Only just got back on LBO, so I've missed the guts of your convo, but I picked up this Chomsky quote/paraphrase somewhere (the book's at home). Is it relevant to anything you guys are on about? There's a lot in in, I reckon.
'the whole issue of whether there's a physical basis for mental structures is a rather empty issue,' because, in the development of modern science, 'the concept "physical" has been extended step by step to cover anything we understand', so that 'when we ultimately begin to understand the properties of mind, we shall simply ... extend the notion "physical" to cover these properties as well.'
Cheers, Rob.
>``But linguistics and cognitive science is hardly alone in their
>dismissals. Most of the controversial and difficult to justify
>constructs in many of the biological sciences suffer the same
>blindness. These organic systems evolved from and are completely
>co-mingled with the physical systems of their own foundation and
>origin. To not take this into account is a kind of narrow minded view
>that functions to inhibit a more complete understanding of what is
>going on. Genetics and evolution are obvious examples.'' (CG)
>
>Agreed. But surely the effects of ongoing processes like genetics and
>evolution don't need to be taken into account for every sort of question
>about human meaning. Which isn't to say they aren't playing an actively
>role, allowing the possibility of our particular meanings, at any
>moment, but their role can certainly be held constant hence fenced off for
>many purposes.
>
>Like for the purpose of wondering if I've correctly understood where your
>critique is coming from.
>
>Maureen