To Chris (if you’re still there)
From: Platt
CHRIS:
Platt et al, some of the material on the atom awareness thread is a
joke showing a total lack in understanding of fundamentals. However,
if you wish to go off into ga-ga land that is your 'right' (if at an expense to
the culture, 'good' brains wasted ....)
I am off this list but as a goodbye below is something to think about ...
although you will need to 'get into' some neuroscience/cognitive
science and I think that might be too much for some of you! .... for those
who ARE interested note that a qualitative sense is tied to our
emotions and the interpretation of emotions where are emotions are in
turn 'attuned' to frequency/wavelength data associated with our
senses, especially the harmonics of those sense e.g. colours etc.
Your parting shot leaves something to be desired, namely, an
explanation of what you mean by “fundamentals.” As for getting into
neuroscience/cognitive science most of us are “into” enough to know it
has a long way to go to supply the answers to some fundamental
questions, one of them being the “binding problem” as explained
below from the book by John Horgan entitled, “The Undiscovered Mind.”
“As neuroscientists keep subdividing the brain, one question looms
ever larger; How does the brain coordinate and integrate the workings
of its highly specialized parts to create the apparent unity of perception
and thought that constitutes the mind. The Harvard neuroscientist
David Hubel whose experiments with Torsten Wiesel helped to create
the current crisis in neuroscience stated at the end of his book Eye,
Brain and Vision:
“‘This surprising tendency for attributes such as form, color and
movement to be handled by separate structures in the brain
immediately raises the question of how all the information is finally
assembled, say for perceiving a bouncing red ball. It obviously must be
assembled somewhere, if only at the motor nerves that subserve the
action of catching. Where it’s assembled and how, we have no idea.’
“This conundrum is sometimes called the binding problem. I would
like to propose another term: the Humpty Dumpty dilemma. It plagues
not only neuroscience but also evolutionary psychology, cognitive
science, artificial intelligence—and indeed all fields that divided the
mind into a collection of relatively discreet modules, intelligences,
instincts, or computational devices. Like a precocious eight-year old
tinkering with a radio, mind-scientists excel at taking the brain apart,
but they have no idea how to put it back together again.”
The MOQ provides an answer to this conundrum which may or may not
be the last word on the subject. To call our discussion of it “ga-ga land”
and a "joke" is your right. But for me and others, the MOQ provides
some fundamentals that not only answer this but many other problems
that neuroscience, cognitive science or any other science has yet to
solve.
Best regards,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
