Amygdala who cares

Lee Kent Hempfling lkh at mail.cei.net
Mon Jun 10 21:13:25 EST 1996


lae2 at psu.edu wrote:


>In Article<4pf0te$kt6 at ren.cei.net>, <lkh at mail.cei.net> writes:
>> Ron-Jim;
>> Actually, we are extensions of lower species. Look at the evolutionary
>> growth of the brain in relation to species and you will see an
>> additive process where spieces grow, then expand into additions then
>> grow and expand. etc. We just happen to occupy the top rung.
>> lkh
>> 

>I doubt Darwin would agree on this point.  The "top rung" of what?  The 
>notions of "higher and lower" were not Darwinian.  As I recall, Huxely 
>addressed this in his presentation to the Royal Academy.  I believe he 
>slammed Wilburforce (sp) for a similar misrepresentation.

Of course they are not Darwinian. If you care to digress into a
discussion of Evolution I would be most agreeable. But that is not
this thread. Evolution is true. The method assumptions are in many
parts not. And a person who argues a defense of a theory has no leg to
stand on but the theory as it is after all just an assumption of
observable outcomes. The cause of which has no relevance to the
observation and likewise no relevance to the observer.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Lee Kent Hempfling....................lkh at cei.net
The Enticy Papers: http://www.corpfin.com/enticy/
NTC Neutronics Technologies;Enticy Brand Robotics 
The opinions expressed by me are mine. Aren't you 
..glad you're not responsible for this dribble...  
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list