Neuroscience vs. humanistic psychology
furresta at my-deja.com
Wed Jun 28 18:52:10 EST 2000
In article <395A32FB.24EB9608 at nospam.com>,
rh <rh at nospam.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your well-spoken response.
> I guess my trouble in relating the two concepts is that I have
> difficulty understanding the dichotomy that is often made between
> "mind" and the physical brain's properties. It is often said, for
> example, that one can't ever pinpoint a personality, therefore,
> neuroscience will never be able to fully explain the psychology of
> individuals. I don't understand how that assumption could be made.
> Certainly if neural connections were mapped, amount of chemicals
> present in the body were accurately measured, and genetic
> predispositions were accounted for we would certainly be able to
> more about a patient's personality than a position which stresses the
> self-reported accounts of personality from the same patient.
> Am I misunderstanding the humanistic position?
> I don't know. Maybe some humanists are still looking for the ghost in
the machine, just because molecular neurobiology or computational
neuroscience is just too difficult to understand. Others might have
really found a ghost. Maybe a ghost is all there is... Maybe you can
find ...Read The Matter Myth, by a couple of physicists whose names I
can't give you right now. Read Elemental Mind (by Nick Herbert). You
can extrapolate it to neuroscience. You can figure out a nice rebuttal
for these authors, if your physics knowledge is good enough. However,
conventional neuroscience is still fun enough to keep on this NG. And
after all, it's all about fun, isn't it?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
More information about the Neur-sci