Hi All
Oh dear! More noise on the list than intelligible discussion. Let's all calm down a
bit and start again because if we don't then there is no point in discussing
anything. The thread for this month is, I believe, Brain Mind and Intellect and
Lithien reminded everyone about the articles in the New Scientist.
I've had a brief read through all of the articles the overwhelming impression I got
was that no-one has a clue why any of the observations made are occurring. Most
of the explanations sound to me like the pre-Copernican notion that the planets
move in their orbits because angels cause them to do so.
What has hardly been touched on is the unbelievable complexity of the brain and
that what understanding we do have is so pathetically inadequate that, at the
moment, we don't have a clue why the brain functions as it does.
Add to this the idea that it is the brain, the whole brain and nothing but the brain
which is responsible for 'consciousness' and the floudering is set to continue.
The articles look at a number of interesting issues but seem to approach these
issues from a purely neurobioligical point of view, which is a bit like appraoching
what makes a good novel from the point of view of language syntax.
Do the words appear in the right order and follow the NP/VP structure?
Yep.
Oh! Well it must be a good novel.
Admittedly, the neurobiological approach is a reasonable starting point given the
paradigm within which most of the researchers are working. In fact it is probably
the only reasonable starting point. Where I think it falls down though is that given
that we have almost no understanding of why the brain funtions in the way that it
does any theory is virtually unsupportable. Part of the cause of this problem is
directly attributable to the attempt to transpose the scientific method of physics
and chemistry (and to some parts of biology) to the understanding of the cognitive
and intellectual processes. It is just not possible.
I think that the MoQ would suggest that a major shift in perspective is necessary
in order to even start making sense of the issues raised in the articles. The first
being to stop treating biological, social and intellectual values as if they are
variations of inorganic PoV's. Next would be to identify which attributes mentioned
are created by the values at which levels.
In the Zombie article, it seems reasonable that biological patterns are responsible
for many of the described phenomena. There also doesn't seem to be any
difference noted between instinctive and learned behaviour, but there are a number
of references to the unconscious and the conscious as if there are two (or more)_
seperate minds at work and they are competing for space. As far as I can see
there is only one mind, which is distinct from brain and thus instinct/reflex, and
this is attributable to the social level.
I would hazard a guess and say that the article on intuition is also another
attribute of the social level.
What has been left out, throughout all of the articles, is any reference to
complexity. This is a major factor but is ignored - strange!
Ah well!
Horse
> "They (mystics) share a common belief that the fundamental nature of
> reality is outside language; that language splits things up into parts while
> the true nature of reality is undivided."
***********************************************************************
"Prejudice is the greatest labour saving device known to man,
it enables one to form an opinion without having to go to
the trouble of checking the facts.
Quote from Stephen Fry - Source Unknown
(Could be Oscar Wilde ??)
************************************************************************
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:43 BST