Neil Rickert wrote in message <71qpgr$qoh at ux.cs.niu.edu>...
>"Ray Scanlon" <rscanlon at wsg.net> writes:
>>But mind is widely used by non-religious people, many of whom deny that
there is such a thing as a soul.
That, of course, is their privilege but if they deny awareness they produce
monkey chatter. I am aware. To me this is ultimate reality. This is what
Descartes was getting at when he said, "I think". He should better have
said, "I am aware". Thinking is a material process of activated neurons.
>>When I observe the direction in which neuroscience is headed, I see no
other
>>outcome than a brain that thinks and decides. Talk of an "executing
process"
>>is just babble by those who will not undertake the labor of "hard"
science.
>>Then I guess all computer scientists just babble, because the
>computer science literature is full of talk of executing processes.
Come, now! Let me make explicit what was implicit. "Talk of the soul (mind,
awareness) as an executing process is just babble by those who will not
undertake the labor of 'hard' science." Let us not pick at the presence or
absence of commas.
The brain shall be explained as neuronal activity. Perception, emotion, and
decision shall be seen as neuronal activity. The brain and its activities
shall be no more mysterious than the computer is, or ever was, to the
computer engineer. When this has been done, it shall be clear that it is the
soul we speak of, that which is aware. For that reason, I argue that it
should be better to use the word "soul" rather than mind, awareness,
intelligence, self, personhood, whatever.
Ray
Those interested in how the brain works might look at
www.wsg.net/~rscanlon/brain.html