"Gary Forbis" wrote: in message
> "Ray Scanlon" wrote:
> > 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"?
>> That's pretty cool. I doubt the deactivation of the RNT is what we mean
> when we speak of "coming to a decision" because I interspersed rereading
> of the prior paragraph with thinking without coming to a decision. I
guess
> I came to a decision in the sense of deciding to reread the paragraph (if
> that was a decision and not just a behavior, no conscious decision was
> reached but the behavior was observed.)
Why "doubt it"? Do you have some other circuitry in mind? All mammalian
brains have a thalamic reticular nucleus (I believe; I could very well be
wrong!). When the TRN releases a motor program, presently being held up in
the V.A.-V.L. complex of the thalamus, a motor act ensues. The dog
hesitates. The dog moves. He has decided.
Possibly you are thinking of the soul (mind). That is the subject of an
entirely different tale told by the religionists. The brain belongs to
science; the soul (mind) to religion. Let us stick to the brain.
--
ray
Those interested in the brain might look at
www.wsg.net/~rscanlon/brain.htm
> > 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.)
>> I agree. It's a good thing computers are getting more powerful.
> Still, that's a lot of data to sort through.
>> > 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).
>> The line should move with technology. I wonder if current technology
> can handle anywhere near that division.
>> > 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.
>> I'd put philosophy somewhere between the two camps. One needs to
> test and identify the limits somehow.
>>
