Talk:Brain: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Kevin M I Schutte No edit summary |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{subpages}} | ||
I just found two articles in a row - at random, really! - which made reference to the parts of the brain being responsible for thought: [[multiple sclerosis]] and [[go (board game]]). Yet I wonder how firmly established are the theories that the brain '''produces''' thought. I can't help supposing that researchers may be relying on a philosophy of [[methodological naturalism]], rather than keeping an open mind. | |||
| | Is it '''known''' or merely '''assumed''' that human thought is a product of the brain, as opposed to say, the idea that human thought '''causes''' activity in the brain? | ||
| | Likewise, are scientists certain that there is no aspect of the human being which is non-corporeal, or do they admit the possibility (even if they decline to study it) that there is a supernatural aspect to human life, such as an immortal soul and/or [[life after death]]? | ||
| | Now, to be sure, I'm not asking that anybody's religious beliefs be promoted here. I'm just wondering where "state of the art" ends and "fairness to other ideas" begins. I only know of one brain scientist who thinks that there's more to the human mind than the biochemical activity of the brain, i.e., [[John Eccles]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
:Science is about what can be observed and tested. Anyone can speculate about there being more than this, bit its not the domain of science. I wouldn't pretend that we have a coherent understanding of thought; we don't. Imagine a million piece jigsaw in pieces in front of you. You believe that the pieces when fitted together make up a picture, because here and there you've managed to fit a few together and they seem to make part of a picture. You can't be sure you have all the pieces, and its possible that you'll be disappointed with the picture when it's finally put together. But until you've put it all together you don't know that you don't have the answer there; it's the best game in town - well, it's really the only game in town.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 08:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::This seems to be an example of the common sliding over from methodology to "fact". Religious ideas are outside the methodologies of science and history, but that doesn't make them false. Articles must keep these distinctions clear. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 09:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::We certainly don't have a complete understanding of thought. We do, however, have experimental evidence about certain kinds of thoughts or perceptions increasing metabolic activity in specific parts of the brain. Perhaps a little harder and not as much thought, we also have evidence of inhibitory activities in the brain (e.g., [[gate control theory]] of pain, role of the amygdala in impulse control). A religious idea needs to accept that these observations exist; the idea of a divine motivation is orthogonal to them. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 11:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 05:07, 18 May 2010
I just found two articles in a row - at random, really! - which made reference to the parts of the brain being responsible for thought: multiple sclerosis and go (board game). Yet I wonder how firmly established are the theories that the brain produces thought. I can't help supposing that researchers may be relying on a philosophy of methodological naturalism, rather than keeping an open mind.
Is it known or merely assumed that human thought is a product of the brain, as opposed to say, the idea that human thought causes activity in the brain?
Likewise, are scientists certain that there is no aspect of the human being which is non-corporeal, or do they admit the possibility (even if they decline to study it) that there is a supernatural aspect to human life, such as an immortal soul and/or life after death?
Now, to be sure, I'm not asking that anybody's religious beliefs be promoted here. I'm just wondering where "state of the art" ends and "fairness to other ideas" begins. I only know of one brain scientist who thinks that there's more to the human mind than the biochemical activity of the brain, i.e., John Eccles. --Ed Poor 22:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Science is about what can be observed and tested. Anyone can speculate about there being more than this, bit its not the domain of science. I wouldn't pretend that we have a coherent understanding of thought; we don't. Imagine a million piece jigsaw in pieces in front of you. You believe that the pieces when fitted together make up a picture, because here and there you've managed to fit a few together and they seem to make part of a picture. You can't be sure you have all the pieces, and its possible that you'll be disappointed with the picture when it's finally put together. But until you've put it all together you don't know that you don't have the answer there; it's the best game in town - well, it's really the only game in town.Gareth Leng 08:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- This seems to be an example of the common sliding over from methodology to "fact". Religious ideas are outside the methodologies of science and history, but that doesn't make them false. Articles must keep these distinctions clear. Peter Jackson 09:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- We certainly don't have a complete understanding of thought. We do, however, have experimental evidence about certain kinds of thoughts or perceptions increasing metabolic activity in specific parts of the brain. Perhaps a little harder and not as much thought, we also have evidence of inhibitory activities in the brain (e.g., gate control theory of pain, role of the amygdala in impulse control). A religious idea needs to accept that these observations exist; the idea of a divine motivation is orthogonal to them. Howard C. Berkowitz 11:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)