I jsut realised that you posted stuff on Jun 26 that I haven't replied to. :/ Sorry. Most of the stuff is meh, i.e. I think if you'd actually sought to understand what I've been saying you would've gotten it (like Quantum has, even though he disagrees), but I have some quibbles (Jun 26, 7.38 AM):
"Please stop intentionally misrepresenting what I'm saying. Thanks. "
I wasn't. You genuinely were implying that people lie about being depressed all the time.
"You arbitrarily say, "you can't do tis!" but why couldn't i?"
Because you would not be being empirical.
"Then your argument falls flat"
"Way to pass it off without actually responding to it or it would seem even understanding it"
"...The fact that you're in denial about this is appalling"
Ad hominens are really not an argument, SDD. You need to learn that. Ex post facto is a genuine phrase, if you look it up, it means something and would explain what I was saying.
As for the mental faculties shown to be inaccurate, do you seriously not understand? What are you using to show that person A is being inaccurate? A MENTAL FACULTY. You are using your brain. If it is not necessarily correct, then I CAN DOUBT ANY MENTAL FACULTY INCLUDNG THE FACULTY OF REASON. Try to understand. It's frustrating when an intelligent person is purposely blocking off their mind for whatever reason. (Also sorry for the caps, italics/bold get tiring. It's not screaming I promise. :) )
"Please state your reasons for believing intentions are functionally different in the brain compared to other thoughts"
Good question :) Intentions involve analysis and attitude, they involve the feeling of choice (at least the illusion of it) and they involve actions. Other thoughts come and go. Intentions connect "mind" to "body". They are the very basis of freedom. Basically, intentions have the subjective or introspective appearance of being related to choice. Other thoughts do not.
In response, can you tell me why you seem to think that reasoning is somehow exempt from determinism that other thoughts are subject to?
".... is an atheist, wouldn't you agree?"
Nope. the burden of proof is technically on atheists. But either way, regardless of if you're an agnostic atheist, you basically behave like you are an atheist 100% (and I behave like a theist 100% though I'm an agnostic theist), so there is the realm of belief trickling in.
You can describe many things, they do not serve as explanations. Like I said to Quantum, you can describe everything intellectually to a blind person btu he still wouldn't know what red is until he experiences seeing it. Experience adds to knowledge.
Bump for Collin (if he really wants to read through all this)