The sequel to Irreducible Mind...

#1
Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality comes out in February: https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781442232389
It is going to be more theory-oriented than its predecessor. Plus, they have more authors contributing essays this time around, including physicists Harald Atmanspacher, Bernard Carr, and Henry Stapp as well as several historians of religion. There is also a chapter, by Ed Kelly and David Presti, on the filter theory.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#6
In particular, the filter model is certainly reducible, cuz, like, you have brains and filters and the external store and the transmission mechanism and whatever else. Perhaps the irreducible part is the store? Except it is reducible to individual memories.

The new title does not include the word "irreducible," so perhaps we are being unfair.

~~ Paul
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#12
How can you have a sequel to something that is already irreducible?
:eek:
I would suggest curtailing the poor attempts at humor and return to the New Stuff in Neuroscience thread to present your argument against Tallis. We already know you have no credentials in philosophy or science that can match his, so now you have to show you understand his argument and provide a refutation.
 
#13
I would suggest curtailing the poor attempts at humor and return to the New Stuff in Neuroscience thread to present your argument against Tallis. We already know you have no credentials in philosophy or science that can match his, so now you have to show you understand his argument and provide a refutation.
And I suggested the other day you go brush up on your understanding of what magical thinking is as well as you know philosophy.
Tallis is an idiot for professing the brain cannot create consciousness. Making such an argument as Tallis has also obligates him to prove his assertion empirically and all of the logical argument in the world amounts to nothing more than talk. So ask him to prove neuroscience is wrong.
 
Last edited:
#14
And I suggested the other day you go brush up on your understanding of what magical thinking is as well as you know philosophy.
Tallis is an idiot for professing the brain cannot create consciousness. Making such an argument as Tallis has also obligates him to prove his assertion empirically and all of the logical argument in the world amounts to nothing more than talk. So ask him to prove neuroscience is wrong.
As you make a little insult at Tallis. Niiiiice.
 
#16
As you make a little insult at Tallis. Niiiiice.
Life is tough. When you put your thoughts out in the public arena you can expect to receive criticisms. Look, I know Tallis is a smart individual, but when you argue for idealogical reason isn't true then you've earned the criticisms. Btw, don't cast stones, because I know you've under your breath have used that word. You're as human as the next person.
 
Last edited:
#17
Life is tough. When you put your thoughts out in the public arena you can expect to receive criticisms. Look, I know Tallis is a smart individual, but when you argue for something that isn't true then you've earned the criticisms. Btw, don't cast stones, because I know you've under your breath have used that word. Your as human as the next person.
Another thread where we get to discuss your views on reality and dismiss other's as untrue. Tell me, steve001, what do you believe? You can poke holes in anything from materialism to idealism because your view is true.
 
#20
I would suggest curtailing the poor attempts at humor and return to the New Stuff in Neuroscience thread to present your argument against Tallis. We already know you have no credentials in philosophy or science that can match his, so now you have to show you understand his argument and provide a refutation.
Asking Steve001 to refute an atheist/humanist philosopher is cute...

Never-the-less, I'm sure any refutation would sound very similar to your refutation of, say, Dennett. What, in your opinion, sets Tallis apart as a philosopher worth listening to?
 
Top