why study neurology?

Nick Medford nick at hermit0.demon.co.uk
Tue Jan 15 21:55:19 EST 2002

Just wanted to amend something in my previous post:

In article <5hDBmZA2ROR8EwFY at hermit0.demon.co.uk>, Nick
Medford <nick at hermit0.demon.co.uk> writes
>I don't accept that the experience of travelling at speed would be
>completely understood by someone who had studied the mechanics of the
>bike but never ridden on one. That is a nice example because, unlike our
>friend Monochrome Mary, it is not purely hypothetical- it is already
>possible with current understanding to have a complete knowledge of the
>underlying physics. (So would you argue that someone with that
>knowledge would have a complete understanding of the experience of
>motion, without having actually had the experience?) 

On reflection, you are free to answer no to that I guess, as by your
argument they would still need the knowledge of the underlying
neurobiology of the experience, as well as the underlying physics of the
bike. So it's no more (or less) a real-life example than dear old
Monochrome Mary.

This doesn't change my basic argument though.
Nick Medford

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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