RE: I don't believe in Christianity primarily because of the brain
September 7, 2016 at 12:34 pm
(This post was last modified: September 7, 2016 at 12:35 pm by Crossless2.0.)
(September 7, 2016 at 9:39 am)Drich Wrote:(September 6, 2016 at 10:22 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Yeah, good point. Let's work on a definition before we can even talk about evidence in favor of such a thing.
Did you not read the article?
That was the primary take way from it, was a defination the article gives coinsides/works with the 2007 Theory of Biocentrism. The old term 'soul' is being described in the theory as it's primary biological life force. It is conscientiousness.
That is your definition. This theory explains makes an attempt to account for Conscientiousness as a product of biology. which Robert Lanza, M.D., the currently Chief Scientific Officer at the Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Adjunct Professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.
For the purpose of this article drew parallels with His/our understanding of the word soul.
Both you and bobbie-value want to poo poo on this topic without doing any of the leg work.. Intellectual dishonesty anyone? How about a side of closed minded laziness?
Doing the leg work . . . like reading Lanza's philosophical forebears like Descartes, Kant, Berkeley, and Bergson (especially Bergson)? Yeah, I'm sure you're well acquainted with the tradition Lanza apes in his "theory".
'Conscientiousness' would have involved your having done such leg work before swallowing this tripe. Intellectual dishonesty anyone?
Then again, conscientiousness might also have led you to the realization that you're not trying to write 'conscientiousness' but 'consciousness'.
