From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sun Nov 17 2002 - 01:49:58 GMT
John,
Do you know of any experiment that distinguishes between a TV model of the
brain (that is, that the brain organizes awareness) over a computer model
(that the brain originates awareness)?
- Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Maher" <jozabad2001@yahoo.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 5:00 PM
Subject: RE: MD Individuality
> Hi Patrick,
>
> YOU WROTE:
> > With all due respect, aren't the neural events we
> > can 'see' in the
> > laboratory totally different things than our
> > cognitions? To me they are
> > as irreduciable to each other as wood is to marmer.
> > They're simply two
> > different things. They have no obvious relationship
> > as between 'sound
> > and grooves'. If you think there is, show me!
>
> With equal respect, they are not totally different
> things and they do have an obvious relationship.
> Indeed if one maintains otherwise then one is simply
> being blind to cognitive neuroscience:
>
> ". . . in 1880 only the rudiments of neural
> functioning were understood, and a reasonable person
> could have doubted that all experience arises from
> quivering nerve tails. But no longer. . . . The
> evidence is overwhelming that every aspect of our
> mental lives depends entirely on physiological events
> in the tissues of the brain."
> (Stephen Pinker - The Blank Slate - 2002 - BCA - pg
> 41)
>
> "Every emotion and thought gives off physical signals
> and the new technologies for detecting them are so
> accurate that they can literally read a persons mind
> and tell a neuroscientist whether the person is
> imagining a place or a face."
> (Ibid pg42)
>
> This is not a matter of faith, it is scientific fact
> reproduced in experiment after experiment and attested
> to in peer reviewed journals.
>
> Most neuroscientists I have looked at would not agree
> with your description of their findings. Worse, your
> out of hand dismissal of monist understandings (simply
> calling them 'word games' is not an argument BTW)
> makes it almost pointless to give you contemporary
> non-Cartesian philosophers (of which there are
> dozens)simply because you have already decided that
> they are closet dualists. But, being one who prefers
> science to philosophy I would suggest Pinker as a
> start.
>
> John
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> 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@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 17 2002 - 01:51:23 GMT