Questions on the Nature of memory, personality, etc.

Robert M?rtin robertmaertin at gmx.de
Tue May 11 07:49:33 EST 2004


No. To be "in the field" usually entails that you support the basic
assumptions of physicalism. This notion extends beyond empirical
science... if you want to participate in contemporary debates about
philosophy of mind, you have to be a physicalist and be open to
advances in science.
But a modern philosopher should be able to deal with these
prerequisites.

Creationism and dualism are no real threat to neuroscience or the
image of ns in the public.
Strange half-scientific psychological theories (not only
Psychotheraphy) that are both easy to understand and catchy are the
real problem of neuroscience... (my opinion)

regards
Robert

qquito at hotmail.com (Quito Quito) wrote in message news:<98d60386.0405101756.1c1dfd75 at posting.google.com>...
> Robert, thank you for your informative reply. I definitely agree with
> you. Are there many people in the neurobiology/neurobiopsychology
> field who disagree with
> this materialistic philosophical view of the world?



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list