting when there are none.

Hans Blaster said:

Of stats, nope. But keep hope alive.

Click to expand...

I will say it again. There are none for this particular issue. Even your own side admitted this. Your now demanding something that is not available. So now we need to deal with the facts in the peer review articles that did do longitude studies. This evidence now stands.

Hans Blaster said:

When that happens we can talk.

Click to expand...

We can talk beforehand about the facts in the peer reviwe articles I linked. You demand peer review as a legitimate source and now I have provided that. Unless you still demand stats and want to ignore good science.

Ophiolite said:

I shall deal with one point at a time.

First, I note that despite my request that you deal with the specific point raised in my item 5 and no other

Click to expand...

But I have provided the evidence. That you say I have not is a matter of opinion and not fact. The articles I linked were longitude study of articles presented to journals. It clearly states there has been an increase.

How is this not evidence. Your creating a false representation of what I have linked and ignoring the actual evidence.

Ophiolite said:

you maintain your practice of ignoring almost every request made of you. At the very least the courteous thing would have been to address item 5 first, then turn to the others.

Click to expand...

No the only request was to provide stats on this. I first provided peer reviwed articles and this was rejected. That in itself is wrong and to then claim I did not provide the requested evidence is a matter of personal opinion as to what consitutes the evidence. I looked for stats and there were none. So I provided the next best thing. That you now use this to claim I did not previde what was reuested is a blantant falsehood.

Ophiolite said:

Second, I described your articles as being "random". You challenge this, declaring that most of them are "peer reviewed, or refer to peer reviewed sciences". So what? Irrelevant. Your response suggests you do not know the meaning of the word "random". Your selection gives the appearance of you choosing articles that you ran across in your search for papers supporting your belief. That's random. It's haphazard. It is not systematic. It is not organised. That is my claim, that whether the papers are peer reviewed or not is irrelevant to my assertion that they are random.

Click to expand...

Give me a break. I like it how skeptics set the most rediculous demands and hoop jumping. If this peer reviwed evidence was presented by skeptics to support their case there would be no problems. It5 would be regarded as good. So stop with double standards.

My for evidence of the increase in openness of ideas beyond the physical basis for consciousness. So thats what I am looking for. I was asked to find stats and there were none. So I provided peer reviwed longitude studies which are well accepted science. Now you want to quibbl;e about that. No matter what I present you will complain.

Remember my aim was not to prove consciousness beyond brain or to show that there is more articles on this. But to show there has been an increase over the years toward openness to these ideas .

I cannot understand how someone cannot agree with this because its so obvious. From around the 90s when Chalmers gave his seminal lecture on the hard problem of consciousness there has been an explosion of consciousness studies compared to pre 1990s. As one of my articles states there has been an increase post 2000 in ideas that support non material basis for consciousness. They research all the articles presented to journals and found an increase in such ideas.

Ophiolite said:

This, FYI, is one of the most frustrating aspects of trying to debate with you. I say, "The weather is warm today" and you reply, "There is no evidence that tropical circulation cells have a major influence on bird migration. Here's a Readers' Digest article about it. "

Click to expand...

How. All I have mentioned is ideas of consciousness beyond brain. That is directly relevant to Vision beyond the physical brain. Any idea that supports vision beyond the physical brain is relevant.

Perhaps its because I am well ahead of you and you do not understand this issue philosophically. I notice that the posts get bogged down in semantics. That is not my doing.

Ophiolite said:

Sheridan condensed the concept of misapplied non sequitur and created Mrs. Malaprop. Your unedited approach lacks her entertainment value.

Click to expand...

So what about the peer reviewed science that clearly states there has been an increase.

It seems to be that you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. Which is going off on all these tangents and not addressing the issue. You began by saying you would address each of thise issues one at a time. But all that seems to have happened in another posts of logically fallcies like ad hominems and absolutely no addressing the issue lol.,

I can provide peer review and sheer numbers of increased articles showing the increase. I can ask Ai in 100 different ways and every single time it acknowledges this increase. Its common knowledge and the only ones who deny this are the hard skeptics who believe otherwise.

AI Overview

Panpsychism has experienced a notable resurgence and increased discussion in recent years within philosophical and scientific communities, including mentions in science journals and serious publications. This revival is primarily driven by the ongoing challenges in explaining consciousness through conventional physicalist approaches.

AI Overview

There has been an evident increase in scientific publications and discussions regarding the concept of "consciousness beyond the brain" in recent years, though it remains a controversial and non-mainstream topic within academia. This growth is largely centered around the study of anomalous experiences and alternative theoretical frameworks, rather than widespread acceptance of the idea as a proven fact.

• Increased Publications: A bibliometric analysis confirmed an increase in the number of articles on experiences related to the possibility of consciousness existing independently of the brain, such as near-death experiences (NDEs), out-of-body experiences, and mediumship.
• Mainstream Engagement: Major scientific publishers, including Springer Nature and the American Psychological Association, have recently released books and journal special issues discussing scientific evidence and arguments for the "mind beyond the brain" hypothesis, a notable shift from past marginalization.
• Focus on Alternative Theories: While mainstream neuroscience largely maintains that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, a growing number of peer-reviewed articles explore non-materialistic models,

In essence, the discussion and investigation into models of consciousness that are not solely brain-dependent have become more prominent in scientific literature, reflecting a maturation of the field and a willingness to explore a wider range of theories.

Research on Experiences Related to the Possibility of Consciousness Beyond the Brain: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Scientific Output​

stevevw said:

I can provide peer review and sheer numbers of increased articles showing the increase. I can ask Ai in 100 different ways and every single time it acknowledges this increase. Its common knowledge and the only ones who deny this are the hard skeptics who believe otherwise.

AI Overview

Panpsychism has experienced a notable resurgence and increased discussion in recent years within philosophical and scientific communities, including mentions in science journals and serious publications. This revival is primarily driven by the ongoing challenges in explaining consciousness through conventional physicalist approaches.

AI Overview

There has been an evident increase in scientific publications and discussions regarding the concept of "consciousness beyond the brain" in recent years, though it remains a controversial and non-mainstream topic within academia. This growth is largely centered around the study of anomalous experiences and alternative theoretical frameworks, rather than widespread acceptance of the idea as a proven fact.

• Increased Publications: A bibliometric analysis confirmed an increase in the number of articles on experiences related to the possibility of consciousness existing independently of the brain, such as near-death experiences (NDEs), out-of-body experiences, and mediumship.
• Mainstream Engagement: Major scientific publishers, including Springer Nature and the American Psychological Association, have recently released books and journal special issues discussing scientific evidence and arguments for the "mind beyond the brain" hypothesis, a notable shift from past marginalization.
• Focus on Alternative Theories: While mainstream neuroscience largely maintains that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, a growing number of peer-reviewed articles explore non-materialistic models,

In essence, the discussion and investigation into models of consciousness that are not solely brain-dependent have become more prominent in scientific literature, reflecting a maturation of the field and a willingness to explore a wider range of theories.

Research on Experiences Related to the Possibility of Consciousness Beyond the Brain: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Scientific Output​

Research on Experiences Related to the Possibility of Consciousness Beyond the Brain: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Scientific Output - PubMed

This study aims to conduct a search of publications investigating experiences commonly associated with the possibility of the existence of a consciousness independent of the brain held on the main scientific databases (Pubmed, Web of Knowledge, PsycINFO, Science Direct, and Scopus). Of the 9065...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Click to expand...

What practical difference does it make? Why should I be interested in this subject? Sure, it's interesting from a scientific standpoint for people who study the mind, and I would be interested in learning the answer if the question is ever resolved, but so what? Why are you here arguing one side of the issue? What's your dog in this fight?

BCP1928 said:

What practical difference does it make? Why should I be interested in this subject? Sure, it's interesting from a scientific standpoint for people who study the mind, and I would be interested in learning the answer if the question is ever resolved, but so what? Why are you here arguing one side of the issue? What's your dog in this fight?

Click to expand...

Actually I am not arguing one side of the issue. Rather to be open to whatever. Not to be all materialistic about the possible answers. Nor all airy fairy.

I was not even trying to prove vision or consciousness beyond brain. But to point out that we should be open to this idea and not shut it down by demanding that only certain evidence is allowed.

Because obviously like all phenomena such as phenomenal belief in God or transcedent beliefs there is no physical test we can do in a lab. But that does not follow that there are other ways to determine the evidence.

Just like we should be open to the possibility of God or any transcedent idea. We should be open to the experiences testified of having visions beyond brain and take them seriously.

Its more about epistemic attitude of being open and not biased. When people start demanding the physical evidence and if its not produced then they claim its all unreal or false. Then I know this is not being epistemically fair. But imposing a belief about how we should know and understand reality.

I think this is an important cavet before we even investigate such phenomena as prior biases will skew how people see the evidence itself. If they assume there is only a physical cause then they will only look for such causes and be bias against other kinds of evidence such as direct testimony. Always thinking that no matter what is said its all a delusion.

Whereas if we remove such a bias then testimony becomes an important aspect of evidence to take seriously. Its then a case of believability which can be tested in other ways as mentioned such as commonalities which will become more than coincidents when they are well consistent in the details.

It builds the case anyway. But if one has a prior bias that this kind of evidence is subjective and unreal. Then we are cutting off a vital part of the evidence.

stevevw said:

No the only request was to provide stats on this. I first provided peer reviwed articles and this was rejected. That in itself is wrong and to then claim I did not provide the requested evidence is a matter of personal opinion as to what consitutes the evidence. I looked for stats and there were none. So I provided the next best thing. That you now use this to claim I did not previde what was reuested is a blantant falsehood

Click to expand...

Once again you completely miss the point. I am addressing your failure to follow my request that you deal only with point 5. But you ignore this and work your way through every other point I made, despite my specific (and I believe clear) request that you need not and should not do so. I am addressing the particular failure on your part to "pretty please, deal only with point 5". I don't want you to belatedly bring up a defence of point 5 when I am challenging your response to point 1. I pleased with you to actually do some thinking before responding and you chose not to do so.

stevevw said:

Give me a break. I like it how skeptics set the most rediculous demands and hoop jumping. If this peer reviwed evidence was presented by skeptics to support their case there would be no problems. It5 would be regarded as good. So stop with double standards

Click to expand...

Steve, your reading comprehension is abyssmal. One item in my signature says that if you have not understood something it is probably my fault. I remove that exception in regard to yourself. I have no idea whether your inability to respond to what is written is matter of intent or intellect, but I've had enough of it. I cannot and will not continue a conversation with someone who insists upon, or is uncapable of, misunderstanding almost every word that is written. It is pointless.

stevevw said:

Actually I am not arguing one side of the issue. Rather to be open to whatever. Not to be all materialistic about the possible answers. Nor all airy fairy.

I was not even trying to prove vision or consciousness beyond brain. But to point out that we should be open to this idea and not shut it down by demanding that only certain evidence is allowed.

Because obviously like all phenomena such as phenomenal belief in God or transcedent beliefs there is no physical test we can do in a lab. But that does not follow that there are other ways to determine the evidence.

Click to expand...

Why must it be in a lab? Certainly science does not limit itself to such evidence.

stevevw said:

Just like we should be open to the possibility of God or any transcedent idea. We should be open to the experiences testified of having visions beyond brain and take them seriously.

Its more about epistemic attitude of being open and not biased. When people start demanding the physical evidence and if its not produced then they claim its all unreal or false. Then I know this is not being epistemically fair. But imposing a belief about how we should know and understand reality.

Click to expand...

Why don't you go find some people like that and argue with them?

stevevw said:

I think this is an important cavet before we even investigate such phenomena as prior biases will skew how people see the evidence itself. If they assume there is only a physical cause then they will only look for such causes and be bias against other kinds of evidence such as direct testimony. Always thinking that no matter what is said its all a delusion.

Click to expand...

Only in your imagination.

stevevw said:

Whereas if we remove such a bias then testimony becomes an important aspect of evidence to take seriously. Its then a case of believability which can be tested in other ways as mentioned such as commonalities which will become more than coincidents when they are well consistent in the details.

It builds the case anyway. But if one has a prior bias that this kind of evidence is subjective and unreal. Then we are cutting off a vital part of the evidence.

Click to expand...

No, only you are. What you are doing is blaming our rejection of your metaphysical ideas on the materialism of science. You do this as a constant theme of your threads.

stevevw said:

Actually there is in that the peer review articles I linked clearly state that there has been an increase in openness of ideas of consciousness beyond brain.

I am surprised people even contest this. The simple fact that consciousness studies have had a major increase in recent decades shows that naturally this will include investigation all possible ideas. We see that with dozens of new theories on consciousness beyond brain. I linked several. I can find you another 100 if you like. They are everywhere and this would not have been the case 20 or 30 years ago.

Yes it has actually. Are you saying that the idea of there being a Mind and Body divide is itself not established. Not that its been proven either way. But that there is not wide spread agreement that there is a Mind and Body divide when it comes to understanding consciousness.

Click to expand...

What do you mean with established then? That thoughts about dualism exist? If so, yes. That most of those who work in the field believe it? If so, no. If you filter the results you'll see that a majority of those who specialize in theory of mind lean towards physicalism.

stevevw said:

I think this has been established for 100s years with people likeDescartes. Its just a case on the ongoing debate over what is the evidence.

Click to expand...

It seems that you use established in the meaning of that somebody have proposed it, sure Descartes did that. To me established would mean that it have been determined to be true or at least most likely.

stevevw said:

Yes so its not a good source. I think the peer reviewed articles I link are good enough to establish that openness to ideas beyond the physical basis for consciousness is well established and continuing to grow. This seems to be the biggest area of growth that offers the most potential.

Click to expand...

Your last article by Maria Strømme doesn't include any experimental results, she gives a highly speculative framework. Nothing she proposes have been confirmed. Even if she is correct (it would be interesting), what she describes is still not beyond the physical.

Ophiolite said:

Once again you completely miss the point. I am addressing your failure to follow my request that you deal only with point 5. But you ignore this and work your way through every other point I made, despite my specific (and I believe clear) request that you need not and should not do so. I am addressing the particular failure on your part to "pretty please, deal only with point 5". I don't want you to belatedly bring up a defence of point 5 when I am challenging your response to point 1. I pleased with you to actually do some thinking before responding and you chose not to do so.

Click to expand...

I thought I did. Perhaps you did not like the answer. This was point 5 Regardless of the foregoing you have made no effort to demonstrate that a) the number of these articles versus those presenting a "conventional" view is significant, and b) that the proportion of these articles is increasing.

Ok so I said that this was an irrelevant request because I was not comparing the conventional view as opposed to the increase in articles that are more open to alternative ideas about consciousness beyond the physical brain.

Show me how giving you the data on a comparison between the conventional position and the increasing open position will negate there has been an increase in openness to these ideas. Its irrelevant.

Plus as I also said the peer review articles on surveying the number of articles shows the increase in these articles. A real increase compared to the past. If we are just looking at the increase in openness to these ideas then should we not be looking at this specifically.

Ophiolite said:

Steve, your reading comprehension is abyssmal. One item in my signature says that if you have not understood something it is probably my fault. I remove that exception in regard to yourself. I have no idea whether your inability to respond to what is written is matter of intent or intellect, but I've had enough of it. I cannot and will not continue a conversation with someone who insists upon, or is uncapable of, misunderstanding almost every word that is written. It is pointless.

Click to expand...

Ok so lets look at the above. I broke it down as simple as I could. If you think its wrong then can you tell me how.. I think you assume or don't look at what I post properly.

I questioned the logic of why you would want the comparison data and gave a rational for this. But you completely ignored this and pretended I did not answer your question. That is not my fault but yours for not reading my post and accepting my arguement that I disagreed.

The fact you did not even acknowledge this disagreement and assumed I did not answer your question is evidence that you don't even acknowledge my arguements and disagreements.