Give examples of this evidence. — AJJ

I did this the first time you asked. I gave you five examples that were hyperlinked. At which point you proceeded to completely ignore it. If you're interested in it, look at the evidence and comment on it. There's no need to repeat what it says. Look at it if you're sincerely wondering.

No links. Refer to what you have learned from those links. Don’t simply hide behind them.

Why no links? Why would I retype what is said there?

As I said above, "If you're interested in it, look at the evidence and comment on it. There's no need to repeat what it says. Look at it if you're sincerely wondering." It's all obviously explicit re mental/brain connections.

It’s very plain now that you do not yourself know or understand what is behind the links you posted. You’re posting them in order to assert your prejudice. It’s obviously not appropriate to refuse to argue in an argument, but rather refer the argument elsewhere.

You asked for examples of evidence. Those are examples of evidence. If you're interested in the evidence, look at the examples. If you're not really interested enough to bother with that, why should I care?

No argument. Prejudice and links.

Evidence is what matters here. If you just want an argument clinic because you like to argue for its own sake, I'm sure a lot of other people are looking for the same thing.

Oh, sorry. I didn’t realise that this was a prejudice and links-posting thread.

"Waah! I just want to argue! Waah! I'm not actually interested in information."

“Waah! I just want to post prejudice and links! Waah! I’m not actually interested in arguing.”

I'm definitely not interested in arguing. Correct.

At least not arguing for its own sake. Again, what matters for empirical claims like this is evidence. What's the case isn't determined by some stupid argument, just because it's an argument ( "If I claim to not otherwise be able to explain this, then God did it. I claim to not otherwise be able to explain this. So God did it. Modus ponens, bitch." )

If you're interested in the evidence look at it and comment on it. Otherwise I don't really care.

You neither know nor understand the “evidence” you’re referring to.

You neither know nor understand the “evidence” you’re referring to. — AJJ

This claim is based on?

You post links but refuse to give examples of anything contained in them. The reason is because you can’t.

You post links but refuse to give examples of anything contained in them. The reason is because you can’t. — AJJ

That's not going to work. Again, if you're actually interested in the evidence, look at it. How many times do I have to tell you, in order for you to finally learn, that if you're not interested enough to look at it, I don't care?

You neither know nor understand the “evidence”. If you did you would give an example of it and argue from that. You don’t, because you can’t.

I gave you a handful of examples. I couldn't care less that you either reason so poorly or that you have such ineffective psychological manipulation methods that you'd say that not performing as you'd prefer amounts to "not knowing or understanding it." That just tells me that you're kind of dim either way.

There's no need to "argue from the evidence." The evidence is the "argument." Either you're actually interested in the evidence or not. Again, I really couldn't care either way. As far as you matter to me at the moment, you're just some bozo who wants to argue on the internet.

You posted links. You have not given examples of what is contained in those links. You don’t, because you can’t.

Evidence of brain states corresponding to experiences is not evidence of the two things being identical. If that is not the kind of evidence contained in those links, say so, give an example of what is contained in them, and explain why it necessarily shows brain phenomena and experiences are identical. If you can’t, it’s because you can’t, and you’re free to stop responding.

Evidence of brain states corresponding to experiences is not evidence of the two things being identical. — AJJ

Sure it is. Why wouldn't it be?

You're not appealing to the dumb idea that it's not proof of them being identical, are you?

Because you could conclude instead that we experience our brain states, in which case they would correspond in the same way.

Because you could conclude instead that we experience our brain states, — AJJ

What would be the evidence suggesting that the two are different? (By the way if you post a link I'll look at it instead of complaining that you should retype parts of it here, etc.)

That’s not the point here. You said the evidence shows the two are identical. I’ve just given a reason why that isn’t the case.

That’s not the point here. You said the evidence shows the two are identical. I’ve just given a reason why that isn’t the case. — AJJ

It's exactly the point. The evidence does not PROVE that the two are identical. But it does show that they are. As expected, you're appealing to the ignorant idea that the evidence doesn't prove something.

To believe a contrary claim, there would need to be evidence for it. Possibility doesn't suffice.

That brain phenomena correspond to experiences shows either that the two are identical, or that we experience our brain phenomena. You’re willing to accept the former without further consideration, but not the latter. Why?

The latter requires evidence that they're different. There is no evidence that they're different though.

What there is, however, is evidence that any change in one amounts to a change in the other. In lieu of evidence otherwise, that suggests that they're identical.

Which is not to mention the incoherence of even the idea of nonphysicals,by the way.

That a change in one amounts to change in the other shows either that they are identical, or that we experience our brain phenomena. You’re willing to accept the former without further consideration, but not the latter. Why?

That a change in one amounts to change in the other shows either that they are identical, or that we experience our brain phenomena. — AJJ

Why would you figure that it shows either? Why wouldn't you figure that it maybe it shows that the two are completely coincidental?

That a change in one amounts to a change in the other shows either that the two are identical, that we experience our brain phenomena, or it’s complete coincidence. You’re willing to accept the former without further consideration, but not the latter two. Why?