IUBio

mind/soul (blueprint??))

Ray Scanlon rscanlon at wsg.net
Tue Nov 3 18:21:03 EST 1998


Neil Rickert wrote in message <71ioga$ks6 at ux.cs.niu.edu>...

>No, I am not a Marxist, and I do not consider DNA a dirty word.  I
>happen to like science to be accurate, and not just a set of "Just
>So" stories.


Wouldn't we all.

It is for this reason that I argue that people should use the word "soul"
instead of "mind" when referring to that which is aware. Let the brain think
and let neuroscientists examine the brain. Let the soul (mind, self,
intellect) be aware of the constellations of active neurons in the working
brain. Let the soul be aware of them as "thoughts".

I say this so that we shall have accurate science on the one hand and devout
religion on the other.

It is my conjecture that toward the end of the next century, when the
activities of the brain are fully worked out, it shall be clear that the
brain has no need of soul. People will then know soul and turn to religion
for solace.

So. let us have science now and religion then.

Ray
Those interested in how the brain works might look at
www.wsg.net/~rscanlon/brain.html





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net