It's not a tautology. Until quite recently no one had any idea that these things were true. It represents a tremendous amount of utterly non-obvious empirical research and theory. It's a partial explanation. But only partial. For lots of purposes we have it's totally irrelevant that our behavior consists in neurochemical and mechanical alterations of biological systems, even though it is true that our behavior does so consist and for certain purposes explanatory of it.
But as Ian says, that's a far cry from saying that that's all there is to us. With respect to a lot of what we are interested in, such as evaluating our success in arithmetical calculation (Ian's example), transforming language into poetry, or even something as simple, biological, and elementary (haha) as sexual desire, it's wholly irrelevant that what we do involves C-fiber firings and the like. In Silk Stocking Cole Porter has a clever song, "It's a chemical reaction, that's all," talking about love. But that's from the composer who gave us Just One Of Those Things, Begin the Beguine and So In Love, so we _know_ that's not all.
Disclaimer, decades ago I wrote a dissertation and some papers out of it meditating in part on these topics, don't start me talking, I'll tell everything I know. However, one thing I said in one of those papers might be useful here: to say that we now know that water is H2O isn't to say that there isn't any water, just dihyrogen monoxide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(molecule)
it's to say that there _is_ water, and now we know what it is in the sense of knowing its chemical composition. Of course that's quite irrelevant for a lot of things we care about with respect to the stuff. Replace all there reference to water in Arnold's Dover Beach with the chemical name and you'll lose a lot without any gain at all.
The sea is calm tonight, The tide is full, the moon lies fair Upon the straits; on the French coast the light Gleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand, Glimmering and vast, out in the tranquil bay. Come to the window, sweet is the night air! Only, from the long line of spray Where the sea meets the moon-blanched land, Listen! you hear the grating roar Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling, At their return, up the high strand, Begin, and cease, and then again begin, With tremulous cadence slow, and bring The eternal note of sadness in.
Sophocles long ago Heard it on the Agean, and it brought Into his mind the turbid ebb and flow Of human misery; we Find also in the sound a thought, Hearing it by this distant northern sea.
The Sea of Faith Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled. But now I only hear Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar, Retreating, to the breath Of the night wind, down the vast edges drear And naked shingles of the world.
Ah, love, let us be true To one another! for the world, which seems To lie before us like a land of dreams, So various, so beautiful, so new, Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light, Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain; And we are here as on a darkling plain Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, Where ignorant armies clash by night.
Or try it with Homer, "The wine-dark dihyrogen monoxide." It doesn't scan. Come on in, the dihydrogen monoxide's fine!
--- Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Doug Henwood wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 10, 2007, at 5:23 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> >
> > > Your sense of you fingers on the cup handle _is_
> a movement of
> > > neurotransmitters.
> >
> > Yeah, but is that the end of the line? Have you
> reached some sort of
> > foundation by saying this, or is it just a
> tautology?
>
> Both and neither. It's a tautology, but not _just_ a
> tautology. The
> spontaneous psychology/neuroscience people respond
> from is that of a
> homonunculus sitting in the brain; it is incredibly
> difficult to get rid
> of that response, and recognizing the identity of
> neural events and
> thought/feeling/sense/etc is a first step. It's
> really possible that the
> brain can't understand itself, and we will never
> have a complete
> understanding of consciousness. But forward movement
> does require
> getting rid of both the homonunculus and the
> cartesian 'soul.'
>
> Carrol
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ