Re: Addressing Scientific Reductionism
- From: noshellswill <noshellswill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:29:35 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:05:48 -0500, Robert J. Kolker wrote:
dkomo wrote:
Note the important ideas of "downward causation" and "canalization".
Dawkins denies the importance of the organism, prefering to view it only
as a robotic container for selfish genes. Dennett and Pinker deny the
importance of "mind", viewing it only as the epiphenomenal by product of
basic neurological mechanisms. All three of them would deny the
existence of downward causation or canalization, or any autonomous
processes operating at levels higher than their favorite atomic levels.
No one has ever observed a "mind" in any body but his own. Does that not
lead to the conclusion that "mind" is either in illusion or a
misunderstanding concerning brain and neural function. Ten thousand
years of slicing and dicing human bodies, and never has a mind been
objectively observed or located. It kind of makes you wonder, what is
the matter with mind?
Bob Kolker
Bob:
Do you always talk to yourself??
nss
************
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Addressing Scientific Reductionism
- From: Robert J. Kolker
- Re: Addressing Scientific Reductionism
- From: dkomo
- Re: Addressing Scientific Reductionism
- References:
- Addressing Scientific Reductionism
- From: whitesickle@xxxxxxx
- Re: Addressing Scientific Reductionism
- From: dkomo
- Re: Addressing Scientific Reductionism
- From: Robert J. Kolker
- Addressing Scientific Reductionism
- Prev by Date: Re: Minimization principal for evolution
- Next by Date: Comet grains - material formed at high temp
- Previous by thread: Re: Addressing Scientific Reductionism
- Next by thread: Re: Addressing Scientific Reductionism
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
