[Neuroscience] Re: Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience
(by myukhome At hotmail.com)
Thu Nov 30 10:20:18 EST 2006
I have a question while attempting to match the two statements below:
>The brain doesn't
>think, and mercury atoms are not silvery and slippery.
>What is inside the head is the neurophysiology that mediates behavioral
>function. There are no data that are counter to that notion.
Would it sit well with you, if one
a. takes the "neurophysiology that mediates behavioral function"
b. then calls it "thinking"
c. then interprets "thinking" as a label covering the two major mediating
agents which are */ cognitive and **/ emotional modes of the mediating
d. then specifies that the conscious does not have to be equated with
"thinking" as there is */non-conscious, i.e. outside of perception and/or
awareness behaviour as well as **/ the reflex/ automatic/ not-will based
subtypes of the same "mediating" function?
e. while the brain regions need to be understood as */ parts of the networks
containing internal labour distribution which are yet to be understood while
**/ the brain as a whole should not be equated with a system of networks
(per Bertalanfi's a system is not a sum of subsystems) but is, on one hand,
the environment for these networks (intrinsic brain activity), while, on the
other hand, has its own functions which are NOT the functions of any
particular part of the brain, nor of a network, nor a cluster of networks
f. and should be understood only within the context of */ the related
behavior and **/ the actual environment?
Would you agree that, when conversing about complex systems, we need to
attend not to some specific terms in use, or the sentences, of the
paragraphs, but to the non-verbal invariants of what a specific verbal
sequential context MUST outline?
Would you agree that there could be a reasonably "proper" requirement for
communicating thoughts on complex systems, for instance, in the form of
functional diagrams, so an at-a-glance perception and then comprehension of
someone's model can be OPTIMALLY perceived, so we are not in the graveyard
of the fragmented by the definition verbal constructs?
It seems to me that the majority of the arguments made only verbally, i.e.
with no visual -spatial invariants, do nothing, but evok additional
arguments to patch up the incompleteness of the verbal mode of communication
while, in fact,... the majority of the time we are talking about the same
thing, however, making emphasis on different parts of the same construct and
then evoking useless or erroneous verbal exchanges?
I think we need to start asking each other "to show your picture", i.e.
asking to produce the resulting "product" in the most complete and a
"user-friendly" modality: diagrams and pictures, if not "movies"
representing one's comprehensiveness of modelling a phenomenon in her/his
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters!
More information about the Neur-sci