I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
What's your point? The process of a sports team spokesperson giving a vacuous comment? The process of the media marketing it as entertainment? The process of the consumer following up on the initial meaningless comment? Or the previous processes as one process?
ReplyDeleteA substantive sports comment is 'We plan to score points for our team while in the process of preventing the other team from scoring their own points.'
Or is it about UCONN? If so, it's not about the 'Nova game.
I think Orr has been in a lot of psychotherapy.
ReplyDeleteGreat article! Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThanks for interesting article.
ReplyDeleteNice Blog!
ReplyDeleteThank You! Very interesting article. Do you can write anything else about it?
ReplyDeleteVery interesting site. Blog is very good. I am happy that I think the same!
ReplyDeleteExcellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!
ReplyDeletea good thing buy runescape
ReplyDeleters gold
Buy Perfect World Gold