(September 7, 2016 at 12:34 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:(September 7, 2016 at 9:39 am)Drich Wrote: 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'.
Who are you trying to fool?
How easy is it to simply one up a poster by googling just a little bit deeper than what is posted?
That's what you did, but that is not what I did.
I found a scientifically based theory that somewhat incorporates a religious concept. Then call people out for being intellectually dishonest when ever they only want to speak from a position of authority, of the religious component negatively, and not make themselves aware of the scientific aspects.
How is that different than what you did? I provided A and B aspects to an argument, and call out those who only speak to A for being intellectually dishonest if they refuse to acknowledge or even educate themselves on the "b" side of the argument before they speak.
You are calling me for not knowing the entomology of A and B Intellectually dishonest.
Nice try sport, but no. Maybe if you didnt get so worked up over how a word was spell-t you could take a little more time framing out how they are used, then someone like me couldn't take you to task for the intellectual dishonesty built into your fallacy of faulty comparison arguement.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tool...Comparison
(I know that is the sleepy emoji, but he looks smug to me/that is what I'm going for.)
