iNow

You could’ve presented it in your very first post. You could’ve presented in any of the multiple other posts you’ve made since. You’ve not been sanctioned nor had your permissions limited in any way. People have engaged and asked questions trying to prompt you to present it. You’ve done little more than evade and ignore their inquiries. Nobody is stopping you but you. Stop waffling. You may have a great idea, but right now you’re approaching this discussion with steps straight out of the crackpot playbook. From what I can tell, you’re better than that.

What evidence would show your hypothesis / conjecture to be false? What tests can we run to help validate it?

So, you seem to be saying that the richer and more robust our map of the world becomes, the more accurate our view of any individual items and elements on that map becomes. We refine our model of the territory the more we learn about it. In this case, I’m inclined to agree with Strange that this is something we already know and it’s unclear what you’ve added to existing knowledge.

Will you please elaborate on what you mean by “concrete?” It suggests an insurmountable plateau or static threshold of some sort, instead of acknowledging the potential for continual improvement and evolution as conditions change and time passes. Pretty sure that’s not something you mean to imply, but “concrete” is a pretty specific term, and not one generally associated with the dynamic and plastic neurobiology found in humans and other animals.

So, am I correct to conclude that you’re discussing (and attempting to introduce a new approach to our understanding of nested object categories and continuous semantic taxonomy; the notion suggesting that gradients of overlapping neural responses in specific regions and in specific patterns patterns give rise to fuzzy object concepts while in parallel preventing more discreet concepts from being represented (in short: one idea always activates other ideas due precisely to the way our minds operate)?

I didn’t realize this discussion forum had transitioned into a blog

A bit, yes. He threw out the deal Obama made. Let Bolton cook the books and manufacture a crisis. Sent in warships and presented an attack posture. Now, he’ll pull back and tell everyone how great he is for avoiding disaster... hopefully.

It’s not improbable. Trump has a history of arson and pretending to be a hero when he arrives with an extinguisher.

This is John Bolton. Trump let’s him do his thing until he sees negative news coverage about it. Then, he later says “maybe we shouldn’t.” Unfortunately, until he orders a pullback of ships and weapons, any idiot or tiny mistake could lead to escalation like a spark in a powder keg.

Perhaps you’ve encountered the logical fallacy of a strawman before? It’s where you completely misrepresent the other and then argue against that misrepresentation instead of what they actually said. Sometimes examples help. If you’ve never seen one before, I encourage you to reread your own post in response to me above. Unfortunately, you’re wrong about the workings of the mind, too. I was trying to be kind by not mentioning it as so many others already have.

Technically, at least 1 researcher disagrees, so in a dishonest argumentation / bad faith sort of way, their point is pedantically accurate. Majority of disagreement, however, accepts the core premise and differs only on marginal differences around magnitude or best response. The obvious issue is that this Mental Gymnastics poster here is clearly attempting to convey an inaccurate impression and to mislead readers. They’re essentially trying to convince people that the consensus among researchers on this topic is anything but overwhelming and consistent across research domains. Said another way, and as I’m sure you already know, they’re either ignorant or lying. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

It’s not about winning and losing. It’s about asking you what other approach might take us closer to the truth since the idea of emergence doesn’t seem to get us there. Your continued evasion of and vitriolic attacks against this rather straight forward question are, I must say, rather telling. Just stop

And yet you continue posting on page after page, day after day, week after week. I humbly submit that there’s nothing respectful about the approach you’ve chosen.