Stathis, thanks for the considerate reply. It is - of course - your way. I try to spell out some of our disagreements on certain parts of our topic - not necessarily the "Subject" line.
You wrote July 29, 2004 8:08 AM (among others): >There is much that we do not understand about the workings of the brain, just as there is much >that we do not understand about, for example, how cancer develops, or the nature of > black holes....< Brain, I suppose in the 'broader sense, as the mental complexity including the neuronal mass. In that case there is a difference between this and the physiology of cancer or a hypothetical item widely believed in cosmology. We have to understand the target, using the target itself. This ncessitated the modeling cut of neurology into the 'neurons only' (with "somehow" included). The 'neurons only' model can be studied by the (broader) brain, not beyond some "somehow"s. Let's make no mistake: EM waves don't constitute 'images' (vision) and vibrations are not the "sound", only interpreted as such (by instruments making a percievable format, or the organs of the (broader) brain themselves, including the understanding quale). >it must be part of science.< - the elusive word, identified in almost as many forms as people. You assign a way of thinking to me (untrue) and ask >outside the domain of science? < Which one? And answer in your (loaded) train of thinking the forced conclusion: >This would then by definition be a supernatural explanation.< The 2004AD (physical) laws are not the entirety of nature, so there is no 'supernatural' if something is not 'within'. So: no such claim (for which some 'plausible reason' would be required). - If that is your belief, I accept it as such. Nolo contendere with beliefs. I knew Nagel's work and do have the 'Mind's I', the Hameroff-Penrose article was based on it. It is entertaining and just as false as assigning 'stupidity' to animals that don't talk human (or to people who don't know 'the' language). A bat, or a worm 'feels' batly or wormly and we are the stupid ones who cannot understand it in our humanese ways. The 'tool' of their mind is of smaller number of neurons - like a 1-cylinder engine is not equivalent to an 16-cylinder one. (Can you drive a 16 cylinder Rolls to imitate (perfectly) the workings of a 1-cylinder boat-engine?) Cheers John Mikes ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 8:08 AM Subject: Re: regarding QM and infinite universes > John, > > I not sure whether we actually disagree about the human brain. Truncated