On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 6:50:03 -0700, Richard Norman wrote
(in message <i1392ukefcde7akqinu9nmvbljcp5gri99 at 4ax.com>):
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 10:31:09 GMT, "Glen M. Sizemore"
> <gmsizemore at triad.rr.com> wrote:
>>> "db" <no at email.com> wrote in message
>> news:01HW.B849996A000D513A180E5A80 at news...>>> Are any neuroscientists here interested in philosophy of mind?
>>>>> GS: Most behavioral neuroscientists are - but
>> uncritically so. And that is precisely what is wrong
>> with behavioral neurobiology.
>>>> Many neurophysiologists are -- but don't let it interfere with their
> work!
>> I don't mean to be snide (well, OK, actually I did) but there is
> something that feels objective and "real" about cells doing their
> thing. And each year it seems that cell function becomes more and
> more complex. The simple "make an action potential" of decades past
> is now submerged into the wallow of "cell signaling" which brings in
> just about every biochemical and molecular biological trick that cells
> have. This brain work seems so distant from mind that it tends to
> produce a dualist attitude.
>>>>
If the general premise of neuroscience is that the brain produces behavior
and consciousness (*?*), would that not tend to stray from any non-coporeal
conception of mind? Diving in deeper, if we assume that at some point
neuroscience could possibly reach final point where the brain - and thus mind
- is completely understood? If the processes of the brain are governed by
universal, temporally static laws of physics, would this not throw free will
out the window?
Any feedback is appreciated.
db
