mad evil scientist pathology
Offline This is about the "irrationality" to reject all emotions, to reject subjectivity, resulting in people becoming like a Hollywood caricature of the emotionless mad evil scientist. Many atheists are affected by this pathology.
This pathology has the following symptoms:
1 - rejection and or suppression of all knowledge about free will
2 - treating the existence of love and hate as a matter of fact
3 - defining choosing as to mean calculating an optimum, where the result is forced
- 1 Knowledge that has the logical form that in the moment X can turn out A or B alternatively, logic of freedom, is currently not accepted in most science. Instead of alternatives and decision most all science uses the logic of force, cause and effect.
The internet is full of such people who say to adore science, they adore facts, and then they don't even accept the obvious fact that freedom is real.... Whatsmore they go out of their way to replace all knowledge in terms of freedom, with knowledge in terms of force. So they will say like that people are forced by some psychological / genetic / environmental mechanism, to replace knowledge about people choosing in freedom.
It is quite an absurd spectacle to see people professing an emphatic love of knowledge on the one hand, and on the other hand surpressing / throwing out a whole class of knowledge which everybody uses on a practical basis in daily life, with very little consideration.
- 2 The same people will then say that love and hate are some electro-chemical "whatever" in the brain. And as "ought" and "ought not" follows pretty much automatically from what is identified as loving or hateful, these people will either explicitly or implicitly propose to know as matter of fact what "ought" and "ought not" (naturalistic fallacy). Most times this takes the shape of some form of social darwinism, where in talking about the meaning of life, either they say selfishness is right on account of natural selection theory, or they say selfishness is wrong on account of natural selection theory.
- 3 Part of the rejection of the logic of freedom is to redefine all the words associated to free will to give them a logic of force. So this means to redefine choosing as calculating an optimum, as like a chess computing calculates an optimal move, or a thermostat turns the heat on or off. The thermostat is forced in doing what it is, yet they call this choosing.
There is no room for any spontaneous expression of emotion in this way of thinking, altough ofcourse they have redefined the meaning of the words "spontaneous", "expression", "emotion", "subjectivity", "freedom" etc. to say that there really is room for it. It is very telling in their personality that they are coldhearted and calculating.
The correct way to deal with freedom is to categorize between dual substances of "what chooses" and "what is chosen", and then call the first category the spiritual domain, the second the material domain. Together with these dual substances come dual ways of reaching a conclusion, subjectivity and objectivity. You have to choose to identify what is in the spiritual domain, resulting in opinions. You have to measure to identify what is in the material domain, resulting in facts.
For example; beauty is a love of the way something looks. Love belongs in the category of things that choose, therefore beauty is categorically a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.
Subjectivity is only validated by accepting the existence of subjectively identified things (duh!) So to deny the spiritual domain altogether because it can't be objectively measured, is to irrationally mix up subjectivity and objectivity, and then completely reject all subjectivity.
- Login to post comments
The world may never know.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Evidence ? Where is your proof that "most" Atheists suffer from this ?
Why are you using the word "Evil" ? If you believe mankind is bent towards evil to start with, then why make the association with Atheists ??? Frankly, The only caricature you are talking about is the one that exists in your own mind (apart from Reality) is given by way of impression.
This reminds me of a bad B movie from the fifties, about the then popular culture's concept of book-worms and especially scientists (in the States).
Hold on, the person doing the choosing between A and B also can only reach a conclusion subjectively.
You are making some exception to the logic, without any explanation whatsoever. And there are lots of situations, like with kids, but also with adults, that an outsider has a more reasonable opinion about about the emotional makeup of somebody, than the opinion of the person themselves about their emotions. And ofcourse in theology God has the best opinion, in the final judgment. As also explained by Thomas Reid, William of Ockham, and many other fine logicians.
The point here is for atheists to accept subjectivity, accept a category of subjectively identified things, which things choose. For atheists to allow themselves, and others to have emotions.
And what colour do you associate with my argument, brown? And what music, Beethoven's 5th?
I am making a very specific argument, you are replying with vague associations. X can turn out A or B in the moment, B is chosen, then the question what made the choice turn out B instead of A, can only be answered with a choice between alternatives.
Go ahead and criticize what is wrong in this logic.
Thanks, that does make more sense. Though, I would say it's the processes in your brain which give rise to the "YOU" who can think and make choices.
I really don't understand this statement. The fact is, people HAVE emotions, whether I "allow" it or not.
Re :: Failure to talk about the 'argument', deny the spiritual domain
What made the choice. The one who decides ?
Thus far we have five people that agree you dont know what your talking about. Definition of MISPERCEPTION: a false perception. The thing you are having yourself. If you want to talk about "reality" why not clearly state it, in the first place, instead of embarrassing yourself. If someone is not generally understood by others. Who's fault is it ? You leave everyone to wildly guess at what you are even arguing. Start clarifying exactly where you'd like to take this thread or act as if you are being clear about things. Keep talking.
p.s. -- the nub of what youre getting at ?
Please provide some sort of empirical data for the following :
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
You write BS, they write BS. Find the fault in the logic.
It's been loads of fun playing but I will be leaving now
Have a wonderful rest of your day
Emotions are not matter of fact, they are matters of opinion, as I have explained to you. You must use the logic consistently.
Since you say that emotions are a matter of fact, it therefore means you reject the subjectively identified things, which really are your emotions.
Again, you must criticize the logic. Or agree with the logic, and accept the existence of subjectively identified things, which things choose, the spiritual domain.
. .
I took the trouble to explain it all step by step. If somebody really didn't understand, why then they would point specifically to the step which they don't understand, and specifically say what they don't understand. But you just make BS remarks, because you don't like the truth that you are guility of rejecting emotions, and guilty of rejecting knowledge about freedom in favour of knowledge about forces.
The existence of that which I refer to when I say "emotions" is both objective and a fact. The experience of said things, however, is indeed subjective. Perhaps I can explain it this way: while reality is not subjective, our experience of it is.
You are merely moving the same logical fallacy from emotions to experience. Because I know very well you will say experience is a matter of fact, that experience is indeed a matter of objective fact. Or else if you don't, then I can simply equate spirit with experience, as it has the same role as spirit of being a subjectively identified thing.
Subjectivity can only be validated by the acceptance of subjectively identified things, which things are ofcourse not objectively measurable in any way whatsoever, as objectivity defeats the entire purpose of subjectivity.
So the logical fallacy is that you reject subjectively identified things, because they cannot be objectively measured. Which is competing objectivity against subjectivity, resulting in the rejection of all emotions, and pseudoscientific knowledge about good and evil.
And your knowledge about things in terms of freedom is absent, you only have knowledge in terms of forces. You cannot describe animal or human beings acting in freedom, you will always propose some objectively measured cause forcing the result.
Also I bet 100 to 1 that you conceive of choosing as calculating an optimum, like a chesscomputer (without a random function) calculates an optimum.
These things all go together.
Your imagination of how atheists think is absurd. I have never met an atheist who insists that all data must be objective, nor one that considers the subjectivity of emotions as something negative. Nor do most of us claim any scientific basis for good and evil- in fact a vast majority of the arguments about morality with theists are on the basis that most (not all) atheists believe morality is subjective and there is no objective morality.
I will take your 100 to 1 bet. How much do you care to give away?
You are posting on a forum that is a community of atheists who discuss a wide variety of topics. Perhaps rather than coming in here arrogantly making assumptions about how we think you should spend some time reading and gaining some insight. You will find that your assumptions here are generally wrong. You will also find that atheists are rather diverse in how they think, how they handle emotions and in their opinions. Atheist simply means that person doesn't believe in any god(s), regardless of whatever other beliefs they hold, lifestyle they choose to live or how they handle their emotions.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Well what is the formal logic of choosing which YOU, being an atheist, use then? You are kind of avoiding the central issue here.
I will honestly consider sending out some money if I am wrong, I did that before, but you know I really meant it more figuratively.
Atheists are usually self-contradicting, on an intellectual level they will say to reject all subjectively identified things, and then from their socialized understanding say to accept the existence of subjectively identified things.
Examples ?
Can you cite an experience where you can demonstratively hint that this may be true ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Guess I am missing the central issue. I don't see an issue other than you have your stereotype of how an atheist thinks and the reality is that the vast majority of us (maybe even all of us) do not match your stereotype.
I'm always up for 100 to 1 odds we can donate it to charity, especially since blacklight has been on here for over a year and I have read all of his posts on a variety of subjects. Your characterization of him choosing like a chess computer is absurd and false. You should hang out around here for a bit and talk to people before developing assumptions about how they think. There is a branch of utilitarian morality that approaches morality in such a manner, and we have had a few of them on this site over the years but it is hardly accepted by a majority, they usually find themselves well outnumbered in those debates.
Which atheist rejects all subjectively identified things?!? Give me an example of who says that because none of the regulars here do. Even objective things are observed subjectively which is why science relies on repeatable results before drawing any conclusions. Science isn't possible without subjective observation and it is impossible for anyone to interact with life without using their subjective perception- I would really be surprised if a single regular around here disagreed with that.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Like Beyond Saving said, even objective things can only be perceived and experienced by us subjectively. Furthermore, I clearly stated in my previous post that I think both our emotions and perceptions are subjective. So, NO, I don't reject "subjectively identified things".
Have you ever heard of "deterministic but unpredictable systems"? If I remember correctly, they are systems governed by simple logical rules whose behavior changes dramatically with even slight changes in initial conditions. My best guess is systems like this are what make/determine the choices of humans and other animals.
Many of my choices are far too complicated for me to be able to consciously "calculate the optimum". Also, you seem to be forgetting that people, unlike computers, can (and frequently do) make mistakes.
Eh no, you said that emotions are a matter of fact. But as I understand it now, you are saying that emotions and experience are just like any other thing such as planets or stars, that they can both be objectively measured and subjectively experienced. There is no actual logic in what you write, no strict set of rules, just some suggestion that it all works out. Which is ofcourse the job of your socialized understanding to work things out in daily life, that you don't actually say to calculate or measure exactly how large your love for somebody is as a matter of objective fact, eventhough intellectually you say the existence of love is an objective fact.
I know deterministic chaos. Funny isn't it that I can predict you have no knowledge whatsoever about anything acting in a free way.
And even now that there may be money at stake about what logic of choosing you use, you don't have the answer.
But you do use the word "mistake" which is in line with the definition of choosing as calculating an optimum. With a definition of choosing using alternatives in the future there aren't so much mistakes, it is really more that the spirit of a choice can be judged to be hateful.
You should give me the benefit of the doubt that I understand how this logic works that in the moment X can turn out A or B. I trust you to know how deterministic chaos works, and optimizing. But you seem to be contesting me on how this logic works, while you don't even use it, and you are pretty much ignorant about it.
I am now more confident that what I say is true. I would actually need to see a single atheist who does not conceive of choosing in terms of calculating an optimum. And see how that atheist is accepted by other atheists. Because you know, usually when anybody mentions a subjectively identified thing like "spirit" then you can expect ridicule, and incessant demands for evidence of the human spirit. Subjectivity is really quite a problem for atheists, and this thread is prove of that.
Eh you expect to win the bet without providing an answer to the question? I will widen the bet to any atheist posting here. An actual atheist who conceives of choosing in terms of having alternatives available in the moment, that X in the moment can turn out A or B alternatively.
As distinct from choosing conceived as calculating an optimum, sorting out the best course of action, where in principle you can only do the best, and not any alternative.
I say you can put your money away and provide some sort of evidence other than semantics, word games and assertions.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
X, A, and B are known as logical variables, and they each take values TRUE or FALSE according to whether the corresponding condition holds. What are the corresponding conditions for the Spiritual domain to be actively involved ???
There aren't any corresponding spiritual conditions, what is in the spiritual domain is chosen. As in the face
, does not neccessarily express choices with a spirit of happiness, but also can express grief, it is a matter of opinion.
The existence of emotions is a fact. The experience of emotions is subjective. The existence of love is a fact. The experience of love is subjective. So, yeah, most of your above statements are accurate.
You're right: I don't know if anything truly acts in a free way or not--all I can do is guess. Also, I did not claim to have an answer, and I definitely did not make any bets with you.
Do you not try to pick the best alternative when making choices?
You don't have to just "trust" me, I gave a brief explanation of how I thought it worked in my post...
I'm contesting how you know said logic actually applies to reality. I think it does, but I don't see how anyone can know for sure. I'm curious as to what it is that makes you so sure.
Depending on what you mean by "spirit", many atheists will readily agree with you without even demanding evidence. Like, if it meant "consciousness", for example.
I have difficulty with subjectivity, yes. However, that's because I have Asperger's Syndrome--not because I'm an atheist.
I do not try to pick the best alternative in choosing, that's not what choosing is about for me. I actively go against my inbuilt calculating of the best result, which is a consequence of original sin by Adam and Eve, knowing good and evil, and doing calculations based on that. I actively organize that there must be freedom in the way I act, and that I don't act according to calculations. In the background there are always calculations in my mind in terms of chances to have sex, and calculations about survival, or money I guess.
For example buying a mobile phone. You can go nuts in calculating what the best phone and price-plan is. I bought a then relatively expensive price plan, but I figured with my emotions, that ALL the prices were just very low seeing how much you got for it. Now they hiked the prices and my price plan is relatively cheap. I bought the phone that I was most excited about, that was the criterium, the phone that most captured the spirit of cutting edge new technology. A friend of mine drove herself nuts comparing phones, then got a windows phone which was discontinued, and she never got it to work properly in 2 years. She's still always asking me about price plans and whatnot.
Last night I drank three beers (Sam Adams), a glass of wine (spanish tempranillo), five? (maybe six lost count) manhattans, a double shot of brandy, two doubles of patron, a mint julip, split a pitcher of beer, a shot of Jack (I was drunk) and in the mean time was taking several hits from the bowl being passed around. I woke up this morning in my ex's house, completely out of cash and a little hung over- any "chess computer" type calculation would have informed me that my actions were not the optimum and how I felt when I woke up this morning was completely predictable. (I didn't drive so that particular decision was optimal)
Pay up- buy yourself a bronze badge.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
lol. It's like watching a few chess games between a rookie and a bunch of pro's.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I am somewhat encouraged by your response, but not quite ready to mark the occasion by sending out some money.
Because ofcourse one needs to know how on an intellectual level you conceive of choosing, and not some socialized understanding. How does choosing work basicly, and how is the agency of a choice identified?
Ok, hmm...I think I may have misunderstood your position. So, what exactly do you mean by "calculations"?
So you ARE a Christian. Do you think I deserve to suffer forever in hell?
I am muslim actually. Not taking proper care of knowledge about freedom, and rejecting emotions is a severe crime in my opinion. Because of this crime we cannot say for sure that Hitler or Stalin knew what it meant to make a decision, because their minds were tainted with biological determinism and dialectical materialism, in which freedom is ignored. And since 1998 China is practising more stringent eugenics which involves sterilization of mentally ill people.
So if you have an attitude to care for knowledge on a practical basis, knowledge that people use in their daily life, and now being pointed out that knowledge about freedom is an area of concern, then I am sure with such an attitude you will reach similar opinions as me about the way free will more or less works.
I already explained everything, so I would just be repeating myself, it is just that your attitude is geared towards science which kind of completely doesn't care about knowledge people have on a practical basis, but is more geared towards some atavistic quest towards the theory of everything. I mean, I explained a chesscomputer calculates the best move, in the moment it can only do what's best, and not any alternative (altough there are some chesscomputers which use a random function). I can't make it any clearer than that, a chesscomputer is forced, force is not freedom.
Here's what I wrote on creationwiki
http://creationwiki.org/Free_will
Here is a link to the theory of everything:
http://www.naturescode.org.uk/files/ANPA04_Nilpotence.pdf
Oh, my mistake. Though, um...I didn't think Muslims believed in original sin or Adam and Eve. Is there not also a concept of hell in Islam, however?
Yes, but I never claimed that a person's brain functions like a chess program without a random function. In fact, I am almost certain it doesn't.
Oh, I should be able to read your links and respond to them later.
And here's what some other muslims think : http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2013/jan/11/muslim-thought-on-evolution-debate
" I mean, I explained a chesscomputer calculates the best move, in the moment it can only do what's best, and not any alternative (altough there are some chesscomputers which use a random function). I can't make it any clearer than that, a chesscomputer is forced, force is not freedom."
A computer can't perform multiple calculations simultaneously and create strategy. You can't compare the way a computer "thinks" to the way we think. We can perform at least 20 calculations at a time, many of which we aren't even aware of. Far superior to any computer in every category except the number of calculations per second.
But just because we have superior cognitive skills doesn't mean we're any more free to choose than a computer. We just have a greater number of apparent options, which makes the best available 'choice' a lot harder to figure out, and therefore harder to predict.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
So I take it you are another atheist who fundamentally conceives of choosing in terms of sorting out the best result. Sorting out a best result is forced, the result depends on the initial variables, freedom does not equal force, real freedom is when in the moment the decision can turn out A or B alternatively, and there is no freedom and no decision when something is forced to turn out the optimal way.
I am repeating myself. The psychological drive to conceive of choosing in terms of sorting out the best result is enormous, to the point where the illogical belief is guarded with a wall of cognitive dissonance against conceiving of choosing in any other way.
You don't HAVE to pick the best alternative, and you're certainly not FORCED to. Sadly, there are many examples of people who know their choices are subpar but continue to make those same choices. Also, there may not always BE a best alternative--it's quite possible to have a number of equally good options.
You still fail to understand the simple logic I stated 5 times. Principally, considering parsimony, it does not matter which way a decision turns out. There are no good, equally good, or bad results, all results are dust. It seems to me that somebody with Asperger should intellectually focus on spontaneity, rather than sorting out the best result, since you are already naturally TOO good at sorting out an optimal.
You aren't using logic, which is why you get frustrated when you can't get through to people who do. Your last response to me makes absolutely no sense. It reads as a jumble of words with no coherent meaning.
Prove that free will exists, logically and methodically.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Decision making is completely subjective and even given the same person decision making will vary dramatically depending on the situation. How can we have anything other than a socialized understanding of decision making? Humans make their decisions based on dozens, if not hundreds, of variables and the only way to predict what a particular human will decide in a specific situation is their previous decisions and such predictions cannot be made with perfect accuracy the way one can perfectly predict what a computer will do in a chess game.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Well that is most all cause and effect knowledge really. Some environmental cause forcing a result. And multiplying the number of causes to a zillion does not change the logic, it is still a logic of force.
In the end you say that choices are unpredictable, which is in line with freedom, but there is no straightforward acceptance of freedom as a reality.
Still no atheist who accepts freedom. Hint, it doesn't actually make any sense whatsoever to talk in terms of forces when you talk about freedom. Simply ignore all forces in talking about freedom! Which is not to say there aren't any forces, there are both force and freedom, they are distinct. It doesn't make sense to talk about potatoes when the subject is tomatoes.
Since you're unable to prove your assertions, I'll prove you wrong myself, twice over.
1: I can't fly. I'd be able to fly if I had complete free will.
2: I can't believe in god. I could if I had free will.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
? Where did I ever talk about force? I don't believe that choices are forced in any way and you could just as easily make one over the other. You can read my 3000+ posts before you showed up on this site for verification on that. To some extent humans can be controlled through cause but the same human in identical circumstances can certainly make a different decision. It would be absurd for me to argue that a person's life is primarily a result of their choices if that person did not have control over the choices they make- an argument I have made repeatedly on this site and comes up every couple of months. It would also be absurd for me to suggest that people make different choices if I believed it was impossible for them to make different choices. If I believed that people did not have the freedom to make choices I would probably be a socialist- I am not and have thousands of posts as evidence.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Yes that is freedom as far as I can tell. Just one more thing obviously, now avoid logic of cause and effect, in identifying what made a choice turn out one way instead of another other way.
Meaning you can't posit a cause forcing the result of the choice, because it must be true that the decision could have turned out differently, freedom.
That doesn't make any sense at all. All results are clearly NOT the same.
For me at least, sorting out an optimal takes careful thinking and a fair amount of time. Social interaction is often too complex and dynamic for me to sort out the best result without being completely left behind. Hence, the focus on "spontaneity" and "living in the moment". Unfortunately, however, this means I often say stupid things by accident because I did not have enough time to think.
I never have suggested that any cause forces a choice- a choice can't be a choice if it is forced. Nor do I believe that there is any significant number of atheists who believe that choices are simply a result of cause and effect, that is simply a strawman caricature created by you.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
The results are not the same but in principle choosing is boolean, it is 0 or 1, basically interchangeable. You are still focusing on the result, which is not what choosing in freedom is about. As explained.
One doesn't think of optimal ways in socializing because the brain can much take care of optimals automatically, since optimals are forced. One can also drive a car pretty much without thinking, because once learned it is mostly automated. One obviously chooses spontaneously in socializing, which is different from impulsiveness.
How can you contest what I say, without pointing out any error in the step by step explanation I made? I think reasonably, your level of knowledge about freedom gets 3 out of 10. It is just bad.
Î Up One Your 0 and your 1 would be a Universal Class and a 'null' class but this is more of a model in your thinking obviously . . How does that relate to delimiting within Judgements made in human reasoning?
p.s. It is a somewhat unrelated question which I hope to get your feedback on (if you would)?
My answer to your step-by-step explanation was this: "I would say it's the processes in your brain which give rise to the "YOU" who can think and make choices."
Even if there is a single best alternative AND you discover it, you are certainly not forced to choose it.
Social interaction is one of the most complicated things you'll ever engage in. Only to people who have a good intuitive understanding of it does it seem easy and spontaneous. Since I DON'T have a good intuitive understanding of it, my spontaneous choices are often based on incomplete and/or faulty information.
And don't EVER again tell me it's "obvious" that one chooses spontaneously in socializing.
I don't want to talk about complex ways of choosing when basic choosing is not acknowledged. One has the alternatives available in the future that one has. And if one wants other alternatives, then I guess that shows up as some alternative which consequence it is to have other alternatives. In reasoning one makes descriptions of alternatives, which are ofcourse completely different from the alternatives themselves, since they are just descriptions. The brain might generate some optimums or possible results, which results must then be decided if you like them or not. If a result is not liked then it is thrown away, and the reasoning may start again excluding the possible result thrown away. The decision to like or not like it is free, it can turn out 0 or 1 in the moment. And this decision is "arbitrary" only if you do not believe there is any human spirit doing the deciding. And for lots of people one may come to the subjective conclusion that they have no spirit.
But I am just making that up how "delimiting" works just now. I don't know in detail, what I know is the simple definition of choosing as by Ockham. And this definition is already completely emotionally and rationally satisfactory, because it provides a straightforward validation of both subjectivity and objectivity each relating to their respective domains of "what chooses" and "what is chosen".
So? It means you are contesting what I say with "brainprocesses giving rise to the you", without actually pointing out any fault in what I say.