valerie scanlon wrote:
On Aug 19, 4:20 pm, Tim Tyler <seemy... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
valerie scanlon wrote:
A better scientific exercise would be to study and speculate on the
nervous system (brain). The brain functions without the intervention
of a soul (mind) with causal powers. Leave the "mind" to religion.
Er, see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

I looked at the entry. Interesting, but elementary.

Right - but that seems to be what's needed - if you are hung up
on ancient religious conceptions of the mind.

"Soul" and "mind" are not synonyms these days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

valerie scanlon wrote:
On Aug 19, 4:20 pm, Tim Tyler <seemy... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
valerie scanlon wrote:

A better scientific exercise would be to study and speculate on the
nervous system (brain). The brain functions without the intervention
of a soul (mind) with causal powers. Leave the "mind" to religion.
Er, see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

I looked at the entry. Interesting, but elementary.

Right - but that seems to be what's needed - if you are hung up
on ancient religious conceptions of the mind.

"Soul" and "mind" are not synonyms these days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

Tim Tyler <seemysig at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
valerie scanlon wrote:
On Aug 19, 4:20 pm, Tim Tyler <seemy... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
valerie scanlon wrote:

A better scientific exercise would be to study and speculate on the
nervous system (brain). The brain functions without the intervention
of a soul (mind) with causal powers. Leave the "mind" to religion.
Er, see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
I looked at the entry. Interesting, but elementary.
Right - but that seems to be what's needed - if you are hung up
on ancient religious conceptions of the mind.

"Soul" and "mind" are not synonyms these days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

From your link:

"... and can be synonymous with the spirit, mind or self"

I don't think that link supports your position.

Curt Welch wrote:
Tim Tyler <seemy... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
valerie scanlon wrote:
On Aug 19, 4:20 pm, Tim Tyler <seemy... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
valerie scanlon wrote:
A better scientific exercise would be to study and speculate on the
nervous system (brain). The brain functions without the intervention
of a soul (mind) with causal powers. Leave the "mind" to religion.
Er, see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
I looked at the entry. Interesting, but elementary.
Right - but that seems to be what's needed - if you are hung up
on ancient religious conceptions of the mind.

"Soul" and "mind" are not synonyms these days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

From your link:

  "... and can be synonymous with the spirit, mind or self"

I don't think that link supports your position.

Contrast:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

The "soul" link is way more laden with mystical nonsense.

Maybe *some* people consider those terms synonyms.  Probably
most of those that do have a mystical conception of the mind.

On Aug 20, 3:57 pm, Tim Tyler <seemy... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:



Curt Welch wrote:
Tim Tyler <seemy... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
valerie scanlon wrote:
On Aug 19, 4:20 pm, Tim Tyler <seemy... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
valerie scanlon wrote:
A better scientific exercise would be to study and speculate on the
nervous system (brain). The brain functions without the intervention
of a soul (mind) with causal powers. Leave the "mind" to religion..
Er, see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
I looked at the entry. Interesting, but elementary.
Right - but that seems to be what's needed - if you are hung up
on ancient religious conceptions of the mind.

"Soul" and "mind" are not synonyms these days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

From your link:

  "... and can be synonymous with the spirit, mind or self"

I don't think that link supports your position.

Contrast:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

The "soul" link is way more laden with mystical nonsense.

Maybe *some* people consider those terms synonyms.  Probably
most of those that do have a mystical conception of the mind.

There is that which sees, and that which is seen. This is not
mystical, this is everyday common observance. I use the word "soul
(mind)" for that which sees. Do you have a better?

On Aug 8, 8:50 am, Tim Tyler <seemy... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:

S. Pinker on the genetic complexity of the mind, as revealed
by twin studies:


This involves a misuse of language. "Genetic complexity" is a
scientific concept. "Mind" is a religious concept referring to the
soul (mind). The use of "mind" in artificial intelligence is an evil
bequeathed by the Dartmouth Summer Conference, McCarthy, Minsky, and
Newell. For half a century, the practitioners of AI have floundered in
the religious swamp of soul (mind). They might just as well count the
number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

A better scientific exercise would be to study and speculate on the
nervous system (brain). The brain functions without the intervention
of a soul (mind) with causal powers. Leave the "mind" to religion.

The soul is the body in operation.

valerie scanlon wrote:
A better scientific exercise would be to study and speculate on the
nervous system (brain). The brain functions without the intervention
of a soul (mind) with causal powers. Leave the "mind" to religion.

Er, see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

On Aug 20, 11:47 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

The soul is the body in operation.

The soul is the kidneys as they secrete urine.

Ray

On Aug 20, 8:22=A0pm, valerie scanlon <rs... at (no spam) nycap.rr.com> wrote:

There is that which sees, and that which is seen. This is not
mystical, this is everyday common observance. I use the word "soul
(mind)" for that which sees. Do you have a better?

The soul is the body in operation.

...

Only when the brain is sensing physical behaviors in
the universe which other humans around us can't sense
at the time, do we call it "mind" and "soul". It's
very limited and specific, and it's not the entire
sensing system, and it's not just any body operation.

On Aug 24, 8:00 am, c... at (no spam) kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:



...

Only when the brain is sensing physical behaviors in
the universe which other humans around us can't sense
at the time, do we call it "mind" and "soul".  It's
very limited and specific, and it's not the entire
sensing system, and it's not just any body operation.

All seeing is in the brain including seeing hand waving.

Unfortunately being chauvinist pigs in innate in some of us.

It is innate within a given environment. I wonder what happens when raised
in very different cultural environments.

John
"casey" <jgkjcasey at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:f89a01e8-fd3b-4107-938d-9b82e7bc94e1 at (no spam) y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 9:10 am, Wolf K <weki... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:
And it's done a lot of harm to the thinking of people
who believe that behaviourism assumes a blank slate.


I was not making reference to the behaviourist blank
slate but rather the belief in the blank slate by others
such as those who blame the environment, such as parents
for the outcome in a child's behaviour such as autism,
or the belief by the feminists that the environment
causes differences in the behaviour of males and females.

What no longer amazes me, having accepted that we humans are
nothing if not inconsistent, is the attitude that a teacher's
use of wrong methods is to blame for student failure, but
that the student's hard work and talent explain success.

On Sep 7, 6:11 am, Wolf K <weki... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:
What no longer amazes me, having accepted that we humans are
nothing if not inconsistent, is the attitude that a teacher's
use of wrong methods is to blame for student failure, but
that the student's hard work and talent explain success.

If one teacher's students are consistently more successful
than another teacher's students over many years in the same
subject area I think that flags a problem.

JC