I'm trying to do something about that, and you're just irrationally trying to blame me for it happening. Is that because you don't agree with what I've explained but don't know how to express your position intelligently, or is it because you're just useless in general?
Your "you don't have a clue" response is certainly succinct, but hardly qualifies as intelligent.
The fact that "cognitive scientists" can't find a "self" doesn't really mean what you seem to think it means. Cognition is the self, so if they are researching it scientifically, they have proven it exists, regardless of how clueless or uncertain they are about what it is or how or why it occurs. Until they can disprove "cogito ergo sum", which they can't, because it is logically irrefutable that there must be an "I", whether to "am" or to prove otherwise, they, and you in faithfully taking their findings as gospel, are barking up the wrong tree. The real truth is that they are disproving the theory of "free will", but since Epicurus already logically disproved that thousands of years ago without any need for even a rudimentary knowledge of neurology, that simply supports my perspective of postmodernism. I believe itwe is your assumption that self-determination is the same thing as free will (or that either is the cause or effect of the other) which is false, not the existence of self-determination. Self-determination is irrefutable, because it is only possible to question whether it exists if it does exist. If you believe cogito ergo sum means anything other than that, you have been misinformed. And it doesn't matter how many degrees or scientific publications the person who misinformed you has, they are still logically, reasonably, and factually mistaken.
I'd love to debate this further, but this isn't the right forum for that.
I'm trying to do something about that, and you're just irrationally trying to blame me for it happening. Is that because you don't agree with what I've explained but don't know how to express your position intelligently, or is it because you're just useless in general?
Your "you don't have a clue" response is certainly succinct, but hardly qualifies as intelligent.
The fact that "cognitive scientists" can't find a "self" doesn't really mean what you seem to think it means. Cognition is the self, so if they are researching it scientifically, they have proven it exists, regardless of how clueless or uncertain they are about what it is or how or why it occurs. Until they can disprove "cogito ergo sum", which they can't, because it is logically irrefutable that there must be an "I", whether to "am" or to prove otherwise, they, and you in faithfully taking their findings as gospel, are barking up the wrong tree. The real truth is that they are disproving the theory of "free will", but since Epicurus already logically disproved that thousands of years ago without any need for even a rudimentary knowledge of neurology, that simply supports my perspective of postmodernism. I believe itwe is your assumption that self-determination is the same thing as free will (or that either is the cause or effect of the other) which is false, not the existence of self-determination. Self-determination is irrefutable, because it is only possible to question whether it exists if it does exist. If you believe cogito ergo sum means anything other than that, you have been misinformed. And it doesn't matter how many degrees or scientific publications the person who misinformed you has, they are still logically, reasonably, and factually mistaken.
I'd love to debate this further, but this isn't the right forum for that.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
I suppose your obstinant ignorance and refusal to reconsider your assumptions will have to suffice at proving what I've said is true.