| </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
That's like a two-dimensional being trying to explain three dimensions.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>But if the mind is not entirely material (or not directly material), then you will never be able to explain it. But you never said that. You simple took a metaphysical position and chose (without giving any reason) to disregard any alternatives. That is why I called it niave.
Now, you have given a reason -- a methodological reason for adopting a metaphysical position. Translated: we aren't able to directly or easily measure this, so we'll assume it doesn't exist. That's fairly normal for science, but it's very bad philosophy.
It's only the wrong direction if you start by assuming it's the wrong direction. It's that assumption that I called niave. Given that you've reaffirmed it, I stand by that characterisation. |