[MD] Reductionism

[MarshaV]

At 09:46 AM 6/16/2009, you wrote:
> >Krimel:
> >We know that emotions are localized in the brain in the evolutionarily
> >significant parts of the midbrain where they are found in most mammals. We
> >also know that humans have evolved large areas in both hemispheres of the
> >brain that give us rational thought. Those areas in the neo-cortex work for
> >us by combining inputs from all over the brain. They allow us to access our
> >senses and our memories and to compare the past with the present. The net
> >effect is to help us rationally decide whether to go with our automatic
> >habits or our emotional inclinations or to come up with something
>completely
> >novel. It isn't emotions or rational thought broken into pieces that
>matters
> >it is the integration and synthesis of this different modalities that get
>us
> >through the night.
>
>Marsha
>I am curious about your use of the word 'We'.  Who is this 'we'.  In
>what group are you including yourself?  Do you mean you, a
>neuroscientist, and your colleagues, or you, a plumber, and your
>barber?   Where did you learn this information?  Unless you've been
>conducting the actual experiments and can give a firsthand account,
>maybe you can point to the source of the information.
>
>
>[Krimel]
>We?
>I thought I was talking about the human family. By "we" I mean anyone with a
>brain sufficiently complex to access the intellectual level via the
>internet.
>
>If you need references:
>
>Here is a great place to start:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li5nMsXg1Lk
>
>For more detail
>http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Brain-and-Cognitive-Sciences/9-01Fall-2003/CourseH
>ome/index.htm
>
>These lectures are extraordinarily rich in information but the lecturer
>takes some getting used to. He has a boring voice but if you get past that
>his explanations of brain lesion study is quite good.
>
> >From the Teaching Company Robert Sapolsky has a set of lectures on
>neuroscience and behavior that are quite good. He is an excellent lecturer.
>These would be better to start with. But the MIT lectures are free,
>
>Also, as always, it is hard to beat Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink"
>
>Right now I am reading Jonah Lehrer's "How We Decide" it is easy reading and
>somewhat like "Blink"
>
>There is a great series from the BBC call the "Secret life of the Brain."
>You can maybe find parts of it on Youtube. Also while you are looking there
>is a series by Robert Winston from BBC called "The Human Brain" which is
>good and he also has a longer series on "The Human Body" which is
>extraordinary.
>
>V R Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain is really good. I would say mind
>blowing. Here is Part 1 you are on your own for Part 2.
>http://www.guba.com/watch/2000937292

Krimel,

I've complained to you about this in the past.  You talk as if you 
have great knowledge backed by the authority of Science.  As if the 
implication of your scientific point-of-view lends automatic 
credibility to your stories.  It does not.  Just like in the field of 
QM there are most likely opposing views which you never 
mention.  And, as the Science Wars brought to light, there are some 
inherent problems with the scientific method and scientific knowledge 
in general.  Both The Teaching Company's course, 'Science Wars: What 
Scientists Know and How They Know It' and the CBC's IDEAS Series "How 
To Think About Science" document many of the problems.  Because of 
the technical nature of science, which is constantly changing and 
being challeged, you should definitely site sources so the validity 
of such claims may be checked and alternative evidence and views may 
be investigated.

There's also the fact that you are an anonymous avatar with nothing 
to lose.  You can say whatever and if called on it, there's no skin 
off your back.  So have some consideration for we mere mortals who 
actually have "skin in the game".

Thank you for the additional information.  I'll check it out.



Marsha










_____________

"He who neglects the present moment throws away all he has."
   (Friedrich von Schiller)