ye have no any kind of argument, the text I put at the start is written by two active scientists one working at MIT and those have published in Nature and because your materialism of the "chemistry is everything" do not like, simply you seek to ridicule insulting to me personally.
We have all kinds of arguments, we just can't see anything in your initial post, nor in your followups, that require one. What is your thesis? What is the basis for it? How can we test it?
Perhaps you dislike that has a spiritual air, but I also dislike your materialism.
Curiously I like to think of it as reality based/anchored. As in we know the earth is very very very old based on testable evidence of that age, and based on consilience from many fields of study.
You believe that the normal and proper should be yours and I think that your way of seeing things are missing a few fat pieces.
So what are those pieces, how do
you validate them, and how can we test them?
Message 20: You say:"Our chemicals organize our circuits, not vice versa."
I disagree,what is important is physics, for instance here:
If it is physics then you have a testable hypothesis and you have some kind of evidence or basis: what are they?
Don't expect us to read links and debate them, rather take from them you most critical point/s and use the link to support your argument
Keep it simple and clear, and we'll see what transpires.
Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type
[qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
and you can type
[qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes:
quotes are easy
or type
[quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out
(help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see
Posting TipsFor a quick overview see
EvC Forum PrimerIf you have problems with replies see
Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0