Proof by Madness: rat spit’s proof of God(s)

[Sheldon]

@rat_spit

Psychological implies non-physiological.

Au contraire mon ami…

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

1.relating to or denoting faculties or phenomena that are apparently inexplicable by natural laws, especially involving telepathy or clairvoyance.

That’s not the only definition. “Relating to the soul or mind” would be closer to the Greek.

Then you should have a) specified you were using an archaic definition that didn’t reflect common usage, and b) it is still woo woo superstition. Fin fact, superstition has decreased overtime as we have learned a little about the natural physical world.

@rat_spit

How was your trip? I hope you had some of that fine Bavarian sausage while you were there! A few Hefeweizen?

Trip was great, it was work, but had a bit of an outing getting from Frankfurt airport to digs, as I couldn’t connect my phone to internet, and had to get directions over phone from a friend in UK, a 1 hr drive turned into 3.5 hours, but that aside it went very well.

@rat_spit

And the claim made by those who do not hear voices … how are their claims any less subjective?

So firstly this appears to be what aboutism, and secondly what claims, could you give an example and explain why it has any relevance to your original claim being entirely subjective?

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

There is no bias for or against on my part, and you would need to objectively evidence that psychic phenomenon were possible.

Straw man. I didn’t mean psychic in the way you’re using it. And you’re using it with selective ignorance over what it actually means in Greek. Have you not heard of a “psyche”? I’m using the word as it pertains to mental phenomena. Stop misrepresenting me.

Then it is your error, if you meant psyche and not psychic, but rephrase the claim using the word psyche and I will happily take another look.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

never suggested otherwise?

Well, you would need to in order to support your claim that the phenomenon is completely physiological. Here is where you make the claim.

@Sheldon

Indeed, but that isn’t the point, the point is that medication affecting them demonstrates them to be a natural physiological phenomenon.

Consciousness is a physiological phenomenon?

I didn’t make that claim, never mentioned consciousness in fact, nor would I need to demonstrate this, as the fact that medication is affecting hallucinations, demonstrates that they are physiological, while we have no objective evidence that anything supernatural is even possible. This is not a coin toss, or a 50/50 shot in the dark, on eis objectively evidenced, the other is entirely subjective.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

Indeed, but that isn’t the point, the point is that medication affecting them demonstrates them to be a natural physiological phenomenon.

What I take exception to is the claim that consciousness is physiological.

Again this is a straw man, I made no such claim, you can’t add words to change what I said. My only comment was that medication affecting something (in this case hallucinations) demonstrates it is a natural phenomenon, or physiological condition.

@rat_spit

You can give a person tryptophan and they might fall asleep. Does that imply that consciousness is “physiological”?

If anaesthetic, strokes, brain damage, brain death, all are physical natural occurrences, and affect consciousness, then yes this is objective evidence that consciousness is a naturally occurring phenomenon. However even without this, we still know for an objective fact that natural phenomena exist and are therefore possible, we have no objective evidence that the supernatural is possible.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

The agency would be the brain they originate in, and again we know this exists and is capable of producing organised intelligence, as an objective fact, unlike deities, which we don’t know are even possible. Occam’s razor ratty…

So are you attributing the hallucinations to my agency?

I know you exist as an objective fact, I know the claims being made by you, since I know natural phenomena are possible, and have no objective evidence anything supernatural is, the former is already more plausible than the latter, but most importantly I don’t need contrary evidence or explanation to the claim they have supernatural causes, in order to disbelieve that claim.

[Sheldon]

@rat_spit

Why do you think schizophrenics believe the voices to be real?

The condition further impairs their ability to differentiate between an hallucination and objective reality, and hallucinations are defined as experiences that “appear” sometimes very vividly to be real, but that do not in fact reflect objective reality. This condition also means that people who have it experience hallucinations at a higher rate than the average.

@rat_spit

@Randomhero1982

Confirmation bias.

No alternative expalnation is a better answer.

The two are not mutually exclusive, so you would need to support the claim with sufficient, and sufficiently objective evidence. No one needs to disprove it.

@rat_spit

I don’t have mental health issues. I’m quite well thank you. What I do have is a nefarious mind leech who subjects me to torment for the sake of my betterment.

I don’t think he was attaching any stigma to that assertions, it is simply a fact that you are affected by schizophrenia, this is condition is currently explained (as far as we can explain it) as an entirely natural phenomenon.

@rat_spit

It is an objective fact that they present themselves as intellectually superior.

It is a subjective anecdotal claim, we’ve been through this.

@rat_spit

In lieu of any believable alternatives

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

@rat_spit

i find the explanation that this is simply the case to be compelling.

Great, I do not, as a subjective claim that sets a personal standard for credulity, does not on its own objectively evidence anything.

@rat_spit

do tell me how or why the voices present themselves the way they do outside of my control.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, no one has to disprove your claim. You exist, your brain exists, consciousness exists, and natural material phenomena exist, if you make claims about those things that require supernatural causation, then you have to objectively evidence they are at least possible, otherwise we are violating Occam’s razor.

@rat_spit

I believe you’ll find that science has no answer.

This doesn’t lend your claim any credence, nor does it remotely imply there is no scientific answer. Science did not exist at a very near point in the past, does this suggest scientific facts we now know to be true are dubious?

@rat_spit

Well, isn’t it odd that a mental phenomenon like consciousness is altered by physical substances? How do we go from physiological to mental?

I have already explained what this fact suggests, if a physical medication can be objectively demonstrated to affect a part of our physiology, this undermines the claim that the part or function has a separate and supernatural cause.

@rat_spit

I’m not asserting a divinity outside the confines of material existence.

Excellent, then when you can objectively test it’s existence, and the tests produce compelling results, that can replicated through peer review, we’re golden, until then it remains a subjective claim, and all the previous objections also apply.

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

Au contraire mon ami…

Yep. They’re quite different. We have the root “physio” which relates to physics, which relates to matter. And we have the root “psycho” which relates to the mind. Matter is not conscious and consciousness is not material. Since these auditory phenomenon appear within consciousness they are not material and thus not physiological.

@Sheldon

Then you should have a) specified you were using an archaic definition that didn’t reflect common usage,

Now you’re telling me what I should be doing? People are going to think we’re married, Sheldon!

@Sheldon

and b) it is still woo woo superstition.

Again, since we’re talking about objects of the psyche (the mind) it seems more than appropriate to talk about them as psychic phenomena. Oh. But do pardon my archaic usage of the word.

@Sheldon

superstition has decreased overtime as we have learned a little about the natural physical world.

Well, we’re not talking about the physical world are we? We’re taking about the mental world.

@Sheldon

but that aside it went very well.

How do you like that German hospitality I hear so much about?

@Sheldon

So firstly this appears to be what aboutism, and secondly what claims, could you give an example and explain why it has any relevance to your original claim being entirely subjective?

Claims made by researchers in the field and amateurs like yourself. That the voices are mere hallucinations. Claims that these psychological phenomena are aberrations of the brain despite the fact that they demonstrate traits of being highly organized, intelligent and intentional.

@Sheldon

Then it is your error, if you meant psyche and not psychic, but rephrase the claim using the word psyche and I will happily take another look.

Should I fold your sheets and wash your dishes while I’m at it?

@Sheldon

as the fact that medication is affecting hallucinations

You have yet to demonstrate that they are in fact hallucinations. I have shown you that the symptoms of schizophrenia demonstrate agency and intelligence on an ongoing, repeated, and reliable basis. Those are not features of hallucinations. Do you really think that if you experienced what I experienced, you’d know the difference? Have you ever heard of a schizophrenic who didn’t believe the beings in his head were real? Why do you think the track record is so good? Wouldn’t at least one schizophrenic figure it out? See past the mirage?

@Sheldon

demonstrates that they are physiological

They cannot be physiological as they are perceptual features of consciousness. So how exactly you think you can demonstrate that a conscious phenomenon is physiological seems absurd. And relying on the fact that a tranquilizer reduces the frequency of a conscious phenomenon says nothing about the conscious phenomenon being a hallucination. You have done nothing to solidify your claim that the auditory phenomenon are in fact hallucinations.

@Sheldon

My only comment was that medication affecting something (in this case hallucinations) demonstrates it is a natural phenomenon, or physiological condition

As a counter demonstration, the meds also put people to sleep. They make people go unconscious. Consciousness is not a physiological condition. It is a mental state. The fact that medications reduce or temporarily eliminate consciousness does not demonstrate that said consciousness is not real. The same applies to the voices. The use of medication to reduce the presence and frequency of the voices says nothing about their reality or non-reality.

@Sheldon

we have no objective evidence that the supernatural is possible

We have no evidence that the brain can produce phenomenon with agency, superior intelligence, intentionality, a sense of humour, a sense of purpose, degrees of continuity etc. etc. - which are anything other than “real” (ie. and yet “not real” (“hallucinations”)).

How does the brain produce such phenomena? Why do I believe these phenomena to be real? Why do I have an in depth relationship with these voices? What would be the brains purpose in conjuring up such mirages?

@Sheldon

I know you exist as an objective fact,

No you don’t! You’ve heard of “solipsism” I’m assuming? Are you referring to my physical body or my identity as a conscious being? It makes a difference.

@Sheldon

but most importantly I don’t need contrary evidence or explanation to the claim they have supernatural causes, in order to disbelieve that claim.

Here’s the deal. The voices have agency, intelligence, a sense of humour, intentionality, continuity, etc. Tell me why I’m mistaken in believing them to be real. Give me a more plausible explanation. I’ll be the first to admit that I cannot tell you with any confidence where in time and space these voices are located. I can tell you that they are not me and to the best of my knowledge, my brain has only one agent in it - me. Except that it has two - me and the voice.

I have yet to hear of a mechanism for this phenomenon which would convince me that the voices are in fact not real. I have no problem distinguishing reality from hallucination. I can drive a car perfectly well. I can cook an omelet. Etc. etc. the only difficulty I have is with a being who cohabitates alongside me in my mind. If it was all an illusion don’t you think I would be able to dismantle it?

There is in fact an illusion underlying this whole scenario. It is the illusion of a “self”. The being makes light of this. Even your “self” is an illusion. You’ll find Sam Harris addresses this point quite well.

[rat_spit]

I’m sure @Randomhero1982 is fully capable of addressing posts that were directed towards his self. We already have a few irons in the fire as far as I can tell.

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

does this suggest scientific facts we now know to be true are dubious?

There are no “scientific facts” - only hypotheses which have not yet been replaced by better ones. “Models” if you like.

[Randomhero1982]

@rat_spit

You clearly have never had a hallucination. Why do you think schizophrenics believe the voices to be real? What do you think the voices appear to be such that a schizophrenic would be convinced they’re real? Agency, intelligence, and intentionality.

That is, at least, how the voices present themselves. If you have an explanation for why that is outside of the obvious conclusion that it is that way because it is that way, I’m all ears.

Ok so you actually skip over the first point which is this is an unfalsifiable claim but lets move on to this point…

I said there could be other reasons why, but hallucinations were but one valid explaination.

You’ve made the outlandish claim, you have the burden of proof and I would wager that too all readers you’ve failed to meet that burden of proof.

Still if I were to be charitable and grant that you experience these episodes, I’d wager you have a mental illness.

@rat_spit

No alternative expalnation is a better answer.

This is in regards to the confirmation bias you presented… no matter what the voice does, it has ‘purpose’ this is confirmation Bias.

You have neglected other possible reasoning and rationale, whilst discouraging questioning and masking possible serious mental illness.

@rat_spit

Please expand on this cryptic crawfish

In regards to self sealing logic… you offered no possible outcome that would disprove belief in the purpose of the voice.

You make it untouchable to scrutiny, or evidence, circular in reasoning and unable to be falsified… hence, self sealing.

@rat_spit

You’re taking a real “deep dive” into this, aren’t you? I don’t have mental health issues. I’m quite well thank you. What I do have is a nefarious mind leech who subjects me to torment for the sake of my betterment.

Well your arguement in this particular section offers only two points and ignores other arguments…

Like subconscious is more complex then first thought, you could be going through a disassociated process or could be imagination and finally, it could also be due to various other neurological or physiological issues.

It doesn’t have to necessarily be subconscious vs external reality.

@rat_spit

That is how the “hallucinations” present. It is an objective fact that they present themselves as intellectually superior. In lieu of any believable alternatives i find the explanation that this is simply the case to be compelling. By all means however, do tell me how or why the voices present themselves the way they do outside of my control. I believe you’ll find that science has no answer

I mean how many logical fallacies do you want to commit here? Confirmation bias? argument from ignorance? Subjective validation?

The main points i will say is that because something appears objectively true to you, that does not make it objective in reality.

There are as mentioned above, other possible reasonings which don’t require invoking some supernatural or paranormal phenomena.

And just becuase science cannot fully answer something right now, it doesn’t mean it can’t offer better insight.

[mordant]

@rat_spit

Well, we’re not talking about the physical world are we? We’re taking about the mental world.

I think this dualism of yours is overdetermined. Our thoughts arise in a physical brain via physical processes. Yes I can imagine things that aren’t real (e.g., that I can fly, or that my mother in law hatched from a spider’s egg) but that doesn’t put the “mental world” in a whole separate category untethered from and unaffected by the physical.

[mordant]

@rat_spit

I have shown you that the symptoms of schizophrenia demonstrate agency and intelligence on an ongoing, repeated, and reliable basis.

You have not shown any such thing. You have testified that they have those characteristics in your personal experience. I am sure others have had similar experiences. But external agency / intelligence is not remotely necessary to explain those experiences. YOU have agency and intelligence. There is amble evidence that we all “contain multitudes”, that there are competing parts of our personalities that are at odds with our public personas. None of this is controvertial.

Add to this Jayne’s hypothesis of the bicameral mind, and there are even more reasons to not rush to the conclusion that you’re in touch with deities.

[Sheldon]

@rat_spit

Matter is not conscious and consciousness is not material.

A bare claim, I think by now we both know how much credence I can lend to bare claims. What’s more we now natural material phenomena exist and are therefore possible, this means they already more plausible than supernatural claims, which cannot be demonstrated to be possible in any objective way. A fact you seem to be ignoring?

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

Then you should have a) specified you were using an archaic definition that didn’t reflect common usage,

Now you’re telling me what I should be doing? People are going to think we’re married, Sheldon!

Well strictly speaking I was telling you what you ought to have done, clarity in an argument is entirely the responsibility of the person creating the argument, and psyche and psychic are wildly different to be fair, but hey ho, we all make mistakes.

@rat_spit

Again, since we’re talking about objects of the psyche (the mind) it seems more than appropriate to talk about them as psychic phenomena.

No, they’re wildly different things, the ladder being unevidenced superstition, whether you use the current definition or the archaic one offered.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

superstition has decreased overtime as we have learned a little about the natural physical world.

Well, we’re not talking about the physical world are we? We’re taking about the mental world.

I have no objective reason to believe the machinations of the physical brain are anything by material and natural, and again we know those both exist, we don’t know that anything supernatural are possible.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

but that aside it went very well.

How do you like that German hospitality I hear so much about?

Everyone I met, this time, and when I worked there before, were exceptionally friendly and helpful.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

So firstly this appears to be what aboutism, and secondly what claims, could you give an example and explain why it has any relevance to your original claim being entirely subjective?

Claims made by researchers in the field and amateurs like yourself. That the voices are mere hallucinations.

I have not claimed that, only pointed out the fact that hallucinations occur, and the rate at which they occur, and the fact that they occur at a higher rate among people who have schizophrenia. This is not subjective, nor is it speculation.

@rat_spit

Claims that these psychological phenomena are aberrations of the brain despite the fact that they demonstrate traits of being highly organized, intelligent and intentional.

Well firstly this remains an unevidenced anecdotal claim, secondly those traits are all characteristics of human brains, we know “highly organized, intelligent and intentional” thoughts occur all the time?

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

Then it is your error, if you meant psyche and not psychic, but rephrase the claim using the word psyche and I will happily take another look.

Should I fold your sheets and wash your dishes while I’m at it?

Nope, just be clear about how you’re using and defining words, as psyche and psychic no not remotely have similar definitions.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

as the fact that medication is affecting hallucinations

You have yet to demonstrate that they are in fact hallucinations. I

It is a scientific fact that hallucinations exist and occur, and I have offered many citations to support this, and to demonstrate the high rate at which they occur, and the higher rate at which they occur among people with schizophrenia. Though of course this is irrelevant to your claim, as that is unsupported by any objective evidence, and it is irrational to assert that an argument gains credence from the lack of an alternative explanation or evidence.

@rat_spit

I have shown you that the symptoms of schizophrenia demonstrate agency and intelligence on an ongoing, repeated, and reliable basis.

So what, all human brains do this.

@rat_spit

Those are not features of hallucinations.

Of course they can be, why would you say that? You are also making the same unevidenced anecdotal claim of course, but either way it is not evidence to support a separate or supernatural cause.

@rat_spit

Do you really think that if you experienced what I experienced, you’d know the difference?

I can have no idea what you’ve “experienced”, as it is entirely subjective, I can only comment on what you assert, and what if anything you can objectively evidence.

@rat_spit

Have you ever heard of a schizophrenic who didn’t believe the beings in his head were real? Why do you think the track record is so good? Wouldn’t at least one schizophrenic figure it out? See past the mirage?

Do I really need to post the definition of hallucination again? Or the citations that demonstrate how much higher the rate of hallucinations are among schizophrenics, or how the condition makes it much more difficult for the sufferer to differentiate between them and reality?

@rat_spit

They cannot be physiological as they are perceptual features of consciousness.

1. Of course they can.
2. The objective evidence of them being affected by medication suggests they are.
3. There is no objective evidence that any supernatural cause is even possible.

@rat_spit

You have done nothing to solidify your claim that the auditory phenomenon are in fact hallucinations.

I don’t need to, it’s your claim they have a cause that is both separate from your own brain and supernatural in origin, the burden of proof is entirely yours.

@rat_spit

the meds also put people to sleep. They make people go unconscious. Consciousness is not a physiological condition.

Oh dear ratty, those are contradictory claims?

@rat_spit

The fact that medications reduce or temporarily eliminate consciousness does not demonstrate that said consciousness is not real.

Who claimed consciousness wasn’t real?

@rat_spit

The same applies to the voices. The use of medication to reduce the presence and frequency of the voices says nothing about their reality or non-reality.

No one claimed this, only that it suggests they have a natural physiological cause. Unless they’re being treated with magic beans? Ether way, no one needs to disprove your claim, or offer alternative explanations.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

we have no objective evidence that the supernatural is possible

We have no evidence that the brain can produce phenomenon with agency,

Yes we do, both our brains are doing it throughout this discourse? You’re the one violating Occam’s razor by adding a separate and unevidenced supernatural cause.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

I know you exist as an objective fact,

No you don’t! You’ve heard of “solipsism” I’m assuming? Are you referring to my physical body or my identity as a conscious being? It makes a difference.

In every instance where human consciousness exists, it exists with a functioning physical human brain, when that brain dies that consciousness disappears forever. If that brain is damaged, then that consciousness is impaired, if that brain is medicated that consciousness is again affected. You don’t get to just wave all that away.

@rat_spit

Here’s the deal. The voices have agency, intelligence, a sense of humour,

Traits typical to human beings.

@rat_spit

Give me a more plausible explanation.

No, you objectively evidence your claim.

@rat_spit

I’ll be the first to admit that I cannot tell you with any confidence where in time and space these voices are located.

I can, and this would be supported by the fact the physical brains producing them are a necessary natural and physical requirement, as we never see human consciousness without a functioning physical human brain.

@rat_spit

I’m sure @Randomhero1982 is fully capable of addressing posts that were directed towards his self.

As am I.

@rat_spit

There are no “scientific facts” - only hypotheses

Nonsense.

Fact
noun
a thing that is known or proved to be true.

You have just asserted that science does not know anything to be true…

[Sheldon]

@Randomhero1982

And just becuase science cannot fully answer something right now, it doesn’t mean it can’t offer better insight.

An excellent point that warrants repeating, as it is astonishing how often people fail to grasp, that nor having an explanation, and no explanation existing or being possible, are not remotely the same thing, it is of course the kind of fallacious reasoning that argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies underpin all the time.

[Sheldon]

@mordant

You have not shown any such thing. You have testified that they have those characteristics in your personal experience.

Exactly, such claims are by their very nature anecdotal and subjective, but even were they taken at face value, the claim that thoughts, since that is what are being described, have agency, intelligence, and intent, does not evidence in any way, that they have causal origin other than the functioning, or even malfunctioning, human brain, that rather suspiciously always has to be present for them to occur.

[Nyarlathotep]

@Randomhero1982

And just becuase science cannot fully answer something right now, it doesn’t mean it can’t offer better insight.

what is answered and what is not answered is a matter of opinion. Those who don’t want science to work will never agree anything has been answered, meanwhile someone like me believes the law of large numbers explains just about everything I’ve ever seen. Both are just opinions.

[Sheldon]

@Nyarlathotep

Those who don’t want science to work will never agree anything has been answered,

Or they will cherry pick which facts to accept. I am reminded of the statement, that when someone says evolution is “just a theory”, you should tell them to go to Hiroshima, and they can tell the people there that atomic theory, “is just a theory”.

Sadly the irony of their bias is always (maybe) lost on them.

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

A bare claim, I think by now we both know how much credence I can lend to bare claims

Not so much a “claim” as a matter of definition.

@Sheldon

A fact you seem to be ignoring?

I’m not ignoring the fact that natural phenomena offer more plausible explanations than supernatural. I’m suggesting to you that a phenomenon which demonstrates:

• intelligence
• Organization
• Humour
• Consistency
• Etc
• Etc

Likely also has agency.

@Sheldon

and psyche and psychic are wildly different to be fair, but hey ho, we all make mistakes.

Merriam Webster

psychic

1 of 2

adjective

psy·​chic ˈsī-kik

variants or less commonly psychical

ˈsī-ki-kəl

Synonyms of psychic

1

: of or relating to the psyche : PSYCHOGENIC

@Sheldon

No, they’re wildly different things, the ladder being unevidenced superstition, whether you use the current definition or the archaic one offered.

psychic

1 of 2

adjective

psy·​chic ˈsī-kik

variants or less commonly psychical

ˈsī-ki-kəl

Synonyms of psychic

1

: of or relating to the psyche : PSYCHOGENIC

@Sheldon

I have no objective reason to believe the machinations of the physical brain are anything by material and natural, and again we know those both exist, we don’t know that anything supernatural are possible.

Is “consciousness” supernatural? Because it’s not material? Nor is matter conscious, so what category do you fit it into?

@Sheldon

Everyone I met, this time, and when I worked there before, were exceptionally friendly and helpful.

Great.

@Sheldon

I have not claimed that, only pointed out the fact that hallucinations occur, and the rate at which they occur, and the fact that they occur at a higher rate among people who have schizophrenia. This is not subjective, nor is it speculation.

I think you’re confusing standard hallucinations caused by somatic discrepancies with a condition where “hallucinations” are the norm.

@Sheldon

Well firstly this remains an unevidenced anecdotal claim,

These are criteria which researchers use to define hallucinations. They may be anecdotal, but they are the standard by which researchers are able to categorize and understand the nature and content of a schizophrenic hearing a voice.

@Sheldon

secondly those traits are all characteristics of human brains, we know “highly organized, intelligent and intentional” thoughts occur all the time?

Yes. When in conjunct with an agent of some kind. Thanks for finally proving my point.

@Sheldon

Nope, just be clear about how you’re using and defining words, as psyche and psychic no not remotely have similar definitions.

psychic

1 of 2

adjective

psy·​chic ˈsī-kik

variants or less commonly psychical

ˈsī-ki-kəl

Synonyms of psychic

1

: of or relating to the psyche : PSYCHOGENIC

@Sheldon

It is a scientific fact that hallucinations exist and occur, and I have offered many citations to support this, and to demonstrate the high rate at which they occur, and the higher rate at which they occur among people with schizophrenia.

Again, you’re confused between mirages in the desert and voices who establish complex relationships with you. The former can be explained as somatic aberrations and the ladder require an agent to remain what they are.

@Sheldon

So what, all human brains do this.

In the presence of an agent … not without an agent. Hence the hallucinations demonstrate agency. End of discussion.

@Sheldon

Do I really need to post the definition of hallucination again? Or the citations that demonstrate how much higher the rate of hallucinations are among schizophrenics, or how the condition makes it much more difficult for the sufferer to differentiate between them and reality?

Uh, no? Why the fuck would I need you to do that?

@Sheldon

Who claimed consciousness wasn’t real?

You did. You claimed it was material in nature, thus negating its existence.

@Sheldon

You’re the one violating Occam’s razor by adding a separate and unevidenced supernatural cause.

Occam’s razor would suggest that a phenomenon demonstrating:

• intelligence
• organization
• Humour
• Continuity

Has agency

@Sheldon

In every instance where human consciousness exists, it exists with a functioning physical human brain, when that brain dies that consciousness disappears forever. If that brain is damaged, then that consciousness is impaired, if that brain is medicated that consciousness is again affected. You don’t get to just wave all that away.

Are “you” your body. You claim to know “I” exist. Am “I” my brain? Am I even my “consciousness”?

@Sheldon

Traits typical to human beings.

Who are agents. Yes. Thank you. End of discussion.

@Sheldon

No, you objectively evidence your claim.

The features of the “hallucinations” point to more than a mere somatic aberration of the brain. They point to agency.

@Sheldon

as we never see human consciousness without a functioning physical human brain.

And we never see a human brain without a functioning human consciousness.

@Sheldon

As am I.

Then let him answer his own posts.

@Sheldon

You have just asserted that science does not know anything to be true…

Is Newtonian Physics “true”?

[rat_spit]

@Randomhero1982

Still if I were to be charitable and grant that you experience these episodes, I’d wager you have a mental illness.

No. I’m fine, thanks. Thanks again for your in depth analysis.

@Randomhero1982

You have neglected other possible reasoning and rationale,

Such as?

@Randomhero1982

In regards to self sealing logic… you offered no possible outcome that would disprove belief in the purpose of the voice.

So what?

@Randomhero1982

You make it untouchable to scrutiny, or evidence, circular in reasoning and unable to be falsified… hence, self sealing.

It can be falsified with a scientific explanation that accounts for:

• intelligence
• Organization
• Continuity
• A sense of humour
• Etc
• Etc

Without the existence of an agent.

@Randomhero1982

Like subconscious is more complex then first thought, you could be going through a disassociated process or could be imagination and finally, it could also be due to various other neurological or physiological issues.

You write as though you’ve had a stroke. You’re missing a few articles there, bud. If you’d like to continue this debate, we’ll need to have complete sentences.

[rat_spit]

@mordant

You have not shown any such thing. You have testified that they have those characteristics in your personal experience.

If you claim schizophrenia to be an illness, then surely it has symptoms. And I am telling you what should already be obvious to you. The symptoms of schizophrenia are voices which present intelligence, continuity, emotion, etc. etc. - to the point where an otherwise norma person begins to believe that these symptoms are real. Now. Either they have agency or they don’t. The least complicated explanation is that they do have agency.

[mordant]

@rat_spit

It can be falsified with a scientific explanation that accounts for:

• intelligence
• Organization
• Continuity
• A sense of humour
• Etc
• Etc

Without the existence of an agent.

And the most economical explanation would be: that agent is YOU, or some part of you at any rate.

[Randomhero1982]

@rat_spit

You write as though you’ve had a stroke. You’re missing a few articles there, bud. If you’d like to continue this debate, we’ll need to have complete sentences.

I’ve had a stroke? You want to have another read of your opening post chap.

And it’s hardly a debate when you do not offer anything to support your claim and commit more fallacies then one can shake a stick at.

Maybe have a word with the brain leech to help you come up with a sensible arguement.

[rat_spit]

@Randomhero1982

Maybe have a word with the brain leech to help you come up with a sensible arguement.

Oh, sure. That’s real polite! Just make fun of the guy with schizophrenia, why don’t you? It’s okay Henry. He can’t hurt you. I’m here.

[rat_spit]

@mordant

And the most economical explanation would be: that agent is YOU, or some part of you at any rate.

Orrrrr … and just hear me out … maybe it’s the GOVERNMENT like I’ve been trying to tell you all of this time!