David Longley <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bszN0rD$fENBFw2K at longley.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <363d693e.0408301514.1d155bb7 at posting.google.com>, ray
> scanlon <rscanlon at nycap.rr.com> writes
> >I find it interesting that we can have a discussion of how the cells
> >in the liver work together without any bitter attacks on a persons
> >parentage. But when a similar discussion on how the interneurons are
> >connected and how they work is broached there is nothing but
> >invective.
> >
> >What is wrong?
> >
> >Ray
> A personal view (posted from comp.ai.philosophy and addressed to readers
> of that group):
>> Perhaps it's because when people talk about the liver they aren't (these
> days) likely to use its structure and function as a foil (Cartesian
> projection screen) upon which to project their pet folk psychological
> metaphysical prejudices of "mind" or "self". Most people "talking about
> the brain" aren't, in my experience, talking about the brain at all.
> They don't actually know enough about it (despite decades of experience
> in some cases!).
There is a genuine problem here. Some contributors are seeking a
physical description of experience. You seem to look around you and
believe that what you experience is the things in themselves yet I
have seen no indication from you about how this could work using
physics. You must be aware that experience is a 'view', it does not
have the same form as things 'out there' yet you offer no explanation
for this view. If you have a theory of experience please describe how
the 'view' occurs. How can experience appear to be a set of things
laid out in space and viewed as if from a point eye. Please describe
the physics of how this phenomenon (or illusion) occurs.
Best Wishes
Alex Green
