tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6901431417795358010..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Mind over matterRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65046385037355502502012-06-15T01:15:23.634-04:002012-06-15T01:15:23.634-04:00Indeed, as many people probably already know, ther...Indeed, as many people probably already know, there's serious debate among virologists, microbiologists, and other scholars over whether a virus is even a living organism. For example, viruses have no nervous system let alone a developed central nervous system including anything even remotely approaching a brain at all but behave as if they're quite intelligent. In fact, viruses (or virii) hijack other organisms and make use of other organisms to reproduce, etc. The fact that viruses can hijack other organisms in the first place seems to indicate some sort of intelligent behavior.<br /><br />This in turn colors over into the question of what is life. It's not as easy to pin down as we may expect. For instance, eminent scientists like James Watson and Erwin Schrödinger have each had cracks at answering the question, without an entirely successful answer. Is life defined by the possession of a genome? By a changing or evolving genome? By a self-contained cellular structure including organelles? By the ability to metabolize and produce energy? By reproduction? By other criteria? All of the above? Some of the above? Each of these criteria could be debated as well. For example, crystals exhibit ordered growth or reproduction.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56287416013908233962012-06-14T23:37:24.121-04:002012-06-14T23:37:24.121-04:00BDK has it backwards. Philosophers and metaphysici...BDK has it backwards. Philosophers and metaphysicians don't need to give anything to "help the neuroscientist". The neuroscientist needs to answer the questions about intentionality, qualia, consciousness and the like - at least, if they want to be taken seriously on this subject. Thus far, they've come up dry - they've told us various important things about the brain, but have barely scratched the surface of even the more mundane and tractable issues in mind, to say nothing of the above questions. In fact, there's good reason to think that they will always come up dry just by the nature of the discipline and the limitations of its manner of inquiry.<br /><br />Much as BDK dislikes it, the neuroscientist's authority begins and ends at the laboratory. Once it comes to metaphysics and, yes, various questions of mind, they don't deserve any special respect.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.com