On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 6:50:03 -0700, Richard Norman wrote
(in message <i1392ukefcde7akqinu9nmvbljcp5gri99 at 4ax.com>):
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 10:31:09 GMT, "Glen M. Sizemore"
> <gmsizemore at triad.rr.com> wrote:
>>> "db" <no at email.com> wrote in message
>> news:01HW.B849996A000D513A180E5A80 at news...>>> Are any neuroscientists here interested in philosophy of mind?
>>>>> GS: Most behavioral neuroscientists are - but
>> uncritically so. And that is precisely what is wrong
>> with behavioral neurobiology.
>>>> Many neurophysiologists are -- but don't let it interfere with their
>> I don't mean to be snide (well, OK, actually I did) but there is
> something that feels objective and "real" about cells doing their
> thing. And each year it seems that cell function becomes more and
> more complex. The simple "make an action potential" of decades past
> is now submerged into the wallow of "cell signaling" which brings in
> just about every biochemical and molecular biological trick that cells
> have. This brain work seems so distant from mind that it tends to
> produce a dualist attitude.
If the general premise of neuroscience is that the brain produces behavior
and consciousness (*?*), would that not tend to stray from any non-coporeal
conception of mind? Diving in deeper, if we assume that at some point
neuroscience could possibly reach final point where the brain - and thus mind
- is completely understood? If the processes of the brain are governed by
universal, temporally static laws of physics, would this not throw free will
out the window?
Any feedback is appreciated.