IN MY HASTE AND FATIGUE I STARTED TO WRITE "ASSUME",
STARTED TO REFRAME USING "NEGLECT THE POSSIBILITY"
BUT NEGLECTED TO RECONSTRUCT THE SENTENCE !
I intended to say that the arrogance of ignorance is to
assume that those whose views seem "narrow" to them lack
the broad experience and open mind they smugly assume themselves
to have; they neglect the possibility that these "narrow" people
have had even broader experience, and have had time to think
on it more deeply than they, eventually discarding what the naive
assume they have not yet discovered.
n.b.: I think this correction is somewhat better expressed than
the one I (apparently) was unsuccessful in transmitting.
In article <5l4nhk$jt8 at dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) wrote:
>I am one who HAS studied more than neuroscience. I was a philosophy
>major at Kenyon College (before most of you were born). I read and
>write poetry. I was a boy preacher (Methodist). etc. etc.
>>Snow wrote about the two cultures. It is my experience that the
>average scientist knows far more about the humanities than the average
>humanist knows about the sciences. Or, more precisely, about SCIENCE,
>i.e. the revolutiary way of thinking and achieving achievable (valid)
>answers which very few (including many psych majors to whom I tried to
>teach Experimental Psych, or at least the rudiments of the experimental
>>The arrogance of the ignorant is to
neglect the possibility
(MEANT TO SAY "ASSUME")
that these "narrow" people lack the imagination or broad experience to see what they see. My own experience is that all you have thought I have
>thought before, thought through, and discarded for better approaches.
>>Jean-Francois' post was to the point: define consciousness, and then we
>can discuss it.
>>I have given up on Searles and the others who think they are beyond
>this elementary necessity. I have read MANY so-called "debates"
>(mind/body, mind/machine, etc.) by people who should know better: GIGO!
>(garbage in, garbage out)
>>Wittgenstein saved me from a life of fruitless "philosophising" when he
>pointed out that many of philosophy's classical questions were not real
>questions at all: i.e. were not framed in a way that allowed an answer.
>>Percy Bridgman (famous paper "how to make our ideas clear" pointed out
>that physicisists were doing the same thing, suggested we define
>something by describing the operations we would perform to produce or
>identify or measure it. Subsequently, "operational definitions" became
>important in the "science" of behavior (n.b. I am a Ph.D. in that
>field)--albeit often misunderstood and misused (cf. its positivistic
>>The reason why this belongs not in neuroscience but in religion is
>because in religion one is free to hold mutually contradictory
>positions, undefined beliefs, etc., etc. It becomes a fit subject for
>neuroscience the moment it is defined, and by defined I mean defined in
>a way that allows questions that can at least in principle be answered
>(even if not now a PRACTICAL possibility). (Old example from my
>unbdergrad philosophy classes: what is on the other side of the moon?
>In those days, in principle answerable, but not in practice...)
>>I said much of this (too subtly, indirectly?) in my original post(s)
>(related ones on brains and consciousness and free will). Maybe I
>shoud re-post now that I have provided a pony?
>New York Neuropsychology Group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In <Pine.GSO.3.95.970510211410.3369A-100000 at orichalc.acsu.buffalo.edu>
>cmspecht at acsu.buffalo.edu writes:
>>>>>>On Sat, 10 May 1997 18:32:13, Richard Hall <rhall at uvi.edu> wrote:
>>>>>I have no problem with the discussion, except that as many have
>>>so many times before science focuses on questions that can be tested.
>>>Phrases such as conscious mind, free will, etc. are not meaningful
>>>any scientific context. The entire discussion does not fit
>>>is as I stated better suited to other venues.
>>>>>>one more time - the bulk of that post was not about religion - it
>>the poster to references concerning a scientific and philosophical
>>approach to question of consiousness. sorry, i have studied MORE than
>>just neuroscience. what a shame. why are you so hung up on that?
>>whether you believe in god or not, religion is a fact and my response
>>was valid and logical. why don't you just read the rest of the post
>>contribute to it as well?
>>>>>>>From my address, you might realize that I am a trained and qualified
>>>scientist (for over 26 years). In fact, I have some experience with
>>>neurosciences and present course material from a very formal
>>>perspective. This is not the first time, I have listened to "How many
>>>angels can dance on the top of a pin, what makes humans so special"
>>>>>Where do you see the science in any of the re:brain "discussion"?
>>>>>>try my very first post on the thread. while you continue to focus on
>>religious "part", i referred the poster to writings of johnathan
>>(whom you obviously have not studied) and francis crick (whom i am
>>you at least heard of).
>>>>let me reiterate for one last time that while i mention religion, it
>>in context to a comment by eugene that "it does not matter" whether we
>>"think" we make decisions, we acutually make decisions, or we are
>>some "illusion" that we make decisions (vis-a-vis free will). whether
>>"think" it is relevant or not, religion (whether you believe or not; I
>>NOT) is one reason that the notion has relevance.
>>>>that was my comment. the rest of the post addressed the question from
>>scientific aspect (yes, from even the philosopher searle's point). in
>>or 10 or 26 years, you simply have not come across it, apparently.
>>neverthless, consciousness has a home in science. if you care to
>>this, ask me for more references, if not, please provide some