:wacko:, ok please explain your theory of RFID chips and fear mongering.

Oh thats right, you told me before that you don't like to think, that might be why you're only able to take fragments of sentences and quasi understand them.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Feb 6 2016 04:16pm

Go see a psychiatrist and talk to him about shopping carts. How they make you mad!

And I do know Adam and Eve are a myth, imagine. But I'm saying

This post was edited by the_rest on Feb 7 2016 10:05pm

Plenty of people I know believe in both.

A lot of people incorrectly use science when they mean physicalism.

I prefer naturalist myself Less metaphysical assumptions than materialistic monism...and I'm not a monist anyway, I'm a non-substance dualist al la Sartre, aka the idea that the mind and the body are radically different things.

The funniest people in philosophy are the pure materialistic monist, who tell me I don't have a mind. Or a pure idealist, who tells me I don't have a body. Not so many of the idealist anymore.

1st half: unto you I give sciences
Some where else: The earth hangs as a sphere suspended in nothing
Another good bit bit from else where in the bible: The water comes from the ocean to rain down on the mountains and run down to return to whence it came.
All written over 1000 years before we still thought the world was flat and the basic water cycle as we learn in infant school today.
Pretty amazing stuff, and yes as you talk about coincidences, life is so full of them to those that wish to look around, things are a little bit complicated for random.

I'd like to see the verses about your claim.

you delude yourself. and is never complicated unless you delude yourself. with church bullshit.

So you aren't a property dualist either? You go in the other direction? I think that might still be considered substance dualism but I'm not sure.

I think I've explained before, but I'm a panpsychist, or maybe more accurately, "physicalistic idealist". I think that physics exhaustively describes the entirety of the world, but I think the nature of the world is fundamentally mental.

I'd suggest checking out the paper "Why physicalism entails panpsychism" by Galen Strawson. It kind of explains the position or at least a similar position.

The issue with materialism is they assume the nature of the world is non mental, but there's no reason to think it should be because we know of no other "thing" it could be. I.e. what is the world actually made of? What does physics actually describe? Materialists don't have an answer except that it's definitely not mental!

My view offers a way to retain physicalism, while completely solving the mind-body problem. All that remains is the combination problem for panpsychism.

So basically I'm a physicalist, but I have a completely different ontology of traditional physicalism. So I'm a monist in the idealist sense, but still a physicalist, just one that has completely renounced materialist ontology.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Feb 8 2016 03:12pm

I use logarithms and trig probably once a month or so. Trig *maybe* a little more than that. Not frequent, and not even essential, but it's something I definitely do use. That's still a shit argument. And a shit theorem.