Re: I think the hypothesis you’re testing is completely hopeless, and your experiments should definitely be funded.
How hopeless does a hypothesis have to be before the funding gets cut? ;-)
Re: Richard Chappell, David Chalmers, and the foes of reductionism.
Is this really your battle? It reminds me of Richard Dawkins getting sucked into debating with creationists. I can’t help thinking that Richard is getting distracted from real science by the opinions of the masses—and that, preventing scientists from doing sensible work and advancing scientific materialism is actually one of the things on his opponents’ agenda.
Hi, this is me, Max Raoy Gron, of the Adelaide city and its suburbs, I studied philosophy and have made experiments on how good my life would be morally, socially, emotionally and spiritually, even physiologically, and my philosophical method/s is the result of 3 years of learning philosophy from experience from what I have learned on the internet, therefore my painstaking study in solipsism tells me that a p-zombie looks exactly like a human, for example a behavioural zombie could be a human brain in a shark’s body, even though it looks exactly like a human, and thinks it is itself a human, and is similar in behaviour to a human. However a soulless zombie is a ghost that seems to be a physically real person and no person can distinguish this from a real person, it’s the result of removing Satan or some demon out of the person’s body, so it physically feels like a human, and physically acts like a human, when it’s a demon let loose. If everyone was conscious of this then it wouldn’t be possible, only a single person can possibly be conscious of this, thus Intelligent Design, not the human psyche, created the natural things surrounding the seemingly supernatural beings, and I didn’t create this mistake, nor did God, it’s the result of my mother removing the soul from my body, and when it turned human it was therefore a soulless zombie and it was hassling my patriotic Australian neighbour at night.
Re: I think the hypothesis you’re testing is completely hopeless, and your experiments should definitely be funded.
How hopeless does a hypothesis have to be before the funding gets cut? ;-)
Re: Richard Chappell, David Chalmers, and the foes of reductionism.
Is this really your battle? It reminds me of Richard Dawkins getting sucked into debating with creationists. I can’t help thinking that Richard is getting distracted from real science by the opinions of the masses—and that, preventing scientists from doing sensible work and advancing scientific materialism is actually one of the things on his opponents’ agenda.
Hi, this is me, Max Raoy Gron, of the Adelaide city and its suburbs, I studied philosophy and have made experiments on how good my life would be morally, socially, emotionally and spiritually, even physiologically, and my philosophical method/s is the result of 3 years of learning philosophy from experience from what I have learned on the internet, therefore my painstaking study in solipsism tells me that a p-zombie looks exactly like a human, for example a behavioural zombie could be a human brain in a shark’s body, even though it looks exactly like a human, and thinks it is itself a human, and is similar in behaviour to a human. However a soulless zombie is a ghost that seems to be a physically real person and no person can distinguish this from a real person, it’s the result of removing Satan or some demon out of the person’s body, so it physically feels like a human, and physically acts like a human, when it’s a demon let loose. If everyone was conscious of this then it wouldn’t be possible, only a single person can possibly be conscious of this, thus Intelligent Design, not the human psyche, created the natural things surrounding the seemingly supernatural beings, and I didn’t create this mistake, nor did God, it’s the result of my mother removing the soul from my body, and when it turned human it was therefore a soulless zombie and it was hassling my patriotic Australian neighbour at night.
This is incoherent, reader.
Understatement of the year