Apologies!
In fact, arguably, I might as well say that thoughts cause neural activity!
Further,
"Thought is a priority of matter" was the blasphemy offered by Julien Offroy
de La Mettrie (1709 - 1751)......
(sounds like the universe trying to understand itself....)
cheers
ppl
----- Original Message -----
From: "PzEph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 08 December 2000 21:08
Subject: Re: MD mind without matter
> ELEPHANT TO PETER RE FUNNY THEORIES:
>
> PETER WROTE:
> > Are you seriously suggesting that theories to the effect that "there is
no
> > thought without some (as yet unspecified) neural activity", are eclipsed
by
> > theories which propose that "mind and brain are only very loosely
connected
> > [and the latter doesn't 'cause' the former] " ?
>
> ELEPHANT:
> No. I don't propose a counter theory, I simply point out that the "neural
> activity causes thoughts" theory IS a theory, and has serious problem with
> it which Beleivers are reluctant to acknowledge (eg, problems about
> criteria, definition of thought, problems about what counts as evidence,
> etc).
>
> You seem to see the available options as: (1) neurons cause thought, and
> (2), thoughts are independant of Neurons. Well, what about (3): car parts
> don't cause cars, but cars are pretty much dependant on them for driving
> along. Neurons can be part of the picture, why not? What I'm against is
> just assuming that they are the whole of it. A good picture, which I'm by
> no means ready to offer complete for competition with the defective
> pictures, would IMO acknowledge that thought is a large continuous process
> taking in (in a circle of stimulus and response which is all of it
thought)
> the whole world. That wouldn't be either unpragmatic or anti MOQ, I
> suggest, although it would involve some hard thinking about what we mean
by
> 'thought'. I seem to recommend this classic article about twice a week,
so
> here goes again.... John Dewey: The Reflex arc concept in Psychology.
It's
> on the net at:
>
> http://paradigm.soci.brocku.ca/~lward/Dewey/DEWEY_03.HTML
>
>
> Further, it seems you think I'm a mind/world dualist, possiting two
> substances which don't connect. I deny it. The only people positing any
> substances in this discussion are the ones who think that brain-stuff
> explains or determines mind stuff. I haven't offered an explanation, I'm
> pushing no kind of reductionism, and in making my observations I assert no
> primary stuff. It's just that I've noticed that one supposedly
> 'explanatory' theory does not, in fact, work.
>
> Now there's a radical kind of empiricism for you!
>
> Let's have Quality science with clear criteria and definitions that is
> supported by evidence, and not a religion of neurological psychology.
>
>
>
> Pzeph
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
