On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:42:48 -0400, mimus
hotmail.com> wrote:>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.
Mmmm. No. Thoughts are not _material_ phenomena. They are a subset of
information; they are not equivalent to the chemical processes that they
run on any more than a game of World of Warcraft is equivalent to the chips
processing it plus the electrons and holes and fields flowing through the
chips. Try again?
>Fancy philosophers and various frauds can say whatever they want, and do;
>what matters are the infrastructure(s) and infrafunction(s) of thought.
Infrastructure is all very fine, but the roads are not the same as the cars
that drive on them, nor does one derive the physics of traffic jams from
the road composition.
>> And Neuroscience is doing quite well, thank you very much.
>
>Can neuroscience describe a thought yet?
Again, why in the world would it WANT to? I think you have a fairly odd
concept of what neuroscience IS.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@
vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable
