On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:43:20 -0500, Paul Bramscher
<brams006_nospam at tc.umn.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>>> Richard F Hall wrote:
>>>>> On 11 Oct 2004 13:14:48 -0700, rscanlon at nycap.rr.com (ray scanlon)
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> There is a continual attempt by the religionists to show that the
>>>> brain is other than the expression of the DNA. The DNA constructs a
>>>> precisely connected brain and sets the rules for synaptic growth and
>>>> strengthening. These rules provide the structure with which the brain
>>>> alters itself to adjust to the exterior world.
>>>>>>>>> It's true, the dog's brain is a different basic design than a human
>>> brain and each of these designs carry out different functions. [....]
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>> The main functions of a dog's brain and a human's brain are exactly the
>> same: to control the animal's movements, to seek food and sex, to react
>> to and control fellow members of the pack, etc.
>>>> Humans have a few bits that are more complex than the corresponding bits
>> in a dog, but the converse is true also. There's is no basic difference.
>> The differences are all on the surface - literally, for once.
>>I recall reading Nagel's "What is it like to be a bat?" paper and
>imagine that bats probably construct a map of the world from auditory
>signals (and dogs probably do to a great extent through smell).
>>So the DNA does differ and, expectedly, functionality is somewhat different.
>>So it's a scoping thing. Is the function to build a memory map of the
>world, and contain predisposition toward particular sorts of behavior in
>relation to it (the map) or do you want to get more specific? Our map
>is visual, and we place no tresspassing signs. Most other mammals
>urinate to mark territory. And so there clearly are functional
>differences at narrower scopes.
I wonder what academics do to mark their territory. Urinate on failed
proposals, perhaps?
Regards - Lester
