ELEPHANT TO PETER RE FUNNY THEORIES:
PETER WROTE:
> Are you seriously suggesting that theories to the effect that "there is no
> thought without some (as yet unspecified) neural activity", are eclipsed by
> theories which propose that "mind and brain are only very loosely connected
> [and the latter doesn't 'cause' the former] " ?
ELEPHANT:
No. I don't propose a counter theory, I simply point out that the "neural
activity causes thoughts" theory IS a theory, and has serious problem with
it which Beleivers are reluctant to acknowledge (eg, problems about
criteria, definition of thought, problems about what counts as evidence,
etc).
You seem to see the available options as: (1) neurons cause thought, and
(2), thoughts are independant of Neurons. Well, what about (3): car parts
don't cause cars, but cars are pretty much dependant on them for driving
along. Neurons can be part of the picture, why not? What I'm against is
just assuming that they are the whole of it. A good picture, which I'm by
no means ready to offer complete for competition with the defective
pictures, would IMO acknowledge that thought is a large continuous process
taking in (in a circle of stimulus and response which is all of it thought)
the whole world. That wouldn't be either unpragmatic or anti MOQ, I
suggest, although it would involve some hard thinking about what we mean by
'thought'. I seem to recommend this classic article about twice a week, so
here goes again.... John Dewey: The Reflex arc concept in Psychology. It's
on the net at:
http://paradigm.soci.brocku.ca/~lward/Dewey/DEWEY_03.HTML
Further, it seems you think I'm a mind/world dualist, possiting two
substances which don't connect. I deny it. The only people positing any
substances in this discussion are the ones who think that brain-stuff
explains or determines mind stuff. I haven't offered an explanation, I'm
pushing no kind of reductionism, and in making my observations I assert no
primary stuff. It's just that I've noticed that one supposedly
'explanatory' theory does not, in fact, work.
Now there's a radical kind of empiricism for you!
Let's have Quality science with clear criteria and definitions that is
supported by evidence, and not a religion of neurological psychology.
Pzeph
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:54 BST