--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > From the viewpoint of a scientist doing research, > experiments can only manipulate physical variables. Any > conceptualisation of what is occurring that is given a > metaphysical explanation is out of range. So from a > scientific perspective, regarding mind and brain as > different ways of explaining the same phenomena seems > like the best approach.
Just to clarify (again), my post did not take a position on the relationship of mind to brain. My point was that the neuropsychologist who wrote the article misrepresented his own opinion on the matter as established fact, when the issue is significantly controversial. The "best approach" in this case is faute de mieux. (snip) > Perhaps the reasons for the debate regarding mind and > brain are psychological rather than having anything to > do with the reality of the situation. Suppose, > hypothetically, that a concrete proof were possible > that showed mind and brain were identical in every way > and physical. What would that do for you psychologically? > And if one were a die-hard empiricist, and the converse > was possible to prove, what would that do for you? "The reality of the situation" is that hypothetically, Materialism can be falsified (e.g., by levitation) but not proved, and Idealism can be proved (e.g., by levitation) but not falsified.
