Quote:
Originally Posted by Yafi  It's not evidence - it's a book by someone who wants to sell books. If there were any real, replicable-in-a-lab results, scientists would be all over it trying it for themselves. The fact that this isn't happening tells me all I need to know and it *should* be raising red flags with you, but it won't because you swallow it all without a thought. Have you ever seen the evidence for yourself (and I don't mean reading what someone else *says* they saw in a book)? Doesn't the lack of solid evidence trigger any kind of curiosity in you about *why* there's no solid evidence? |
lol, i'm sorry but what about every possible science book out you see in stores? How else are scientists going to educate the public about their ideas? If you are implying these well qualified scientists are just out there to make a buck, then i must ask you what about Richard Dawkins and the infamous God Delusion? I'm sorry but your logic there is just completely flawed, every new idea and concept in science deserves a chance to be investigated and presented, and sure skepticism is healthy but it depends on the approach in which it is applied, without making any conclusions yourself unless you can provide a thorough explanation for the phenomena presented. Which seems to be the case with you, for some reason you are resisting further investigating the evidence of this viewpoint. Which leads me to ask, do you even know what concepts are being presented in irreducible minds? These scientists are presenting a well balanced argument backed with sufficient empirical evidence reasoning why mind might not necessarily=brain.