ELEPHANT TO PETER:
ELEPHANT HAD WRITTEN:
>> Let's have Quality science with clear criteria and definitions that is
>> supported by evidence, and not a religion of neurological psychology.
PETER WROTE:
> I have to say, though, that inasmuch as 'evidence' can be said to exist,
> "mind as caused by brain-stuff" [the stuff is wonderfully undefined] seems
> better supported than many alternative explanations.Certainly, any
> scientific school must rely heavily on faith in order to postulate theories
> which can be tested; I'm not sure that this makes it a religion...?
ELEPHANT:
It's not relying on faith to postulate a testable theory, is it? However
you conceive of evidence, it's a useful thing to have. What I think makes
neuropschcology into a kind of religion is that, to even get in at the door,
you have to believe that neuron research is going to one day tell you
everything about human psychology. If that's not a religious dogma then I
don't know what is. Probably there are some scientists who treat this
merely as an interesting hypothesis - good for them, they must be sane. But
it's the nutters that I'm talking about.
Re 'no better supported explanations': In my earlier posting I was
suggesting that the very assumption that there is something to be explained
here demonstrates anti MOQ aspects. I wasn't offering a different
explanation, I was suggesting that an explanation, either direction,
mind-brain or brain-mind is only necessary if you make the error of
postulating these two pictures as substantial.
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