Re: death of the mind.
From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 07/27/04
- Next message: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: True Gems of Scientific Epistemology"
- Previous message: dan michaels: "Re: True Gems of Scientific Epistemology"
- In reply to: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: death of the mind."
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: death of the mind."
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: death of the mind."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:23:06 +0100
In article <fa69ae35.0407270148.88c4913@posting.google.com>, Eray
Ozkural exa <erayo@bilkent.edu.tr> writes
>"John Hasenkam" <johnh@faraway.> wrote in message
>news:<41050c89@dnews.tpgi.com.au>...
>> "dan michaels" <feedbackdroids@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:8d8494cf.0407252021.66067bcf@posting.google.com...
>> > "John Casey" <kjcasey@hotkey.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:<410422ee_1@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>> >
>> >
>> > > So hard to convey a mental concept using words with shifting
>> > > meanings. Have you ever read the Matter Myth by Paul Davies?
>> >
>> >
>> > This isn't actually related to your question to Eray, but I've always
>> > had the feeling that PD was really just a fundammentalist masquerading
>> > as a scientist. Whadyathink?
>>
>> Well he did win the Templeton Prize, I think that is the name. It was for
>> improving communication between science and religion ...
>>
>> For that matter, I wonder about the real motivations behind Penrose.
>
>Me, too.
>
>He seems to claim the solution to the mind/body for himself. Hence,
>the philosophical arguments based on Godel's results, etc. He's a
>physicist: he will surely prefer the mind to be a wave function,
>rather than a computation which the computer scientists know better.
>
>Regards,
>
>--
>Eray Ozkural
Does it not bother you (even a little) that so many of the people with
imaginative ideas about "the mind" have such a poor grasp of behavioural
science?
It isn't that they've studied it and don't *agree*, rather, it
invariably seems to me to be the case that they just don't get the
important facts right. Conversely, those who *do* seem to be able to
give an accurate account of what is the case (whether they *agree* or
not) don't seem to say the things about "the mind" etc that the former
group do.
Do you think there might be something to this (genetic fallacy: Ad
Verecundiam, Ad Hominem)? I reckon the problem outlined above is the
work of the intensional idioms. Have you discovered what those are yet?
-- David Longley
- Next message: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: True Gems of Scientific Epistemology"
- Previous message: dan michaels: "Re: True Gems of Scientific Epistemology"
- In reply to: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: death of the mind."
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: death of the mind."
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: death of the mind."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
