Eubulides wrote:
>
>
>
> Neuroscientists got rid of homunculi a long time ago.
Yes -- that's my point; spontaneous lay thought has _not_ gotten rid of
it.
>
> There is no necessity in deploying reductive redescriptions of human
> activity/behavior,
Is that true for every possible proposition about human feeling/thought/emotion/sensation/perception? Specifically, was the original post from CGE (a) such a description and (b) if so, was it pointless
> nor is anything gained by asserting that the brain makes
> a mistake when the claim that 2 + 2 = 5 is made.
Agreed. So?
> As if we could ever find
> the guilty neurons. Or did the mitochondria do it????????
Probably not. But so? Searching for the (non-existent) guilty neurons might, however, have serendipitous results.
Thinking about the brain is not the same as thinking about human consciousness, but the two are related, and I don't see the point in taking a Know-Nothing attitude towards such thought.
Locating specific neuronal circuits could, conceivably, lead to treatment for those who (say) through a brain imagery have lost their capacity to respond to tone in speech. My name is not Daniel Clement Dennett.
Carrol
>
> Ian
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk