Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by MysteriousStranger, May 15, 2009.
You made a fantastic claim. You explain it.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
more specifically, our abilities of observation, which automatically precludes issues pertaining to our origins and consciousness.
On the contrary, you're the one suggesting cameras do not have any perception issues ....
Which is simply an evasive statement to avoid saying that yes you do believe that the cause of consciousness must lie outside of the brain. If the brain is the cause then empiricsm is the appropriate approach. But yet you still stumble over showing any meaningful alternative despite your loud bravado in dissing empiricsm.
Actually its a very precise manner of explaining why there is no merit to the empirical claim that consciousness lies within the physicality of the brain.
IOW if you want to talk empiricism, you certainly can't talk consciousness so the buck stops there.
Continue further research.
Until you get results suspend your reductionist views though.
The beginning of an alternative would be to understand the futility of empiricism in investigating such a manner.
IOW for as long as one insists on measuring all alternatives to an empirical paradigm with an empirical paradigm, trying to see what we are seeing with is as meaningful as trying to jump over one's knees.
Separate names with a comma.