A Neural Theory of Mind

[Thomas Clarke]

In article <4lmbib$8ub at hptemp1.cc.umr.edu> jja at elan.cs.umr.edu (John Adelsberger) writes:
>Paul Bush (paul at phy.ucsf.edu) wrote:
>: In article <4lhhuj$7tj at eis.wfunet.wfu.edu>, laubach at biogfx.neuro.wfu.edu (Mark Laubach) writes:

>The function of the brain is a physical science.  

That is the subject of current scientific study.  I just got back
from a very interesting conference Tucson II, Toward a Science of
Consciousness, where the status of brain as physical device and its
implications for the mind were much debated.  
No firm conclusions yet, but nobody much likes Descartes.

>Objectivism is a philosophy.
>Why is this discussion of neural science in alt.philosophy.objectivism?

Probably specific theories of how the brain/mind works are off topic,
but if and when science has something definite to say about the mind,
how it works, its limitations etc, this would I think have a big
impact on any philosophy such as Objectivism that deals with the mind
and the best way to integrate it into the world.

Tom Clarke