142621[evol-psych] Re: Life after death: Dr Stuart Hameroff
- Nov 5, 2012Dear Wade, dear All!
Comments to your claims copied below:
Penrose has no flaky view on any subject, Wade. On the contrary he
is at the cutting edge when it comes to the philosophy and physics
of the mind. But, not you, Wade, and not many others, can follow
his thinking. We are simply playing several divisions below Roger
Penrose, both when it comes to knowledge, talent, and intelligence.
And apropos Hume, if I remember correctly, he was a blank slater,
and so was a totally worthless and untalented philosopher in these
Wade, you do also mention Dawkins. He is also surprisingly
untalented when it comes to human behvior. He does not even
understand that we humans do have the extremely powerful religion
instinct. Dawkins is also incapable of thinking and writing
correctly when it comes to logic. He is becoming more and more of a
joke and scandal "philosopher" and activist. He cannot even use
statistics properly, turning much of his use of statistics into
Like Hume, Dawkins is also a worthless philosopher in the fields
we are discussing here and now.
Yes Penrose does have some flaky views on a variety of subjects but I
think it's a massive distortion of his position to suggest he believes
anything quite this silly.
Don is quite right to reference Hume on this point. Hume's
clarity of thought is quite breathtaking. For a lad of 16 to start
a work, The Treatise that 10 years later had provided the foundation
of modern thinking on so many areas of human understanding is
truly astonishing. One can clearly see the influence of Hume in
the writings of some of the most clear and perceptive modern
thinkers such as Dawkins and Dennett.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>