re: #46 Bob Levin

The study was based on assumptions about the nature of consciousness that are little more than speculation.

No, they weren’t. Did you bother to read the information? Did you try to contact the researchers?

That they even carried these conjectures to measure a large population implied that a large population possesses these phantom mechanisms, and that these mechanisms are triggered at an unconscious level when exposed to certain stimuli. This is Pavlovian.

No, it’s not. It’s clear you don’t actually know what Pavlovian means.

Instead of calling it a Pavlovian response, they call it Implicit Associations.

That’s because a Pavliovian response is tying a neutral stimulus with a significant stimulus, provoking the significant reaction from the neutral stimulus even in the absence of the significant stimulus.

You are doing the common thing of just using “Pavlovian” to refer to any sort of innate response. It’s a complete misuse of the term.

You could have looked this up.

Instead of calling it a Pavlovian response, they call it Implicit Associations. The cute trick is that if people believe that the test has somehow read their deepest feelings, it gives credence to an unprovable assumption about consciousness. Sleight of hand. Not science.

This seems to really have struck a nerve with you. I’m not sure why. You repeatedly say they’re making claims that they’re not making. You accuse them of being unscientific when the methods they use and the transparency of the process is clearly scientific. You’re using terms like “Pavlovian” with great inaccuracy.

I suggest you perhaps contact the researchers, or at least figure out why you’re having such an innate bias towards this.