rationalskepticism.org

jamest wrote:

romansh wrote:

jamest wrote:Yeah, keep your head in the sand like everyone else.

Your answer has no quality James. You said so yourself.

I am surprised you would say something like:

That's the point, romansh: that there is NO 'quality' of answer in repeatedly ignoring the fact that we're not Spock.

in that, it is like saying ... this statement is false

You have disqualified any statement that you [or anyone else] makes as requiring consideration. By definition in your world view you cannot back up your statement.

You've omitted the text and context in which I made that statement, which specifically referenced physicalist/scientific explanations for 'consciousness'. My point being that such narratives cannot repeatedly ignore our emotional disposition and treat us like mere logic machines. I made no reference to there being NO explanations at all for our 'being'.