What the Neocortex Does
james.teo at chch.ox.ac.uk
Thu Aug 17 06:47:15 EST 2000
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 10:51:17 -0400, "Ray Scanlon" <rscanlon at wsg.net>
>Of course they did, and do. I was simply referring to the notion that you
>may deny "soul" by calling it "mind". I say that is the reason you called
>the soul, a thingey. I think, if you look loosely at yourself, you will find
>that you are denying soul as a part of your metaphysics. It is far better,
>in my book, to call it "soul (mind)" whenever we wish to refer to ourselves
>as distinguished from the universe.
Hardly, since neuroscientists and cogntive scientists declare that
they are studying the brain and mind, and not the soul. They may or
may not be the same thing, but they have established that if it is
soul, it isn't very interesting.
Er, I didn't deny soul as part of my metaphysics, in fact, it's the
opposite. To paraphrase myself, I just said "as someone studying the
directly physical, I am not studying the soul". So by definition, mind
isn't a metaphysical concept to me while soul probably is.
>I say cognitive scientists study the soul (mind) and it is very clear to me
>what they do. Cognitive science is exactly the same as creation science. It
>consists of religionists (going by the name of philosophers or whatever) who
>look for an empirical basis for soul (mind). The soul (mind) belongs to
>religion not to science. The neuroscientists will work out brain action
>while the cognitive "scientists" will do nothing but refine the old
>arguments over body and soul.
Then you don't know many cognitive scientists, if you think most of
them are religionists.
I don't deny that there are some cognitive scientists who are
religionists and there are some who do study the soul, but the
collective majority of cognitive scientists aren't.
If you want to use the two terms as synonymous, I'm not stopping you,
but merely to tell you that most scientists who study mind, don't
agree. Vive la difference (spelling?).
More information about the Neur-sci