On 5/31/2018 2:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
You're a bit naughty Brent. You sometimes use this maneuver of nonchalantly listing something that is being discussed -- but that you don't like -- along with something else that is obviously outdated or silly.
It's not that I "don't like" primary matter, it's that I think it's an invented term that nobody actually postulates. I'd like to see Bruno actually quote some well known philosophers or scientist using the term. I think he reads people like Dennett or Churchland who defend the possibility of a physical explanation of consciousness and, since he thinks consciousness is more fundamental than physics, he wants to accuse them of believing in "primary matter".
"Oh you think that quantum mechanics and consciousness might be connected? How are those Deepak Chopra teachings working for you?" etc... So, forgetting the elan vitale, I would like you to make you position more precise. Do you think that tax money should only be applied to research that is obviously and immediately useful?
Of course not.
Or are you ok with trusting tenured academics and peer-review to decide what gets funded? In the second case, I guess we must all have some tolerance for ideas that we don't agree with, right?
Right. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
