(July 29, 2017 at 5:49 am)Succubus Wrote:(July 28, 2017 at 9:04 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Thomas Nagel is one of the most significant philosophers of the 20th Century. His paper, "What is It Like to be A Bat" was an important contribution to philosophy of mind and is required reading in classes on the subject. Before you start accusing other people of ignorance, you might try reading a book. YouTube is not a substitute for actual study from original sources.
Regarding the highlight: if philosophers would only stick to that sort of shite then I wouldn't have a word of criticism, crack on lads, fill your boots. But this>
"Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False"
He can fuck right off. What's his opinion on thermodynamics, or drug resistant tuberculosis, plasma physics? The moment these characters step outside of their niche they should be kicked in the shins and thrown into a pond.
My gripe after I looked him up just as a lark was that he thinks there's any significance to the fact that we can't scientifically account for things like our conscious experience. Uh, okay, and anyone or anything else does have an explanation? I mean, one that's based on facts and not Ken Ham style idiocy? The fact that there are a variety of different brain structures that generate different levels of sentience between species, and we can figure out what structural portions do what things within them, is all science, and it's the best fucking model we have for things. It certainly disproves the traditional notion of an eternal soul (where it's unchanging and unique to a single entity) if you can have multiple personalities within the same body and have a complete alteration of personality via the brain becoming damaged.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
