dllt on 20/04/2012 1:13am
Pure science involves the creation of unambiguously defined models that coincide with experimentally measurable observations. In that sense, Colin's assertion that we can and likely will attain an increasingly sophisticated understanding of the structure and processes in the brain is correct.
The argument about whether neuroscience can explain such concepts as "mind", "thought", "conscience", "soul" or any emotion, is fundamentally flawed and ultimately irrelevant for the simple reason that none of these have a precise definition and therefore could never be unambiguously corroborated. In other words, there is no possibility that "any" model, theory or explanation, whether scientific or philosophical could ever sufficiently describe them. It is not a flaw in science but rather a limitation (albeit a beautiful one) of language.
Copy and paste the code below to embed or link to this video.
| Embed: |
|
| Link: |
Join the conversation