Richard: Now, interpreting that result is not easy,
Richard, I get the feeling you're getting understandably tired with all your
correspondence today. Interpreting *any* of the examples of *hard* cog sci
that you give is not easy. They're all useful, stimulating stuff, but they
don't add up to a hard pic. of the brain's cognitive architecture. Perhaps
Ben will back me up on this - it's a rather important point - our overall
*integrated* picture of the brain's cognitive functioning is really v. poor,
although certainly we have a wealth of details about, say, which part of the
brain is somehow connected to a given operation.
Richard:I admit that I am confused right
now: in the above paragraphs you say that your position is that the
human mind is 'rational' and then later that it is 'irrational' - was
the first one of those a typo?
Richard, No typo whatsoever if you just reread. V. clear. I say and said:
*scientific pychology* and *cog sci* treat the mind as rational. I am the
weirdo who is saying this is nonsense - the mind is
irrational/crazy/creative - rationality is a major *achievement* not
something that comes naturally. "Mike Tintner= crazy/irrational"- somehow, I
don't think you'll find that hard to remember.
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=72407413-5af67f
