« How to Stop an Online Steamroller (Video) | Main | Relativism and Social Reform »

March 13, 2012

Comments

That's fine, but you're probably just spinning your tires in the mud.
I probably am, since muddying seems your specialty.

Jonathan, I am out of here for the rest of the day so won't be able to respond until this evening.

Daron,

You say, "With all the making clear you do, Jonathan, you'd think you would have seen to drop this long ago."

This is just rhetorical flare on your part. I explained (made clear) how the articles didn't make the point you were trying to make. Simple.


You say, "So let's be clear.
You claimed:"

I don't know why you want to go back to square one, but okay...

You say, "False throughout."

Actually, this is false on your part. I'm certainly right about subjective experience of dreams seeming longer. At least if we want to apply your pedantry to your own phraseology.

You say, "Dreaming does not occur only during REM."

I'm not sure if you want to beat this dead horse for your own chest thumping or what...

You say, "Dreams last much longer than a few minutes."

Actually, I never conceded this and you dropped the point a long time ago, but if you want to go back to it... okay. The average dream lasts 15 minutes, according to what I was able to find. That's a few minutes.

You say, "Dreams occur in every sleeping state."

This is equivalent to your point above that "Dreaming does not occur only during REM" … Not sure if you're just throwing it back in there from a different angle for more rhetorical flourish or what?

You say, "So whatever this defence was mean to advance against Sam has failed."

Well now this is a new claim. As I pointed out a long time ago: "I can just grant that dreams also can occur in NREM but maintain the point on the basis that sleep isn't a continuous dream state. At many points during sleep there is no first person subjective awareness. I don't need for this non-self awareness to be constant during sleep or confined to REM for it the objection to work."

You never contended that point and on more than one occasion claimed to not know whether anything you were saying was relevant to my debate with Sam.

You say, "Not wanting to admit your error"

In fact, I granted the error regarding NREM dreams from the beginning, I even found a research paper before you chimed in with your own and granted it.

So you've either gotten yourself confused on this point or are being disingenuous in describing my interactions.

You say, "you pretended that each of those assertions meant something else"

That's a bold assertion. Where is your evidence for that (and please don't suggest I find it myself). I don't believe I did any such thing.

You say, "being clear and using words in their normal meanings (yes, I know how pedantic that can be (?) ) it is plain that you did mean them as you said them and you were wrong."

It's not clear to me what "words in their normal meaning" refers to. I immediately granted the NREM point and in regards to the "few minutes" point I never conceded it or claimed to be using any terms in a non-ordinary way. As it is, your statement here looks like more rhetoric.

You say, "Then, in order to extend this for some reason, you said that NREM are reported if we broaden the question, change the definition, and allow NREM "dreams" to be called dreams."

No, that's what the article you cited said: "By simply changing the question asked of awakened subjects from 'Did you dream?' to 'Did you experience any mental content?,' Foulkes was able to show a far higher percentage of dream reports from NREM stages than original studies had suggested."

You say, "Plainly false."

Well I guess the article is plainly false in that report.

You say, "NREM dreams have been reported since the beginning of the studies"

The problem is you aren't detecting the difference between these two ideas: (a) The idea of dreams was broadened by Foulks and, upon doing so, greater instances of NREM "dreams" were reported. (b) No NREM dreams occurred prior to Foulks.

Hopefully, with the ideas side by side it is clear enough.

You say, "You continued to misread the articles to repeat the claim that these were somehow 'dreams' and not dreams."

I never claimed they were dreams and not dreams or "dreams" and not dreams (not sure if you intend anything by the quotes). Only that, according to your article, the idea was broadened.

You say, "But now we see you were just being cheeky and didn't really mean to contend this issue."

In regards to my claim that "I suppose if we wanted to continue with pedantry we could point out that the REM = dream idea hasn't been disproven; rather the "dream" concept has been redefined" I think you should have seen that from the beginning. Do you think people usually want to seriously entertain pedantry? I think it's safe to assume most people do not and, therefore, I thought it was safe to assume that "if you want to continue with pedantry" was enough of a qualifier. I take no blame that you failed to see it till now :)

You say, "So, with all clarity and obviousness, what is it you think you are arguing for or against now?"

Your misconceptions I suppose :)

You say, "The obvious and plain difference here, let me be clear, is that I made no false claim about how many hairs your dog has and then did not proceed to try to obfuscate my error."

I didn't do that either. I granted the NREM claim and didn't obfuscate anything that I can see. But eitherway, if we want to continue with pedantry, you made an "absolute statement" about Christians and truth. There is a truth to how many hairs my dog has. As a Christian (right?) you should care about it. If you now want to "obfuscate" your "absolute statement," be my guest :)

(Hint, I'm being "cheeky")

You say, "Since I've done nothing but share the truth on this subject that seems a silly thing to say."

Claiming to "share the truth" doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to support your claim and it doesn't place on me any obligation to support your claim when you refuse to. If I accepted your claim that it was true, there would be no dispute. To simply assert your claim is true and that, for that reason, you don't have to support and I should support is what looks silly to me.

You say, "Since I had already given you the material but you failed to read it properly the silliness is compounded."

But of course that is one of the points of contention. So your just compounding your assertions.

You say, "Since I returned from work and laid the case out with copious references it's, well, you know ...."

Yeah, I know, irrelevant... unfortunately for all your work.

Well, Daron, at this point it seems we are both spinning our tires in the mud. And, to be honest, I have a suspicion that this is more rooted in some bad feelings you have over our last exchange than anything of substance. So I'll let you have the final word and we can butt heads over some other issue in the future :)

Hi Jonathan,
Thanks, yes, I will take that last word.


This is just rhetorical flare on your part. I explained (made clear) how the articles didn't make the point you were trying to make. Simple.

Once again, an explanation of that which is not true is not an explanation.

I don't know why you want to go back to square one, but okay...

I didn't go back to square one but, rather, reminded you and any readers of the actual points and where we've come from. As people insist on arguing rather than speaking and learning these threads tend to meander and the point gets lost.

Actually, this is false on your part. I'm certainly right about subjective experience of dreams seeming longer.
Actually, without looking into this but given the state of dream knowledge now I would bet this is a left-over vestige as well. My instinct tells me that this little nugget comes out of the idea that NREM does not yield dreams. When a dreamer was awakened the old theory caused experimenters to attribute his reported NREM dream to the previous REM cycle. I would guess if I spent time looking at this I would find that they were just denying the reported dream and, since they placed it temporally earlier than the report, they would presume that people think the dream lasts longer than it does. Since we dream all night, in all stages, it would seem virtually impossible to legitimately claim that dreams end at a point and we think they didn't.
You say, "Dreaming does not occur only during REM."

I'm not sure if you want to beat this dead horse for your own chest thumping or what...

We just need to be reminded because you keep rolling these false premises into your points.
We'll see that in your next point ...
You say, "Dreams last much longer than a few minutes."

Actually, I never conceded this and you dropped the point a long time ago, but if you want to go back to it... okay. The average dream lasts 15 minutes, according to what I was able to find. That's a few minutes.


Your concession is not required. I didn't drop the point, I made it.
You never said anything about averages you said "dreams last..."
But they don't last just a few minutes. REM itself, which you implicitly equate to dreams here, even though the question is dealt with already, lasts up to an hour. This is not the unqualified "few minutes". Neither is 15 minutes.

And that is granting the false equation of REM and dreams. As the studies above indicate, we are dreaming throughout the sleep cycles.

You say, "Dreams occur in every sleeping state."

This is equivalent to your point above that "Dreaming does not occur only during REM" … Not sure if you're just throwing it back in there from a different angle for more rhetorical flourish or what?


No, actually, it's not. There are at least four stages of NREM sleep and this cuts off the escape route of admitting dreams in particular stages and not others.

I didn't do that either. I granted the NREM claim and didn't obfuscate anything that I can see. But eitherway, if we want to continue with pedantry, you made an "absolute statement" about Christians and truth. There is a truth to how many hairs my dog has. As a Christian (right?) you should care about it. If you now want to "obfuscate" your "absolute statement," be my guest :)
There's a clear difference between seeking the truth in subjects you are forwarding and seeking all truth about all different subjects. You seem to think you are doing something ironic here, but the irony is that this is exactly how you have debated in your brief stay here.
You say, "Not wanting to admit your error"

In fact, I granted the error regarding NREM dreams from the beginning, I even found a research paper before you chimed in with your own and granted it.

So you've either gotten yourself confused on this point or are being disingenuous in describing my interactions.

That was only one of your errors. The first of your others has been covered above.

No, that's what the article you cited said: "By simply changing the question asked of awakened subjects from 'Did you dream?' to 'Did you experience any mental content?,' Foulkes was able to show a far higher percentage of dream reports from NREM stages than original studies had suggested."
And here is your greatest one. Changing the question increased the percentage reported but not from zero. As has been pointed out ad nauseum, there are reported NREM dreams which are indistinguishable from REM dreams, having all of the subjective characteristics without the physiological correlates.
You say, "Plainly false."

Well I guess the article is plainly false in that report.

You guess as you read - wrong. That report does not say that only by changing the definition do we find that NREM experiences can be called dreams.

You say, "NREM dreams have been reported since the beginning of the studies"

The problem is you aren't detecting the difference between these two ideas: (a) The idea of dreams was broadened by Foulks and, upon doing so, greater instances of NREM "dreams" were reported. (b) No NREM dreams occurred prior to Foulks.

Hopefully, with the ideas side by side it is clear enough.

Crystal. The NREM dreams were reported long before Foulks came on the scene and, in fact, in the '60s he was dealing with old data in many cases in which NREM dreams had been denied in the '50s by experimenters though reported by subjects.

I never claimed they were dreams and not dreams or "dreams" and not dreams (not sure if you intend anything by the quotes). Only that, according to your article, the idea was broadened.
Yeah, the quotes are yours. And, as I keep pointing out, there are NREM dreams under any idea of dream and they would be counted as such without the broadening.
You say, "So, with all clarity and obviousness, what is it you think you are arguing for or against now?"

Your misconceptions I suppose :)

That would be done with logic and/or facts. Unfortunately, these are not on your side here.

Claiming to "share the truth" doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to support your claim and it doesn't place on me any obligation to support your claim when you refuse to. If I accepted your claim that it was true, there would be no dispute. To simply assert your claim is true and that, for that reason, you don't have to support and I should support is what looks silly to me.
I've supported my claims in spades and I had done so before I made that statement. Because you were still fussing about its edges and I had to leave for the afternoon I suggested something a Christian ought to embrace - look for the easy-to-find truth on this subject yourself, if you don't believe me.
But of course that is one of the points of contention. So your just compounding your assertions.
It's not an assertion but a statement of observable fact.

So, as before, you're welcome.

The comments to this entry are closed.