Announcement

Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

Why is the Immaterial Mind Desirable ?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by really View Post
    I haven't met a single person that isn't psychologically motivated.


    You mean to tell me that it's no more important than say learning that the maximum length of a duck’s penis depends on the company he keeps. This is a rather remarkable group of posters on this forum.
    You really lower the quality of discussion here.

    AP

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by paqart View Post
      You really lower the quality of discussion here.

      AP
      Ok, if you say so.
      With such a prodigious intelligence as yours, I'm surprised to didn't catch the blatantly absurd comparison between duck penis length and the profound importance of an immaterial mind [making it nothing more than a footnote]. If as Vikki and eveshi have said all they want is the truth and nothing more thereby reducing the importance of an immaterial mind to a gee whiz that's an interesting fact then I'm missing something.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by eveshi
        Wtf?! Do you deny that some discoveries are more important and interesting for humanity than others?

        Why do quantum physicists study quantum mechanics and not duck penises? Could it be because quantum mechanics is interesting and duck penises are not?
        They study QM because it has direct and stupendously profound importance for describing how reality works. QM is much much more important than trivia like duck penis length.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by eveshi
          Consciousness is a lot more interesting than duck penises.
          I think there are a number of duckologists that might disagree with you.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by eveshi
            Correct. The same can be said for consciousness research.
            That's what I say. You still haven't stated why you argue for immaterial origin for consciousness.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by eveshi
              Correct. The same can be said for consciousness research.
              Dawkins doesn't matter. Let's keep on target. This topic isn't about consciousness research. Which is a pragmatic search by neuroscientists for the biological origins. The question is about the on going debate that put forth by some that to explain consciousness in whole or in part it must have an immaterial cause. Then the question is: Why ? What are the implications if an immaterial cause is found ?
              Last edited by really; August 9th, 2011, 09:24 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by eveshi
                We understand the world and ourselves better.
                Ok. Can you elaborate further ?

                Comment

                Working...
                X