At 11:03 AM 12/25/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>I wonder which is the better approach to demonstrate that the brain is merely
>a complex machine, resembling a computer - Psychiatrists with their DSM/ICD
>or non-psychiatric materialists awaiting results of "promising research"?
The resemblance of the brain to a computer is *extremely* superficial, so I
would suggest that neither approach is sound. Perhaps it would be more
accurate to say that the brain, if it is a computer, is radically different
from any computer now in existence (though *not* necessarily radically
different in the behavior that can be produced by software, since the
computer's software and data structures could, in principle, make up for
its extreme hardware differences).
<snip>
>P.S.
>Some of us believe there is as much evidence for chemical imbalances as
>there is for "chance and selection" as an explanation of life's complexity.
Chris
This is probably not true, because "chance and selection" have been studied
and empirically tested in so many thousands of ways for such a long time.
Nevertheless, chemical imbalances *can* be measured, as can the
neurological effects of *creating* chemical imbalances (by suppressing
neurotransmitters or by blocking their function). Further, we can measure
the results of re-establishing chemical balance, on brain function (via
EEG, for example), on emotional state, and on behavior (work performance,
etc.). Further still, this can all be done on a double-blind basis fairly
easily.
Try to get a subscription to Discover Magazine, at least.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 25 2000 - 23:13:01 EST