Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: aeo6 (aeo6_at_cornell.edu)
Date: 03/15/05 

Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:43:51 -0500

robert j. kolker said:
>
>
> Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
>
> >>>
> >
> > Yes, so perhaps it is premature to totally dismiss the non-physical in
> > discussion of mind/brain.
>
> Do you think it is premature to dismiss the non-physical in
> digestion/stomach too?

That is a chemical processing plant, with some information feedback, but is not
a computing device for processing data. It processes chemicals. By the way,
psychological states effect the disgestion, haven't you heard?
>
>
> > I think the possibility of detailing all the chemical
> > reactions involved in a feeling or thought from the bottom up is remote in the
> > near term. There are top-down interpretations that can complement that
> > approach. Can you imagine trying to build a bridge based on the quantum states
> > of all the electrons in the molecules that comprise it, or can you perhaps
> > think of an easier way to build a bridge? The macro approach has its virtues. I
> > think that mind is actually quite approachable given the right perspective, and
> > not as mysterious as many seem to think.
>
> The macro approach is necessary because of our intellectual limitations.
> We have limited intellects. We can maintain an internal push down list
> of between 5 and 9 items (with few exceptions). We have to build
> hierarchical structures on which to hang our concepts like hats on a hat
> rack. This does not reflect the structure of the world as much as it is
> a function of our "mental" limits. If we had 100 lb brains and could
> live a thousand years we might be able to do the reduction to the
> molecular level explcitly. But we have three pound brains and we have to
> use whatever tricks we can to keep from becoming confused.
Yeah, so, use them. Stop being so bottom-up. For now we can refer to mind in
lieu of other mechanical explanations, and even when we have formalized it as a
physical system entirely, we will still refer to "mind", because it describes
the abstract process of thought, not the concrete physiology of brain. You keep
trying to say it's not a substance, but no one is saying it is. Mental objects
are not substantial, but they are also not fictions.
>
> Do not confuse the epistemic state of our brain system and its doings
> with the physical state of the world.

>
> Bob Kolker
>
> >
> 

-- 
Smiles,
Tony

Relevant Pages
Loading