Questions on the Nature of memory, personality, etc.
David at longley.demon.co.uk
Wed May 12 04:34:21 EST 2004
In message <85d56b27.0405120043.5ea05a37 at posting.google.com>, Robert
M?rtin <robertmaertin at gmx.de> writes
>> 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
>I can remember that Folk Psychology and Intentionality cannot be
>reduced to physical terms and that there is a struggle determinism vs.
>But... this never bothered me.
>What are you thinking of ?
>Do you know a situation where I might get into serious inner conflicts
>? Or an assumption I have to make as a scientist that really would be
>an outrage for certain philosophers ?
The conflict arises when one has to read other peoples' papers and
decipher what lots of them are *really doing* (as opposed to what they
say they're doing). Sadly, the methods sections are not always as clear
as one might expect. Having to skim so many introductions and
discussions, and critically read the methods and result tends to make
one a bit punch drunk! Getting down to the work oneself isn't all that
easy either. Folk insist on talking rather eccentrically and ask what
one is *really* doing <g>
More information about the Neur-sci