In a message dated 12/18/08 6:14:57 PM, [email protected] writes:
> 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? > > It's a fundamentally faulty analogy, Michael. Creationists reject evolution because they believe they have a better explanation. I don't "reject" neurology's capacity to explain certain things because I have a better explanation. And it's very naughty of you to try to sneer my argument away by implying I have ever summoned up "ineffability" as an explanation of anything, or, indeed that I ever used the word 'ineffable' on this forum. ************** One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp& icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
