Talk:Brain: Difference between revisions
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
imported>Ed Poor (curious coincidence about the mind-brain problem) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{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) | |||
Revision as of 17:51, 29 March 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)