Sarco said: "if you are refererring to what i wrote, you are wrong. what you are doing is called projecting."
I was actually referring to what Club S wrote, when he differentiated 'instincts' from 'genetics'.
Why would I be projecting upon your good self when responding to a quote from Club S.
As for your post, you said:
"Instincts?...that is just parroting dribble...one side of the coin is just as childish as the other...which creates a futile diversion..."science" is another...a lot of our concepts that are summoned by words are stumbling blocks... language is problematic...but behind the physical laws are non-physical ones - only a fool wouldn't "err on the side of caution...if you hit you hand with a hammer, is is reasonable to expect no bruise?"
First, you dismissed scientific investigation in favour of what seems to be some eclectic "non-conceptual" philosophy.
Second, you then imparted a defined concrete dogma of "behind the physical laws are non-physical ones". This is the same as "God"!
Third, you give a clear example of a physical law which requires no non-physical or mental input, that is, the inevitability of bruising when a hand is hit by a hammer.
To use your own words, I can only reply "only a fool" would post views that contradict each other and have no rational basis.
