IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

brain (fwd)

F. Frank LeFever flefever at ix.netcom.com
Thu May 15 22:28:20 EST 1997


Colleen's brief but bewildering FURTHER postings made me wonder  if I
remembered my own words correctly.  Certainly they must be mysterious
to anyone reading them out of the context of what she is commenting on.
Was it this? or a previous post?  I'll re=post both for benefit of
late-comers.

F. LeFever


In <5lb8r3$hg9 at dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> flefever at ix.netcom.com(F.
Frank LeFever) writes: 
>
>    I am bewildered by colleen's (Colleen's??) post which repeats
>    my correction and restatement of my prior post:  is she being 
>    sarcastic in what otherwise appears to be an approving comment,
>     or has she simply missed the point?
>
>
>    My reference to people who assume that others do not have their 
>    self-rated "broad" experience was a reference to people like her!
>    I have excerpted some of her exchanges with eugene (Eugene?) to
>    illustrate the point.  (v. infra)
>
>
>
>n <Pine.GSO.3.95.970509164340.14715C-100000 at orichalc.acsu.buffalo.edu>
>cmspecht at acsu.buffalo.edu writes: 
>>
>>
>>
>>no eugene, we are discussing free will.  have you read much about it?
>>there is much to learn in many disciplines.
>
>    Having read what both of them have posted, my impression is that  

>    Eugene has indeed read much about it, and probably long before    

>    Colleen did,, and has had time to think the issue through to a 
>    well-reasoned conclusion, drawing on what he has learned from
>    (I would guess) at least as many disciplines as she has.
>
>
>>
>>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.
>>
>    If one is familiar with the history of ideas, and know (for 
>    example) what "explanation" meant in prescientific times,
>    and why we have adopted the scientific form of explanation,
>    and how it has yielded answers to questions which had been 
>    fruitlessly debated for generations, the invitation to think
>    of "many many many ways" does not mean what it does to someone
>    who is ignorant of it.  Eugene is familiar with it.  Colleen
>    apparently is not, but assumes she knows things that Eugene has
>    never  even imagined.
>
>
>
>>> > intuitively, it is very difficult to think that our behavior is
>completely
>>> > mechanistic.  however, there is not a single documented case of a
>>> > non-physical (i.e. anti matter (free will if it did not have a
>physical
>>> > function as a neural outcome)) event conclusively determining a
>physical
>>> > event.  and yet there are a gazillion examples where physical
>events have
>>> > been shown to cause the non-physical.
>>> 
>>> Ignoring spiritualism, I actually thougth the free will to be a
>nonissue. 
>
>
>>
>>then i suggest you get reading.  perhaps physicists 'ignore' the
>>construct, but many scientists do not.
>>
>    Here is the arrogance of ignorance again.  Colleen assumes 
>    that Eugene has not read much.  She thinks she has read more.
>    She neglects the possibility that he has read more than she
>    and is aware of the history of this problem.  My inference
>    from what he posts (perhaps not clear to her because of
>    the density of references, implicit but obvious to anyone
>    familiar with the history) is that he has.
>
>
>
>>> In a scientific frame of reference, there is no "consciousness". So
>far there is no evidence of "consciousness" to be a nonphysical
>process.  
>
> 
> 
>>
>>(where did you hear this?)
>>when you've read a bit you will have learned that there is MOST
>definitely
>>a consciousness from a scientific reference. for pete's sake, what
you
>>are thinking at this moment is contained there.
>>
>    Again, the arrogance of assuming that when he has read what she
>    has read he will know as much as she does (and therefore agree 
>    with whatever it is she is trying to say).
>
>    More striking is the glaring example of what I (and other "naive"
>    "narrow" party-poopers) have complained of: not just failure
>    to define "consciousness" but complete obliviousness to the
>    NEED to define it.  "For pete's sake, what you are thinking at
>    this moment is contained there."
>
>    Where?
>
>    "Contained"??
>
>    Is she actually saying his thoughts are "contained" in his 
>    "thinking"?  Or "Consciousness is something that contains 
>    thoughts"??  Or what on earth IS she trying to say?
>    If she does intend this as an implicit definition (God forbid
>    that she OR Searles would attempt an EXPLICIT definition), 
>    we can proceed--if, of course, she can define "thoughts"
>    and (more subtle, but more important) define "contained".
>
>
>
>>i do not understand this point so i cannot reply.
>
>    Well spoken!
>
>>
>>> > i would suggest to the original poster that this is more a
>question dealt
>>> > with by the philosophers (not that this precludes, by any means,
a
>>> > scientist from attempting to understand it).
>>> 
>>> Philosophy != science. I thought we had ample evidence from the
>history, 
>>> about insight-gaining properties of philosophy (or, better, lack 
>>> thereof).
>>
>
>
>
>>i do not understand this whatsoever.  have you no use for
philosophers
>>either, eugene?>
>
>    Possibly Eugene has had some of the same background I had.  I was
a
>    philosophy major, at one of the top undergraduate schools in the  

>    country (Kenyon College), but outgrew it.  One impetus was what I
>    got out of Wittgenstein (a philosopher, Colleen): the insight that
>    many traditional "questions" in philosophy were not real questions
>    --i.e., were not framed in such a way as to allow an answer.
>
>    
>
>
>>> > for some good, well-written work on the latest
>>> > scientific/cognitive/philosophical view (called cognitive
>revolution or
>>> > the mentalistic paradigm), i would suggest a book of essays by
>johnathan
>>> > searle (philosopher) entitled "minds, brains and science," or the
>late
>>> > writings on the subject (and experimental work in the visual
>system) by
>>> > francis crick.
>
>>> > colleen specht
>>
>
>    I have already complained about Searles, who makes confusion 
>    sound respectable.  Experimental work in the visual system
>    is not exactly his specialty...
>
>
>
>    Frank LeFever
>    New York Neuropsychology Group
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net