"Peter F" <fell_spamtrap_in at ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:xtTzd.131$A33.7874 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
| Hello both of you,
| "Zigoteau" <zigoteau at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103974913.418175.102300 at c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| > Hi, Jim,
| > > Are there any evidence for or against that thinking starts in the
| > brain? Or
| > > is the brain a tool for something else unknown?
| > There is plenty of evidence that thinking starts, proceeds, and
| > finishes in the brain. With positron emission tomography it is possible
| > to observe the correlation of brain metabolism with various thinking
| > processes.
| > There are still many people who find this incredible. However the
| > argument from personal incredulity is not terribly strong, and AFAICS
| > there is no evidence for thinking occurring anywhere else.
| > Merry Christmas,
|| I would say the same thing more bluntly. That there are no evidence
| other than that our thinking (and all our feelings - not to be forgotten)
| is entirely a matter of What Is going on in biological brainspacetime.
|| If one is the type who tends to seek emotional ease and comfort
| from crude but cuddly cognitive contortions and constraints, then one should avoid
| unresolvable (hard-to-digest) ultimately general, logically provable and
| lacking logical counter argument, concepts such as "What Is".
|| In my view, "What Is" carries the likewise intellectually indigestable idea of Infinity
| within its most 'globally smeared-out' - hence maximally requiring of
| a "Tolerance Principled" rational-philosophical attitude - meaning.
|| The meaning of a "tolerance principled attitude" is, to me, a extrapolation and
| 'concrete' philosophical application of Heisenberg's "uncertainty principle".)
That we know via our Biology in no
way delimits that which can be pre-
sented to our Biology, for its knowing,
via the 3-D energydynamics occurring
within the external experiential environ-
ments in which we are emersed.
And, FWIW, "uncertainty" is a Fiction
that derives in folks in Physics not do-
ing "the shampoo experiment", and, so,
remaining not seeing how continuous
energy-flow dynamics can yield indiv-
idually-directed sub-dynamics, and, so,
'declaring' the observables correlated
to the sub-dynamics to be "everything",
when all they are is sub-sets of "every-
thing" that are, nevertheless, continuous
with, and within, the "everything" :-]
Cheers, Peter, ken [K. P. Collins]