SUO: X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.7f, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm
Chris,
No, that is false:
Chris Lofting wrote
> CSP is 'old hat' when you consider the current data from
> neurocognitive/affective research data. IMHO you need to move into the 21st
> century, not wallow in the 18th/19th etc.
The issues we are discussing have absolutely nothing to do with
how the brain works. They are purely logical issues that would
work in exactly the same way for a computer, a Martian, or
any conceivable form of what Peirce called a "scientific
intelligence" -- by which he meant "any intelligence capable
of learning from experience". By that, he included humans,
dogs, parrots, and any and every kind of intelligent being
that is capable of receiving sensory inputs (of any kind) and
capable of generating motor responses (of any kind).
> In fact, with out current understanding of neurosciences etc you could BURN
> every book written pre 1960s and in a short period re-establish all of the
> 'quality' and at the same time clear away a lot of chaff simply because all
> of the material is metaphor for object/relationship processing of the
> brain/mind. - we are often overloaded with 'history' and as such can fail
to
> see things 'clearly' [;-)]
Again, that is false. Although I agree that there is a great
deal more known about how neurons work and various parts of the
brain are activated when people are talking, thinking, or
feeling sensory inputs, experiencing emotions, etc., none of
that information tells us anything that is relevant to logic,
language, or the recognition and processing of signs.
As an example, I would suggest that you open the computer
case on which you are typing your notes and look inside.
You will find lots of wires, cables, chips, and metal boxes
with cables and wires attached. What you see is comparable
to what the neuroscientist sees in looking at the brain.
But that cannot tell you anything about how the brain or the
computer actually processes logic or language.
MRI imaging tells you a little bit more: what parts of the
brain are active when people say and do various things. That is
comparable to getting a trace of all addresses generated by the
CPU when a program is running. Trying to deduce what the program
does from that list of addresses is impossible. Trying to deduce
how people learn, think, or process language from the MRI scans
is equally impossible.
I will grant that you might be able to correlate an MRI scan
with certain kinds of thoughts, but that is still woefully
inadequate to understand what is going on in the brain. It is
comparable to using the pattern of storage accesses to determine
which program is running in a computer; that can be done, but
you still have to look at the actual source code in order to
determine what is being computed.
If you want to get a better understanding of history, I strongly
recommend that you read the following book:
James, William (1890) The Principles of Psychology,
Two volumes, Dover Publications, New York.
This is a classic textbook on psychology, which is remarkably
up-to-date. One of the reviewers, a professional psychologist
who wrote the blurb on the back of the book, said that it is
a "humbling experience" to compare what is known today about
psychology with what James wrote in 1890. For more information
about these topics, I suggest that you read my review of a
recent book by Lakoff and Johnson (who also made outrageous
claims about today's neuroscience):
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/lakoff.htm
Bottom line: There is a lot that can be learned from MRI
scans and brain surgery, and I don't want to belittle it in
any way. But none of the information that is known today or
in the near future (say up to 2050) can tell us anything more
about language, logic, and signs than what William James said
in 1890 (or even what Aristotle wrote in the 4th century BC).
John Sowa