Quite,
I don't understand fully, either, though I infer (from the context in which
I found the quote) that he was trying to say that there isn't something
else, something magical, aside from the stuff we "know", to explain 'mind'.
Another way of putting that is to say that the stuff we know (matter, energy
etc) is altogether more magical than we thought we knew.
The quote came from Susan Greenfields book "Journey to the centres of the
mind", which tome propounds the idea that 'mind' does indeed come from
structures of 'brain'. but that hasn't 'explained anything away', which, I
believe, was the reason for the charge of Heresy associated with the
original quote. So, no-one at this stage proposes that 'brain-stuff'
explains mind, nor even that a full explanation will ever be available;
that's tantamount to saying we will, in the foreseeable future be able to
describe (i.e. predict the behaviour of) 'everything'.
cheers
----- Original Message -----
From: "PzEph" <etinarcardia@lineone.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: 09 December 2000 00:14
Subject: Re: MD mind without matter
> Peter,
> No apology called for!
> Thanks for putting my own point of veiw rather well there, though I've yet
> to satisfy myself that I understand your heretical monk.
>
> ttfn
>
> Pzeph.
>
> > From: "Peter Lennox" <peter@lennox01.freeserve.co.uk>
> > Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> > Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 22:47:03 -0000
> > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> > Subject: Re: MD mind without matter
> >
> > Apologies!
> > In fact, arguably, I might as well say that thoughts cause neural
activity!
> > Further,
> > "Thought is a priority of matter" was the blasphemy offered by Julien
Offroy
> > de La Mettrie (1709 - 1751)......
> > (sounds like the universe trying to understand itself....)
> > cheers
> > ppl
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "PzEph" <etinarcardia@lineone.net>
> > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> > Sent: 08 December 2000 21:08
> > Subject: Re: MD mind without matter
> >
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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