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...
"Three generations of imbeciles are enough"
ReplyDeleteOr something.
You are pro-life?
ReplyDeleteYou are pro-choice, but would willingly bring a nonfunctional human in to the world with advance knowledge, at extreme cost to yourself?
I see, Robert. Human beings are pieces of machinery that are either "functional" or, if not, are rubbish to be tossed out because they are too costly. Very nice.
ReplyDeleteAnd, by the way, just where do you think women's wombs are? Uranus? The seventh dimension? Purgatory? It seems pretty obvious to me they are, in fact, in this world.