But does the fact that it does not yet explain anything make it invalid?
Why is it unacceptable to say that we just do not yet understand much.
I like not understanding, it leaves me scope to discover.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:08, Share, Reply)
Why is it unacceptable to say that we just do not yet understand much.
I like not understanding, it leaves me scope to discover.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:08, Share, Reply)
your not understanding what im saying
its not invalid because it cant be proved, its invalid because it doesn’t solve any of the problems of a much simpler explanation materialism. why hypothesize a non physical realm if it doesn’t get u any where in explaining the origin of phenomenal experiences. its a bit like saying that because we dont know how a bumble bee flies it must be because it has tiny jet packs on its arse.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:17, Share, Reply)
its not invalid because it cant be proved, its invalid because it doesn’t solve any of the problems of a much simpler explanation materialism. why hypothesize a non physical realm if it doesn’t get u any where in explaining the origin of phenomenal experiences. its a bit like saying that because we dont know how a bumble bee flies it must be because it has tiny jet packs on its arse.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:17, Share, Reply)
I have never seen such wise words from someone so illiterate.
Now THAT'S dualism.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:25, Share, Reply)
Now THAT'S dualism.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:25, Share, Reply)