>> Furthermore, I am unaware of any credible research claiming there exists amnesia such that all memory is blocked.
> But others are aware of same.
Hence my clear declaration of "I am unaware".
>> It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness.
> ad hominem.
My statement in no way qualifies as an ad hominem. It is simply a recognition of what I understand the person to whom I replied has expressed, without judgement.
> One can easily say things that aren't true.
Now this could reasonably be interpreted as an ad hominem, as you wrote the above in direct reply to my post.
>> It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness. I disagree with this position while respecting your right to have it.
> It's a textbook ad hominem ...
This has been shown to be false elsewhere in this thread.
> there's no reason to make the statement other than to undermine the credibility of the person's claims.
Nowhere did I assail the credibility, validity, nor intent of the person with whom I disagreed. All I did was identify the disagreement, acknowledge the position communicated is held with conviction (my interpretation), and convey my respect of their right to have a differing opinion.
It is difficult for me to interpret your post as being anything other than a form of projection[0].
I have a degree in Philosophy. I'm pretty sure I understand what an ad hominem is.
"It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness" Is a statement about the target's level of belief in their position. It does not state that the position is wrong because of the person who made the statement.
> Furthermore, I am unaware of any credible research claiming there exists amnesia such that all memory is blocked.
But others are aware of same.
> It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness.
ad hominem.