In article <3fn7mf$3fq at strauss.udel.edu>, greggt at strauss.udel.edu (Thomas R. Gregg) writes:
|> Prat Itharat <pitharat at sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
|> ...
|> That sounds like dualism. A reductionist neuroscientist would say, "Why
|> introduce the concept of a mind? It seems possible to explain most animal
|> behavior in terms of brain activity. Why do our theories need something
|> controlling the brain?"
_animal_ behavior, yes. - but what about philosophy, literature, art,
poetry, etc. - things that only humans do?
|> How can we measure the "mind"? What is the source of energy for the
|> "mind"? Where is it located? What is it made of, matter or energy? If
|> energy, what kind of energy? What is the nature of the brain/mind
|> interface?
well, if it's not an entity that _can_ be subject to scientific analysis,
if the scientific approach/mindset can_not_ know some ``things'' that
nonetheless have some real reality, that answers your questions.
|> >-=Prat=-
|> >ps) I did not mean to offend anyone. If I did, I am truely sorry. I'm just
|> >trying to express what I believe in.
|>|> Tom
|> --
|> Tom
(just a thought...)
--
Marj Tiefert, Biosym Technologies, San Diego, California, USA
marj at biosym.com <-- this is correct, auto-reply could be wrong
I never object to a certain degree of disputatiousness in a young man
from the age of seventeen to that of four or five and twenty, provided
I find him always arguing on one side of the question.
--S. T. Coleridge, 1817
http://www.lib.virginia.edu/etext/stc/Coleridge/stc.html
--
*******************************************************************************
* DISCLAIMER: Unless indicated otherwise, everything in this note is *
* personal opinion, not an official statement of Biosym Technologies, Inc. *
*******************************************************************************
