seigneur wrote:

am93 wrote:

When naturalists say the mind is just an outcome of biological processes in the brain, how can they then say that humans are rational when it's just random random neurons firing?

To be fair, I have not seen naturalists claiming to support rationalism in this way. Rather, they assert that neurons firing is all there is to mental activity. It's not that this (alleged) fact is rational or makes sense of the world as we know, it's just that it's (allagedly) scientific. There's no explicit claim to rationality here, but an implicit equivocation of science and reason.

I understand better now, thank you.

I don't think SP will come here since it looks like his main objective is to clog the combox and nothing else, the best is to ignore him completely.

@RomanJoe
I did not know that there were so many kinds of dualism and reductionism (should have done my research better). I think the ones i had in mind was cartesian dualism and reductive materialism.

@Johannes
the concept of the trinity has been one of my interests lately (it's quite fascinating from a non-christian perspective). Thanks for the help.

I just read some articles about artificial wombs (biobags), they will basically give premature babies a chance to survive, without significant damages, that result from premature birth. I think that saving premature babies is a good thing, but what I don't agree with is the possibility of growing a baby from the embryo stage and forth (wich I don't think is possible), making the female womb unnecessary. This will probably challenge natural reproduction and make it possible for anyone to have a child (without going through surogacy/adoption/ivf/natural child birth). Abortion is one of the bigger issues that comes to mind, what if the parent/parents decide that they don't want the child anymore, what then? is abortion still possible? does it even count as abortion if the child is not in the mothers womb?