|
You realise a stroke can affect a person in a vast number of ways, to varying extents on different parts of their cognition, and I don't have slightest fucking clue about your father's medical history? A stroke can cause a coma and/or death, and in that case invoking it as proof of a soul is utterly redundant.
I knew someone once who'd had a stroke and had severe learning problems as a result, not to mention partial disability. His "training" was most certainly impaired, and so apparently his soul could not reach maturity through this infliction. Posting "I know someone who had a stroke and he was fine" proves nothing one way or another, regardless of how personal or intimate that anecdote is.
Physical damage to the right parts of the brain can incapacitate or impair certain senses. Cut the right bits out and you won't be able to think certain things properly. Or let's look at it another way: a training in music, language or any of life requires certain senses. Even if you want to invoke the mysteries of the brain, you're still dependent on the physical organs of the eyes, the ears and so on.
Show me a single thought divorced from the corporeal vessel. You can't, where as I can show the requirement of thoughts on the material. Occam's Razor, for me, says the conclusion drawn from observed evidence is simpler than one that requires inductive reasoning from without, reasoning that must battle it out with a near-infinite multitude of contrary strains of inductive reasoning, all clinging to that one link to plausibility: "You can't disprove me" but none with any tighter grip on reality than the next.
| quote: | | why are you so angry on the internet? your attitude adds very little to any discussion. i've read good posts from you as well, but as i said in the past, you seem to have a fetish for attacking me personally. |
If I'm going to be angry somewhere, the Internet is a much better place to do it than anywhere else. I'm not one for repressing irritation when it occurs.
___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24
Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/
|
- it looks like that study came out just before the big breakthrough studies on efferent pathways, so it's likely that hearing scientists would currently explain those results away as an efferent reflex effect, i.e. what you said, a physiological long-term change in processing resulting from experience. However, I am totally with you in that dynamic top-down processing probably plays a much bigger role in perception than changes in cochlear tuning. For the sake of the argument, I conveniently omitted the fact that while I am doing my degree in hearing science, my advisor is a cognitive psychology guy, so I am personally specializing in attentional effects on hearing perception, lol. I think a great majority of hearing scientists get so caught up in the brainstem and reflexive neural activity that they completely ignore the effects of cognition.
