why study neurology?

mat mats_trash at hotmail.com
Wed Jan 16 05:19:58 EST 2002


> 
> Yes, of course I agree with all that, it goes without saying, or so I would
> have thought. But this is a long way from your previous claim that we
> have now learnt how chemical systems define "us". We haven't. And we
> never will- because our selves cannot be "defined" by our chemical
> constituents. 
> 
> If you were able to view a functional MRI scan of someone's leg while
> they were performing a kicking action, would that "define" the action?
> Would it (for example) tell you anything whatsoever about the
> motivations for the action?? (e.g. kicking a football vs. kicking another
> person?)   Of course not. Similarly, scanning someone's brain while they
> are performing a memory task will inform you about the neural circuitry
> involved in that task. But it will not in some mysterious way "define"
> memory or the experience of remembering.
> 

IMHO you are making category mistakes all over the place and hiding
dualism within your language.  I never said how chemical systems
defined us, just that they did.  In your fMRI example: if you could
interpet an fMRI of a leg then yes indeed you could discern whether
someone was making a kicking action.  When you say does it give you
any motivation, well no that would be in the brain but I know what
you're getting at.  The problem is you are constantly objecting with
subjectivity.  'Motivation' in this example.  My whole conception of
the brain is that motivation has no meaning beyond the neural patterns
of sensory, memory and emotion which integrated to cause the action of
kicking.  Further what do you mean by contingent? If the processes of
molecular biology are not enough, then what constitutes this missing
part?

I did reply to your 'wooden table' example last night but it seems to
have gotten lost in the newgroup quagmire.  I shall repost(e) later!
:)




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list