> Most work in this area is unadulterated quackery Citation needed: please say, exactly, to what or to whom you are referring.[0] In my experience with the stu

> Most work in this area is unadulterated quackery Citation needed: please say, exactly, to what or to whom you are referring.[0] In my experience with the study the work is precisely opposite of quackery: integrity, veracity, forthrightness.[1] My favorites are rivals Searle and Dennett, and though I believe Churchland(s) are incorrect, their work provides deep insight into brain and neurology for an excellent foundation for students of Philosophy of Mind. The point here is, even those that are incorrect (such as Descartes and other dualists) are not quacks: only through dissent do things move forward. Please give us examples of "quackery" in Philosophy of Mind. Because from where I am standing, any of them that rely on reductionism, which I expect a physicist would, are likely in error, because no matter how you slice up brain, you will never find mind. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophers_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophers_of_mind [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind