On Dec 18, 2008, at 5:26 PM, William Conger wrote:
I don't understand why some here are so against neuroscience and take pains to trivialize it. While it is true that the science deals with material and events that are measurable, it is also true that your alternative essence of consciousness, presumably not material and therefore not measurable, cannot be demonmstrated at all, in any way whatsoever, except by means of subjective declaration. So if neurology is too limited and trivial, what, indeed, what, is left and how do we know it?
Here's an analogy you'll like: Those who reject neuroscience and similar inquiries into cognition, perception, even "creativity" are like creationists, who reject evolution in preference to the mystery and immanence of Creation. There's that ineffability factor: In the beginning was the ineffable act. It can't be argued. Why try to figure out what mechanism gave rise to Shakespeare's thinking, much less his creative playwriting, when 'ineffability" covers it? And we can't be sure that science can actually figure it out, anyway?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady [email protected]
