Questions on the Nature of memory, personality, etc.

David Longley David at
Tue May 11 08:53:52 EST 2004

In article <85d56b27.0405110449.3f7e1ffc at>, Robert 
M?rtin <robertmaertin at> writes
>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
>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)
>qquito at (Quito Quito) wrote in message 
>news:<98d60386.0405101756.1c1dfd75 at>...
>> 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?

I think you'll find that the problems lie much deeper than you make out. 
It is one thing to assert that one's a physicalist, it's a lot harder to 
practice that. In some areas of neuroscience the problems just don't 
arise. They manifest themselves in much more subtle and insidious ways 
David Longley

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list