On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:03:08 -0500, PV wrote:
> mimus
hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>
>> Can neurology describe a thought yet? (and in the "knowledge gap" left
>> by the immaturity of neurology, the usual frauds flourish.)
>
> Um, Neurology is not epistomology, you goober.
Thoughts are biological phenomena, the proper matter of the biological
subscience zoology's subscience neurology.
Fancy philosophers and various frauds can say whatever they want, and do;
what matters are the infrastructure(s) and infrafunction(s) of thought.
> And Neuroscience is doing quite well, thank you very much.
Can neuroscience describe a thought yet?
*snort*
Why are you indignant at the observation that neurology is an immature
science?
(I didn't say we haven't learned or don't know quite a bit.)
>> And doesn't your GUT tell you that the maturation of either cosmology
>> or nuclear physics would result in the immediate or rapid maturation of
>> the other?
>
> You are Steven Colbert and I demand your truthiness.
I am economical in my truthiness.
>> Foithermore, I have an uneasy feeling that the slam-'em-together crowd
>> in nuclear physics may be fiddling with an infinite sequence, with
>
> Cuz you know more about physics then people who work in the field.
> Yessir. *
No fundamental granularity yet (heh).
And no-one's spotted a string yet, either.
--
It's the Peterson kid dressed as an iguana!
< _Bloom County Babylon_
