For instance, before reading them, I leaned towards materialism, but they helped persuade me to become a substance dualist, despite the author’s intention.
EY convinced me that consciousness is causally active within the physical universe, and I have yet to find any good argument against the notion—just equivocations about the word “meaning.” At the same time, I do accept the argument that no amount of third-person description sums to first-person experience. Hence, substance dualism.
I am aware that this is not a full response, but I don’t want to sidetrack the thread with an off-topic conversation.
Could you explain why?
EY convinced me that consciousness is causally active within the physical universe, and I have yet to find any good argument against the notion—just equivocations about the word “meaning.” At the same time, I do accept the argument that no amount of third-person description sums to first-person experience. Hence, substance dualism.
I am aware that this is not a full response, but I don’t want to sidetrack the thread with an off-topic conversation.