brain (fwd)

cmspecht at acsu.buffalo.edu cmspecht at acsu.buffalo.edu
Sat May 10 20:35:51 EST 1997

On Sat, 10 May 1997 18:32:13, Richard Hall <rhall at uvi.edu> wrote:

>Nice Flame.

>I have no problem with the discussion, except that as many have mentioned
>so many times before science focuses on questions that can be tested.
>Phrases such as conscious mind, free will, etc. are not meaningful terms
>any scientific context. The entire discussion does not fit neur-sci...it
>is as I stated better suited to other venues.

one more time - the bulk of that post was not about religion - it referred
the poster to references concerning a scientific and philosophical 
approach to question of consiousness.  sorry, i have studied MORE than
just neuroscience.  what a shame.  why are you so hung up on that?
whether you believe in god or not, religion is a fact and my response
was valid and logical.  why don't you just read the rest of the post and
contribute to it as well?

>From my address, you might realize that I am a trained and qualified
>scientist (for over 26 years).  In fact, I have some experience with
>neurosciences and present course material from a very formal evolutionary
>perspective. This is not the first time, I have listened to "How many
>angels can dance on the top of a pin, what makes humans so special"

>Where do you see the science in any of the re:brain "discussion"?

try my very first post on the thread.  while you continue to focus on the
religious "part", i referred the poster to writings of johnathan searle
(whom you obviously have not studied) and francis crick (whom i am sure
you at least heard of).

let me reiterate for one last time that while i mention religion, it was
in context to a comment by eugene that "it does not matter" whether we
"think" we make decisions, we acutually make decisions, or we are under
some "illusion" that we make decisions (vis-a-vis free will).  whether you
"think" it is relevant or not, religion (whether you believe or not; I DO 
NOT) is one reason that the notion has relevance.

that was my comment.  the rest of the post addressed the question from a
scientific aspect (yes, from even the philosopher searle's point).  in 5
or 10 or 26 years, you simply have not come across it, apparently.
neverthless, consciousness has a home in science.  if you care to consider
this, ask me for more references, if not, please provide some yourself.

colleen specht

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net