On 5 Sep 2004 10:07:29 -0700, feedbackdroids at yahoo.com (dan michaels)
in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<4139fb98.7723593 at netnews.att.net>...
>>>> I suspect the real problem with respect to analysis of the human brain
>> is that we are up against the last organ where we could expect to find
>> causative significance for the soul. So whether or not we choose to
>> assign causative significance for the soul with respect to behavior,
>> we are nonetheless at a threshold with respect to any mechanical
>> explanation for those peculiarly human behavioral characteristics.
>>>>>As mentioned in the other post, this line of argumentation is endemic
>to classical "lineal" thinking, which is what, it appears, the vast
>battalions of opposing philosophers who have ever lived have been
>engaged in. In effect, two more or less straight "arrows" converge
>from *opposite* directions and a fight ensues. Modern thinking
>requires adding recursion/recurrency [as in context] to the mix.
I'm not sure what the last comment means. But I don't see it has any
bearing on whether there is any organic basis for those peculiarly
human characteristics we assign humans to the general exclusion of
animals and plants. It's nice to visualize the argument in classic
terms of battalions of opposing linear and non linear thinkers never
to be reconciled, but it's a lot more important than that. The entire
edifice of science, and particularly behavioral science, hangs in the
balance. Endemic the arguments may be. But unresolvable and unsolvable
Regards - Lester