Gary Forbis wrote:
> Ray Scanlon wrote:
> > 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.")
Of course. One is forced to use a little shorthand to get over the ground.
Do we speak of brains, nuclei, neurons, molecules, atoms, sub-atomic
particles, quarks? For us, I think that the neuron is the object of choice.
For "amygdala", read "the neurons that comprise the amygdala".
>> > 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?
When observing the brain, the neuroscientist sees neurons in varying degrees
of excitation. When looking at a brain in abstract thought, he wonders
whether this abstract thought is a consequence of the activation of the
reticular nucleus of the thalamus (the neurons that comprise the ...). This
activation of the RNT halts sensory input on its way to the neocortex and
allows the neurons of the cortex to activate free of sensory input. He
wonders which neurons activate the RNT and which others deactivate the RNT.
And is deactivation of the RNT what we mean when we speak of "coming to a
decision"?
It takes at least a minute by the clock for me to start contemplating
symbolic logic after sensory input is halted. At five milliseconds to a
synaptic event, that would be about 12,000 events. That is a long way from
the exterior universe. (Please, don't invoke Wundt.)
Possibly we could set up an arbitrary division at say, 1000 events, or five
seconds from the exterior universe. Anything below the line shades toward
science and anything above it toward religion (philosophy).
My point is that we can make a useful distinction between science and
religion. Useful in the sense that religious dialogues tend to much heat and
little light. For starters, we could try to say soul (mind) whenever the
first person is involved. I am a soul (mind) and I believe that other souls
(minds) exist. When I talk of symbolic logic, it is as one soul (mind) to
another.
--
ray
Those interested in the brain might look at
www.wsg.net/~rscanlon/brain.htm
