minds and brains

Doug dmckean at gte.net
Sun Dec 13 14:14:48 EST 1998

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
> kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
> >
> > Doug wrote:
> >
> > > I can't accept the notion that when the mind
> > > perceives something such as causality it is to
> > > be construed as accumulating knowledge haphazardly.
> >
> > Think about it in terms of the "knowledge" that's handed-down
> > intergenerationally. Whatever's Familiar to one generation tends
> > strongly to be "taught" to the next generation, even though it's =only=
> > that which is merely-Familiar to the first generation.
> This statement of mine needs CLARIFICATION. I was addressing what is,
> Verifiably, =only= that which is merely-Familiar.

It is a concept from basic biology that *acquired* 
things be they acquired physical abilities or acquired 
knowledge are not, no, cannot be passed onto the next 
generation genetically.  They must be taught. 

Science concerns itself with quantitatively defining 
pertinent parameters, constructing a repeatable and 
verifiable experiment, drawing conclusions from results 
ideally in reference to a null experiment in an attempt 
to glean out false positives and/or true negatives.  

I am supposing you're expressing mere opinion. 

Return Address is dmckean'at'gte'dot'net 

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list