I’ve posted an audio monolog prompted by @evantthompson’s comment, recorded by @_awbery_. Most of it is not directly responsive, although we did get to the point at the end. The accompanying text notes may be more relevant.
Comments welcome!https://meaningness.com/metablog/buddhism-cognitivism-podcast …
-
-
I remember reading this book in the early 90s. In brief, why was his theory unworkable?
-
It doesn’t ground into something specific enough to gain traction. There isn’t an in-principle failure, but none of the terms are definite enough to make it possible to take the project further, test it, implement it, or draw conclusions.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Citing a 1982 article on drug hallucinations in the _International Journal of Quantum Chemistry_ is fundamentally unserious. You can get away with that if it’s clear you are trolling, but the rest of his scientific claims don’t convince the reader that it’s is not just ignorant.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.