rcc@imsvax.UUCP (07/03/84)
I thought I was going to stay out of this, but I guess not. There seems to be a problem with the current mind/body discussion and that is that people are beginning to use different definitions of "mind". Some people are using the definition of mind as a physical thing (ala the "gluon theory of soul") while others are defining it as a concept, much as we define a process in a computer. At the moment, I see no problem with defining "mind" as a concept, (although I'm sure someone will point one out to me :-), however, I see a BIG problem with those who propound the physical existence of the mind (e.g. mind-body duality). There simply isn't any evidence of the existence of a mind separate from the body. All processes and functions performed by what most people call the mind are conceivably explainable by physical processes occuring in the brain. In view of the lack of evidence in its favor, for now, mind-body duality goes out the window. That brings me to another point. Regarding this: >> The success of science in explaining "things" leads many to >> the position that science explains all. Perhaps. But it >> is not a productive approach, any more than attempting to >> explain the operation of unix in terms of the quantum >> states of the constituent parts of its underlying hardware. [portions removed due to length] >> Science does not stand apart from the other conceptual >> models of mankind. Our observations are filtered through >> the limitations of physics (quantum, relativistic, and so... >> [cut out...] To stand on an article of faith that >> there are no pitfalls in all of this machinery, and thus >> science is sacrosanct, only detracts from what science does >> have to offer. >> /s/ Bill McKeeman.Wang-Inst at CSNet-Relay Science is NOT a model. Science is a METHOD, an approach to determining which one of several models of an arbitrary system is more accurate. Science does not claim to be truth (philosphers are still arguing about a definition for truth, by the way, not to mention the question, is it possible to know if something is true). Science claims to be a method by which successive approximations to the truth can be arrived at. Models are judged on the basis of how well they explain the behavior of the systems they are attempting to model, how well they predict that system's behavior, and the believability of the model's underlying assumptions. This is the strength of science and what makes the scientific method the best method of looking at the universe that mankind has invented. Science is FLEXIBLE. Science does not claim that theories and ideas arrived at scientifically are infallibly correct. NOTHING in science is sacred in the face of indisputable facts. (Note to the net: I'm going to be on vacation, so don't expect followups/replys to mail until after the 9th.) -- The preceding message was brought to you by -- Ray Chen UUCP: umcp-cs!eneevax!imsvax!rcc