a thinking brain

Glen M. Sizemore gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com
Sun Jul 4 07:11:04 EST 2004

> RS: But only at work. When they leave
> the classroom, they discover that they do, indeed, have a soul (mind).
> GS: How do they "discover" this?

RS: I do not know. "Ich bin ein Ich!" Something like that.

GS: I do. They have been indoctrinated into folk-psychological
explanatory fictions, as have you, and it is why you can't quite get
things right.

> RS: We like to say that the brain does the work, but the soul (mind) is
> cognizant of the working brain.
> GS: Who is "we?"

RS: Me, myself, and I. Through the years someone picks at me for
saying "we". Then I decide to use "I" for awhile. Then I find myself
feeling self-conscious about using "I" and I slide back into using
"we". So it goes.

GS: Hmmm
, an attempt at a functional analysis! Anyway, my point was
that not everyone thinks that: "
the brain does the work, but the soul
(mind) is cognizant of the working brain." I think it is a load of
crap, and have elaborated on this at length.
> GS: Are you saying that you endorse the notion of the "homunculus" as the
> thing that causes behavior?

RS: No! Just that most people take that position and I realize that
they will continue to think that way. I think that the neurons in the
CNS cause behavior, and that neuronal activity is explainable as
molecules in action.

GS: *We* will eventually see the futility of the notion that "neurons
in the CNS cause behavior." Contingencies of reinforcement select and
blend spontaneous behavior, and bring such behavior under
discriminative control of features of the world. Physiology mediates
this function. Such a view repudiates the primitive animism of
mentalistic mainstream psychology.

rscanlon at nycap.rr.com (ray scanlon) wrote in message news:<363d693e.0407031759.141c2247 at posting.google.com>...
> Glen M. Sizemore writes: 

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list