But cognitive science says it was my subconscious are you refuting that? — 3017amen

I'd both refute that and I'm refuting the claim that cognitive science says that subconscious mental content causes accidents. I'll offer another wager to you about that, even. Find me something from an academic/peer-reviewed source in cognitive science that claims that subconscious mental content causes accidents and you win the bet.

It's a set of brain states. Brains are physical.
now


I'm confused what are brain States consciousness and subconsciousness working together?

But that would be a contradiction no?

I'm confused what are brain States consciousness and subconsciousness working together? — 3017amen

I don't understand that question grammatically. Could you rewrite it?

Find me something from an academic/peer-reviewed source in cognitive science that claims that subconscious mental content causes accidents and you win the bet.


I'll make you a counteroffer, check with atheist Daniel Dennett in his book 'consciousness explained' and then we'll parse it.

In the meantime I'm learning that you really don't understand human consciousness do you?

I don't understand that question grammatically. Could you rewrite it?


Sure, explain your meaning of brain states?

I'll make you a counteroffer, check with atheist Daniel Dennett in his book 'consciousness explained' and then we'll parse it. — 3017amen

What? You made a claim about what cognitive scientists claim re subconscious minds and accidents. I called bull on that claim. Why are you telling me to check something--I'm not the one making a claim about what cognitive scientists say, and why would you be telling me to check Dennett of all people? He's an eliminative materialist. He doesn't even buy that there are minds in the conventional "folk" sense. He's certainly not going to claim that we have subconscious minds and that they cause accidents.

In the meantime I'm learning that you really don't understand human consciousness do you? — 3017amen

I certainly do more than you, given the questions you're asking.

Sure, explain your meaning of brain states? — 3017amen

Nothing unusual. You know what a brain is, right? (Or do I need to explain that to you, too?) Brains are dynamic, in constantly changing electrochemical states, with different neurons activated to different degrees etc. at different times.

He's certainly not going to claim that we have subconscious minds and that they cause accidents.

Then the question still remains unanswered:

1. Is human sentience physical ( explain the feeling we get looking at the color red and explained the brain states of Love phenomenon)?

2. Explain what happens when I'm not paying attention while driving a car having an accident and killing myself, explain that phenomenon?

Is human sentience physical — 3017amen

Yes. I answered this already.

Re explaining the feeling you get when you look at red, how am I going to know the feeling that you get when you look at red (assuming for some odd reason that it would just be one feeling and not various feelings on different occasions, in different contexts)?

Re brain states for love, here: https://www.medicaldaily.com/what-love-mri-scan-reveals-what-stages-romantic-love-youre-brain-map-326080

Explain what happens when I'm not paying attention while driving a car having an accident and killing myself, explain that phenomenon? — 3017amen

I haven't the faintest idea why you'd see this as a mystery. You're not paying attention, and you do something careless as a result, like not stopping for a red light, as you suggested.

Yes. I answered this already.


I'm afraid you're far from explaining it. If I look at the color red and perceive a feeling about it, tell me about the nature of that feeling?

Explain why I have that feeling in physical terms?

I haven't the faintest idea why you'd see this as a mystery. You're not paying attention, and you do something careless as a result, like not stopping for a red light, as you suggested.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If I'm hard-wired to survive, you're suggesting my brain states willingly caused an accident by daydreaming.

Surely you're not suggesting that I daydream on purpose in order to kill myself right?

I'm afraid you're far from explaining it. — 3017amen

Sure. Do you remember what I said about this idea? If I offer something as an explanation that you're going to respond to with "that's not an explanation," then you're going to need to set forth your criteria for explanations.

Explain why I have that feeling in physical terms? — 3017amen

I'll do this, but I'm not going to bother if you're just going to go, "That's not an explanation" or "That's far from explaining it" and that's the extent to which you address it.

So let's have your criteria for what counts, in general, as an explanation, so we can make sure that the explanation meets your criteria and you can't willy-nilly just say that it does not.

If I'm hard-wired to survive, you're suggesting my brain states willingly caused an accident my daydreaming. — 3017amen

The whole idea of an accident is that it's not intentional. So no. "Willingly" is intentional. It's as if you're not familiar with the idea of accidents. But how could that be?

you remember what I said about this idea? If I offer something as an explanation that you're going to respond to with "that's not an explanation," then you're going to need to set forth your criteria for explanations.


And I told you in the OP that you would not be able to explain many things about human existence including consciousness, and you are demonstrating the fact you can't.

For example does music theory confer biological advantages?

And I told you in the OP that you would not be able to explain many things about human existence including consciousness, and you are demonstrating the fact you can't. — 3017amen

I could say that you can't explain anything at all. All I'd need to do, with any explanation you offer, is say, "That's not (sufficient for) an explanation." If I decide to do that, what can you do about it?

Nothing.

That's why we'd need to set forth our criteria for explanations.

But how could that be?

It's because I couldn't understand my conscienceness. But you're saying since you completely understand your consciousness, then you can prevent all accidents from occurring, is that what you are saying?

For example, I could say "3017amen is incapable of explaining how to spell the word 'cat.'"

And then in response to anything you say, I can write, "That's not an explanation."

Well, there's nothing you could do about that if I'm not going to give you what my criteria are for whether something counts as an explanation.

Did I then "prove" that you're not able to explain how to spell the word "cat"?

could say that you can't explain anything at all. All I'd need to do, with any explanation you offer, is say, "That's not (sufficient for) an explanation." If I decide to do that, what can you do about it?


Okay let's go back to this question then:

God does not exist?

You being an atheist is that true or false or something else?

It's because I couldn't understand my conscienceness. — 3017amen

Say what? "But how could it be that you're unfamiliar with the notion of what an accident is"

That's what I wrote (implicationally) there

1. God does not exist.

True or false or something else?

Okay let's go back to this question — 3017amen

We're not going back to anything where you might respond with "That's not an explanation" if you don't set forth your criteria for explanations.

Do we agree to that? I'll go on, but not if you're just going to take a step back and respond again with "That's not an explanation" after a few posts back and forth, without you giving your criteria for explanations.

1. God does not exist.

True or false or something else? — 3017amen

I answered this already and I'll answer again, but you're not going to respond with "That's not an explanation," right?

Accident: event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

Is that true or false?

Accident: event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

Is that true or false? — 3017amen

If you're not going to answer any questions, why do you expect me to? You have to play fair.

I'm not interested in this as a game or as an ego-inflating exercise for you.

answered this already and I'll answer again, but you're not going to respond with "That's not an explanation," right?

I apologize TS did you answer that I missed it?

(God does not exist.)

Again, before dropping the above and going back a few squares, you need to say whether you agree that you're not going to simply respond with "That's not an explanation" again.

If you don't agree to that, or alternately you don't give your criteria for explanations, I'm not interested.

Accident: event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

Is that true or false?

TS, that definition is from the dictionary.

One more chance to answer the question I'm asking and not just keep retyping stuff like an OCD victim.

God does not exist.

It's a simple question I think, answer it yes or no. Or something else?

If you're unwilling to answer it then your seemingly
not an atheist.

And there goes the buzzer