>[Krimel] >This, and your ongoing mantra about killing ALL conceptual patterns are >simply absurd. You rendering all communication as meaningless as bird song. >You would reduce us all to grunting our emotions without reflection. Nature >has bestowed upon us the gift of finding meaning. She gives us the tools to >share that meaning with each other. You would throw it back in her face, >content with a head full of immediate sense impressions, heedless of the >past and unconcerned about the future. It's like you are claiming that the >ultimate state of being would be a persistent vegetative state. > >That seems to be YOUR conception of the world, all that way down. It seems >to me if ever a concept deserved a bullet to the head, your concept would be >the one.
Marsha This is how you address my post, by accusation, by moving the onus? If it comes to deciding on something based on chicken entrails, theological sermon, experimentation or your thinking, I'll choose experimentation, but that would be experimentation, even scientific experimentation, considered with a certain amount of skepticism and epistemological humility both which seem to go missing when you speak of Science. [Krimel] All of your methods involved conceptualization. Whatever we say IS conceptual. And yet whatever gets said you dismiss as being JUST concepts... all the way down. If you kill concepts, all of them, what are you left with? I would also point out that all of science and all experimentation is an exercise in skepticism and epistemological humility. That is why I personally pay attention to it. If that strikes you are lacking in humility I think you are missing the entire point of the exercise. [Marsha] I was asking you about the relationship between thought and brain activity, whether the relationship was causal or a correlation. I was asking you about the brain science you often suggest your knowledge reflects. You gave some examples of why, you thought, it was an obvious and indisputable correlation. Then you seemed to say the relationship was causal based on 'I personally believe' and 'I think'. Do you blame me for being stunned? [Krimel] Well, yes, I am stunned that you are stunned. What sort of answers to you expect. How could anything I say in this forum ever be interpreted as being other than what "I personally believe"? I can and do attempt to add what leads me to a particular conclusion as I have done in this case. In fact I spelled out explicitly that I agree with a particular scientific approach to the question you asked. To wit: the causes of behavior and I would adding thoughts are: 1) Biology 2) Personal History 3) Present circumstances Thinking and acting are processes that result for these three "causes". All of them are necessary but none are sufficient. Brain chemistry is biological and necessary for thought but it is not sufficient to produce it. A dead brain has essentially the same chemistry as a live one. Regardless, if I say that any relation is causal or if I state that the sky is blue, these are statements of personal belief. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
