>On Fri, 9 May 1997 Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de>>> On Fri, 9 May 1997 cmspecht at acsu.buffalo.edu wrote:
>>> > the question of whether or not we are deterministic is not meaningles. i
>> > can immediately think of two reasons why:
>> > 1) a fundamental basis of many religious beliefs is that we have
>> > the capacity to make many decisions about our behavior
>>> Eugene replies:
>>I thought we were discussing (neuro)science here, not religion. These
>>domains obviously do not overlap at all.
>On Fri, 9 May 1997,
>cmspecht at acsu.buffalo.edu responds:
>no eugene, we are discussing free will. have you read much about it?
>there is much to learn in many disciplines.
>>and while i am well aware that science does not overlap with religion (and
>am in fact not a believer), you cannot deny religious faith, eugene. it
>is real. and there are many many many many ways of explaining the world.
>science is one, and religion is one, and there are more.
So what do religious discussions about the conscious mind and free will
have to do with neurosciences? If this is an issue of faith it is not
science. It the sort of discussion that is best conducted over a few
beers. Or as a string in alt.jada.jada.jada
Comparative Animal Physiologist
Division of Sciences and Mathematics
University of the Virgin Islands
St. Thomas, USVI 00802
rhall at uvi.edu