- #106
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
The problem with that is, while philosophy has room for pure conjecture, opinion, and emotionalism, science limits that stuff as much as possible. And, of course, philosophy(as practiced by most laypersons) is not as disciplined as science, and they like it that way.
Unfortunately, science has rules, and if you don't like the rules or refuse to follow them, you can't play.
Philosophy can be done poorly Zero. You never seem to acknowledge this. You always assume that because there are a few wackos (on the internet of all places) that this means all philosophers are emotional, irrational wishful thinkers. It's just not a very responsible position imo. When science is done poorly, you assign the phrase "pseudo science" to it. But no distinction is ever made for philosophy. How about pseudo philosophy? It takes a bit more thought(god forbid) to draw the distinction but to deny it is there is clearly wrong.
Zero said:The problem with this is, if I understand Canute's point, is while instinct will mimic human behavior, humans also have a "magical fairy dust" which allows us to be conscious. The "magical fairy dust" only exists in those species with developed minds, and if your brain is damaged, you get less "magic fairy dust". Whenever something physical happens to your brain, the difference in your personality or intelligence is not due to the physical, but due to your brain affecting the "magic fairy dust".
In other words, while the brain behaves exactly like there is actually NO "magic fairy dust", the "magic fairy dust is necessary, because otherwise humans can't live after death, and there might not be a "God", and the supernaturalists won't know where morals come from.
And this is just more propaganda. I think you called it a "strawman" earlier. Is that right? My suggestion is that you battle your demons (god, magic fairy dust) somewhere else. No one here cares about your personal issues.