KPaulC at email.msn.com
Fri Aug 6 20:01:15 EST 1999
it's long been clear, to me, that Science is a wholly-contained subset of a
larger set... i wouldn't call the larger set "Religion", because Religion is
also a subset of the larger set...
both Science and Religion have, to date, with some important exceptions,
lived within their subsets, and called them the "whole"... this's all 'just'
...but, if anyone 'wonders', i do see, clearly, that the larger set is the
Stuff of God.
when the folks who've only viewed the stuff of their familiar subsets peek
beyond, a bit, and a bit more, they'll see that, for all their
'recriminations, one against the other, they're still Welcome within The
and what Wonders await folks' lifting-up of 'themselves', in this Way.
cheers, ken collins [K. P. Collins]
Ray D. Scanlon wrote in message <37ab6199.0 at ns2.wsg.net>...
>When we speak of intelligence, artificial or living, there are things that
>people say are pertinent and other things that are not. The trouble is that
>few agree on how to divide the territory. Stephen Jay Gould pushes for a
>general division between the magisteria of religion and that of science. He
>calls his approach NOMA, non-overlapping magisteria. He says that some
>things belong to religion and some things to science and asks for no
>overlap. We can swing an axe and say that soul (mind) belongs to religion
>and the brain belongs to science. If you talk about the soul (mind), you
>talking religion. If you talk about the neurons of the nervous system, you
>are talking science. The theologian speaks of free will; the neuroscientist
>talks of molecular activity. There is no middle ground.
>There is an unknown and unknowable interface between the magisteria. The
>theologian contemplates the universe of existence and makes it consistent
>with his theology; the extreme case is idealism. The neuroscientist notes
>his thoughts and considers the neural constellations that could support the
>experiences of the soul (mind). Both press against the interface.
>A prosaic explanation of how the brain maneuvers the body through the world
>is not enough; all want more. They want an explanation of the beautiful
>workings of the soul (mind) and they are not to have it. There is to be no
>scientific explanation of our inner mental life. The magisterium of science
>is limited to the external universe (the other). The best we can do is to
>search out combinations of neurons that could support a mental life. We may
>demonstrate a neuron such that, if active, we will experience as a patch of
>blue. We may demonstrate a constellation of neurons such that, if activated
>(inactivated?) means that the brain has decided; we shall experience a
>The neuroscientist has no need of soul (mind) except as a curiosity. On the
>one hand, he may say that certain neurons form a constellation that, when
>active, gives rise to an experience in the soul (mind). On the other hand,
>he may say, "Why should I pick out these neurons for special attention?
>are just neurons." The theologian views the body as a curiosity; he has no
>real need of it. For him the soul (mind) directs the brain.
>When we set out to study the brain seriously, we find ourselves up against
>the unknowable interface between the universe of experience and the soul
>(mind). I think it best to recognize this interface and the structures on
>both sides. When we have approached the interface from both sides we can
>say, "I will study the brain; I will put the soul (mind) to one side." Or,
>"I will study the soul (mind) and leave the brain to science."
>Those whose principle interest is in the magisterium of religion have a
>differing agenda. The soul (mind) interests them. Consider this snippet:
>"...the actual capabilities involved in being conscious, noticing,
>attending, perceiving, deciding..." Each of these has a neural aspect and a
>soul (mind) aspect. The neural aspect is called alertness; the soul (mind)
>aspect is called awareness. The physician rates the subject as being
>hyperactive, normal, confused, stuporous, or comatose. He makes no
>to the soul (mind); the religious speak of nothing else. Noticing,
>attending, perceiving are simple neural activities. The last is of special
>interest. Decision and free will mean everything to the religious. The
>neuroscientist sees neurons in the reticular nucleus of the thalamus that,
>being active, halt motor programs enroute to the motor cortex. When these
>neurons are inhibited, the motor programs proceed; the brain has decided.
>soul (mind) is required.
>Let us be clear: the brain belongs to science, the soul (mind) to religion.
>The brain receives signal energy by way of transduction by sensory units.
>This signal energy filters through the interneurons of the brain and
>as motor programs that activate the muscles. There is no need of soul
>(mind). There is no need of free will. There is no need of subjective
>consciousness, awareness. The neurons of the brain weigh alternatives. The
>neurons of the brain decide.
>One source of confusion is the word "mind". The present usage appeared in
>the first half of the nineteenth century. Freethinkers wished to speak of
>the soul but were reluctant to say "soul" so they turned to "mind". Mind is
>a synonym (even a euphemism) for soul but so many people today would deny
>it. The soul and the mind are two entirely different things, they say. We
>can counter this nonsense by always using the two words together as soul
>As a practical matter, we can initiate a few activities that may reduce the
>nonsense. We can resolve to never use the word "mind" without also using "
>soul" and never use a possessive with "soul". Never say his soul for he is
>soul. Say, "They talk of soul (mind)."
>Also we can speak of Cognitive Theology rather than Cognitive Science.
>Those interested in how the brain works might look at
More information about the Neur-sci