> > how would you describe the relationship between biological processes
> > and psychological proccesses.
>> They are really just different ways of looking at the same thing. A
> "thought," for example, is actully a physio-chemical action taken
physically
> in the brain, a "mood" is a neurochemical state, et cetera. (and, of
course,
> other system can effect the brain, and thus the "mind" - brain and mind
are
> one, just direct verses sujective/pratacticke ways of looking at the same
> thing.)
>> Jared.
>And those ways are QUITE different. Nobody never told that there is some
exact site in the brain where you store your name, for example. And there
is no known physio-chemical process, or action, that could be strictly (in
terms of causalty) bounded to some specific "idea". And concerning the
mood... It is as much a neurochemical state as it is a "digestive" one. I
mean, neurochemistry influences the mood (as indigestion does), but not
produces it. And there is a gap between our physiological knowledge and our
psychological speculations. As maybe you know, there is a theory of the
REFLECTING brain. It says that the brain is a very complex structure that
just filters some "outer" information to provide us with the
already-existing knowledge. You can derive at least two rather offensive
conclusions from that theory: i) that the knowledge you are seeking for
already exists and there is no need to worry, just "tune" your brain
properly; ii) that your (and mine, of course) brain is of no good but to be
a receiver (then who or what is a transmitter?).I don't like it since I
hope that we are active subjects. But the arguments (of the theory) are
very strong that all our neuroscience could not explain the brain-mind
relationships (?) in plain words. Alas.
Igor
