Blog Editor


  • Copyright 2005-20012 by Adam Kolber
    All rights reserved.

« PEBS Neuroethics Roundup from JHU Guest Blogger | Main | Alcoholism's Prozac Moment? »


"While neural activity of a certain kind is a necessary condition for every manifestation of neither a sufficient condition of it, nor, still less...identical with it."

Asserted without justification. Why isn't it a sufficient condition? The author offers the subsequent sentence:

"If it were identical, then we would be left with the insuperable problem of explaining how intracranial nerve impulses, which are material events, could "reach out" to extracranial objects in order to be "of" or "about" them."

But this is no defense at all. To say that the problem is 'insuperable' is to simply assert that 'consciousness is not in the brain.'

The comments to this entry are closed.