Your last reply said nothing, it was just a list of cheap shots, and now you refuse to answer saying "read McGilchrist". That's not an answer, it's an evasion. I can only conclude you can't answer, so you won't answer.
Your last reply said nothing, it was just a list of cheap shots, and now you refuse to answer saying "read McGilchrist". That's not an answer, it's an evasion. I can only conclude you can't answer, so you won't answer.
Your last reply said nothing, it was just a list of cheap shots, and now you refuse to answer saying "read McGilchrist". That's not an answer, it's an evasion. I can only conclude you can't answer, so you won't answer.
You don’t understand your own neural makeup.
That’s the true evasion.
Your reply basically said nothing.
If you read difficult works, like McGilchrist, you would learn more about your neural nature…
but no, you seem like a sci-zealot.
You can’t conclude… about what you don’t understand.
Goodbye…and good luck with learning.
That's still not an answer to my questions. You accuse, you evade, and pontificate from on high without justification. That's evasion.