What the Neocortex Does
someone at microsoft.com
Sat Aug 19 21:50:58 EST 2000
It seems to me that our friend Mr. Scanlon, enjoys more flaming and trolling
about in newsgroups insulting those who don't do exactly as he does nor
think exactly as he does, rather than saying anything productive . . . and
who, Mr. Scanlon, established you as the High Arbiter of what is and isn't
science? Studies in cognitive science vary along the field, and I assure
you, many in the field consider themselves solid empiricists. You are a
neuroscientise, fine. But that is no reason to pointlessly belittle those
who pursue another route to *scientific* understanding. Cognitive science
is not psuedocience, despite what you may think. But than again, what is
thinking? An activity of the soul purely, you would seem to say, and thus
your own statements, as you would say, come from naught . . . I know I
simplify, but there is a time to give things a rest Mr. Scanlon. The
philosopher's angle on thinking, from the earliest to well-known 20th
century philosophers such as Heidegger and others is completely different
from what cognitive scientists pursue- though still not lacking in value.
Check you dictionary again, as well, Mr Scanlon- though your dictionary
lists the two words, soul and mind, as synonyms, you must recognise that
this of course applies only in certain connotations. As much as you would
like to equate them, thereby in your mind equating cognitive scientists to
religionists, the truth as the majority would recognise it is that their
meanings are not the same. I've wasted too much time now responding to your
response- just what a good troll such as yourself would have wanted, I
"James Teo" <james.teo at chch.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:399e876b.1170276 at news.freeserve.net...
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:52:04 -0400, "Ray Scanlon" <rscanlon at wsg.net>
> >You are confused by the endless struggle to show that "mind" and "soul"
> >not synonymous. Once it is clear that they are synonyms, everything falls
> >into place. Few neuroscientists (other than the seekers of the NCC) are
> >interested in the soul (mind). This is one of the things that they agree
> >"put to one side" while they study the brain. On the other hand, the
> >cognitive scientists are interested in little else.
> Hardly! The cognitive scientists I know expand on the work of
> neuroscientists but their subject is still the same: the brain. They
> merely focus more on the emergent property of the brain as opposed to
> the individual circuits. Perhaps, the cognitive scientists I know
> aren't representative of the majority but I don't think so.
> Check out Trends in Cognitive Sciences. Soul isn't even touched on in
> most issues.
More information about the Neur-sci