brain and mind
x011 at Lehigh.EDU
x011 at Lehigh.EDU
Fri Jan 27 08:34:07 EST 1995
>I did not intend to belittle philosophy, I merely pointed out that physics
>deals strictly with that which is measurable. Gravity has always been
>measurable by simply dropping an object. The force that moves the object
>is gravity. Galileo quantified gravity and Newton defined its behavior.
>As for Goddard every serious physicist of his time probably believed that
>his theory was sound. It was just the application of that theory, given the
>technology of the time, that made most people sceptical. Jules Verne
>accurately described a manned trip to the moon long before the technology
>existed to go there. (I believe Goddard was quite fond of Jules Verne's
>writings) However, the physics of how the trip could be accomplished were
>well worked out by Verne's time.
>The problem with thought is that it has never been observed. We can
>observe behaviors which we attribute to thought, but thought itself is too
>etherial to grasp by direct observation. This inability to observe
>thought prevents us from measuring it and treating it as a physical
>phenomenon. Because it can't be measured, at least at the present, it is
>outside the jurisdiction of physical study. Someone, someday, may be clever
>enough to actually observe thought, but I have my doubts.
>Robert M. Caudle "If I had my life to
>NAB, NIDR, NIH live over, I'd be a
>Bldg. 49, Rm 1A-11 plumber."
>9000 Rockville Pike A. Einstein
>Bethesda, MD 20892
>Caudle at yoda.nidr.nih.gov
>Caudle at irp.nidr.nih.gov
Without a theory to tell us where to look the math and predictions of
the strength of physics would not likely occur. The more models we
have, the more empirical data that limits the models, the closer we will
approach an understanding and prediction of thought.
A science is determined not by what you are studying (thought) but by
your methods and procedures.
More information about the Neur-sci