In article <3640c1f6.0 at ns2.wsg.net>, "Ray Scanlon" <rscanlon at wsg.net> wrote:
>Neil Rickert wrote in message <71ofsg$p01 at ux.cs.niu.edu>...
>>"Ray Scanlon" <rscanlon at wsg.net> writes:
>>>Neil Rickert wrote in message <71ioga$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.
>>The problem with this is that it conflicts with ordinary usage. The
>>usual idea is that the soul is spiritual or immaterial, whereas the
>>mind might well be material - something like an executing process or
>>virtual machine. Since I don't believe in souls, I prefer the term
>>mind.
>What is "ordinary usage"? "Mind" is widely used among religious people (the
>majority by any reasonable count) to refer to the part of the soul that
>thinks and reasons. They would say that the soul also feels and decides. and
>is thus more than just mind.
>"Might well be material". The brain is certainly material and one who has no
>use for soul might easily limit himself to "brain" when others say "mind".
>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.
Yes. They know not what they are talking about.
>Whether there is any material manifestation of soul (mind, self, personhood,
>understanding, intellect, consciousness) is the subject matter of cognitive
>science. So far they have produced absolutely nothing. When speaking of what
>is to be, Chalmers is an optimist, Mcginn a pessimist. I stand with McGinn
>and expect to see cognitive science gradually wither away as neuroscience
>explains the brain.
>So let us use "brain" and "soul" so that we remind ourselves when we slip
>off into theology.
And rise to that, which is beyond all description.
>Ray
>Those interested in how the brain works might look at
>www.wsg.net/~rscanlon/brain.html
