fresco
The book that I often refer to on matters of cognitive science is "Philosophy in The Flesh".
This book has an extensive bibliography giving the research of many different domains of knowledge. Neural scientists included. Cognitive science has depended upon the empirical evidence gathered by many different disciplines to arrive at their conclusions, especially the neural sciences and those sciences that deal with the newer technology that do brain scans and also software for neural modeling.
Fresco, what I like best about your general approach to matters like human cognition is that it includes "technical" findings and theories of "nueral scientists" but does so within a larger philosophical framework, i.e., the problematics of presuppositions and paradigms.
If I am flattering you, it is well deserved.
Linguistically, we use the same word, "mind," to mean both the brain and the actuating principle or soul or spirit, which causes confusion. When you throw in the old saw, "mind over matter," you add the dimension of will -- even ambition -- to the word mind.
Has anyone ever seen a dead animal, particularly a just deceased pet, or a dead human who has not been embalmed? Seeing the recently dead demonstrates that the whole being is more than the sum of its parts.
No matter, never mind.
I like that one.
JLN,
Belated thanks!
If coberst wishes to discuss "the spiritual" in relationship to "cognitive science" he cannot but hold traditional concepts like "empirical evidence" at arms length. As far as I know so-called "cognitive scientists" (of which I was one) cannot even explain how the neural system of an insect operates relative to its limited range of integrated behavioral responses. There is much speculation on "cognition" of course and plenty of popularist writers like Dennet and Pinker who glibly gloss over the cracks. (I even raised this by email with Pinker who at least had the decency to make non-committal reply on his way to the bank !)
Perhaps we should recommend to our friend coberst that book you kindly drew my attention to..."the Cambridge Symposium". This would give a good introduction to the major philosophical problems involved.
Fresco, you are most welcome. Are you referring to The Cambridge Quintet: A Work of Scientific Speculation by John L. Casti? That is a great reading.
Plainoldme, thanks for the reminder: "Seeing the recently dead demonstrates that the whole being is more than the sum of its parts." Indeed, it may be that EVERYTHING is more than the sum of its parts, as is the Cosmos (I think).
And, from the zen point of view, everything is empty. If, as Heraclitis and the "Eastern sages" note, all IS flux (that's more than saying all is IN flux), there are no static things in flux; there is no being, only becoming--which is my understanding of the meaning of zen's "emptyness" (void, sunya).
JLN,
Yes... of course !.... "the Cambridge
Quintet" (based on "Plato's
Symposium"
)
