"Ray Scanlon" <rscanlon at wsg.net> wrote in message news:398dce06.0 at ns2.wsg.net...
> That we can embroider their [the neurons'] activity with words and speak of symbolic and
> non-symbolic models means nothing to the neuron. If we keep our attention on
> the brain, it should also mean nothing to us.
I fully agree with this... (where "the brain" is read "the system of neurons.")
> Those who speak of the soul (mind) can rightfully use words like "symbolic"
> to describe activities that take place in the soul (mind). But this belongs
> to religion, not science.
but this sets me back. The account of symbolic processing and the
scaffolding supporting it seems to me like it is open to scientific investigation.
Sure, there will always be the gap between what could be and what is;
should the gap bother us?
