<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Computers on the Brain: Why We Need Philosophers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://southjerusalem.com/2008/03/computers-on-the-brain-why-we-need-philosophers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://southjerusalem.com/2008/03/computers-on-the-brain-why-we-need-philosophers/</link>
	<description>A Progressive, Skeptical Blog on Israel, Judaism, Culture, Politics, and Literature</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:35:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Dornan</title>
		<link>http://southjerusalem.com/2008/03/computers-on-the-brain-why-we-need-philosophers/comment-page-1/#comment-19</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Dornan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:31:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://southjerusalem.com/?p=18#comment-19</guid>
		<description>This strikes me as a little confused.  In the first place it makes some highly materialist assumptions about the mind.  No amount of speculative hand-waving and vagaries about the organisation inside the black box will solve the conceptual problems if the basic premises behind the confusion are left in place.  I suggest &lt;i&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CZat7M81QmwC&amp;dq=philosophical+foundations+of+neuroscience&amp;pg=PP1&amp;ots=aZnJN3XFFG&amp;sig=np5YbxxHA0xkvIvIzdWxgbSlxCk&amp;hl=en&amp;prev=http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=philosophical+foundations+of+neuroscience&amp;sourceid=navclient-ff&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;rlz=1B3GGGL_enGB218GB218&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=print&amp;ct=title&amp;cad=one-book-with-thumbnail&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt; and Bennet and Hacker&#039;s discussion of the &#039;mereological fallacy&#039; in neuroscience (p. 73).

Sheldrake&#039;s &lt;i&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sheldrake.org/books/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Presence of the Past&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt; explains a useful analogy where the brain is likened to a television receiver.  As Sheldrake points out the complete inability for the materialists to explain memory (and it isn&#039;t for want of trying) should suggest there is something wrong.  In Sheldrake&#039;s metaphor it would be like hacking a TV receiver apart looking for the programme.

you could also check out an article I have written, &lt;i&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://essays.peaceandwisdom.org/articles/consciousness/consciousness.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Consciousness Really Explained?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt; from another angle, and also Henry Stapp&#039;s &lt;i&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.springer.com/physics/quantum+physics/book/978-3-540-72413-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mindful Universe&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt; provides yet another angle in trying to drag neuroscience, kicking and screaming out of the nineteenth century.

In summary, Physicalism is a busted flush.  We should have realised this in the first half of the 20th century with the failure of classical physics to account for the very small, but the denial (surely) can&#039;t be kept up for much longer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This strikes me as a little confused.  In the first place it makes some highly materialist assumptions about the mind.  No amount of speculative hand-waving and vagaries about the organisation inside the black box will solve the conceptual problems if the basic premises behind the confusion are left in place.  I suggest <i><a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CZat7M81QmwC&amp;dq=philosophical+foundations+of+neuroscience&amp;pg=PP1&amp;ots=aZnJN3XFFG&amp;sig=np5YbxxHA0xkvIvIzdWxgbSlxCk&amp;hl=en&amp;prev=http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=philosophical+foundations+of+neuroscience&amp;sourceid=navclient-ff&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;rlz=1B3GGGL_enGB218GB218&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=print&amp;ct=title&amp;cad=one-book-with-thumbnail" rel="nofollow">Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience</a></i> and Bennet and Hacker&#8217;s discussion of the &#8216;mereological fallacy&#8217; in neuroscience (p. 73).</p>
<p>Sheldrake&#8217;s <i><a href="http://www.sheldrake.org/books/" rel="nofollow">The Presence of the Past</a></i> explains a useful analogy where the brain is likened to a television receiver.  As Sheldrake points out the complete inability for the materialists to explain memory (and it isn&#8217;t for want of trying) should suggest there is something wrong.  In Sheldrake&#8217;s metaphor it would be like hacking a TV receiver apart looking for the programme.</p>
<p>you could also check out an article I have written, <i><a href="http://essays.peaceandwisdom.org/articles/consciousness/consciousness.htm" rel="nofollow">Consciousness Really Explained?</a></i> from another angle, and also Henry Stapp&#8217;s <i><a href="http://www.springer.com/physics/quantum+physics/book/978-3-540-72413-1" rel="nofollow">Mindful Universe</a></i> provides yet another angle in trying to drag neuroscience, kicking and screaming out of the nineteenth century.</p>
<p>In summary, Physicalism is a busted flush.  We should have realised this in the first half of the 20th century with the failure of classical physics to account for the very small, but the denial (surely) can&#8217;t be kept up for much longer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheDeeZone</title>
		<link>http://southjerusalem.com/2008/03/computers-on-the-brain-why-we-need-philosophers/comment-page-1/#comment-18</link>
		<dc:creator>TheDeeZone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:20:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://southjerusalem.com/?p=18#comment-18</guid>
		<description>Interesting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

