2 ms·
It sounds like you've been vigorously trained in attacking a specific version of this inquiry: consciousness in the religious/spiritual sense, which is not what
by hliyan 8y ago
It sounds like you've been vigorously trained in attacking a specific version of this inquiry: consciousness in the religious/spiritual sense, which is not what we're talking about here. No one here is suggesting a soul. At best, it may be a new physics; at worst, it may be nothing at all. Your borderline condescending tone doesn't help matters either.
- narag 8y agoNo one here is suggesting a soul. At best, it may be a new physics; at worst, it may be nothing at all. You are implying that I said that somebody here is suggesting a soul, aren't you? If you are, you're wrong. I suggested that historical reasons (people believing in a soul time ago) caused the debate. Now please explain to me how you think new physics can alter the approach to this debate. My tone is just assertive: that's what I believe and I make no apologies for it. If you dislike what I say, please be more specifical about what exactly troubles you instead of making a vague criticism in my general direction. Edit: oh, and one more thing. Your last comment qualifies my argumentation but you don't answer a single point of what I wrote.