William.
1) Virtually every elementary music book has a chapter on "how to write a good melody". How can you even begin to claim this hasn't been done???? Every aspect of traditional, functional harmony was drummed-up through analysis of previously successful musical decisions... what exactly are you trying to say?
2) It sounds as though you haven't read the Edelman -- it is, as I said, an explanatory model for the (possible) neural foundations of consciousness. It is a model that works from a set of attributes traditionally associated with conscious experience, then goes about showing how neural processes can explain such attributes. Without reading it there's not much point in discussing it further...
3) ...particularly since you are clearly on nothing more than another tear into me and whatever it is I post that shows even slightest tone of disagreement with one of your edicts.
4) i was merely pointing out that this statement:
"no psychologist nor neurologist has the slightest idea of how to explain consciousness, let alone translate it into machinery"
...save for the "translate it into machinery" part, is simply untrue. You're all geared-up for a battle of science vs. philosophy, and I understand completely the problems you have with science. But it is naive to maintain that the development of a deeper understanding of how consciousness functions is possible without any acknowledgment of science. Science does have valuable things to add to the investigation, so to simply throw on the blinders and let consciousness be a magic trick, or the hand of God, is little more than an arbitrary, emotional, and reactionary stance.
"I also have "hobbies", JBM."
So why not actually say something to support your position? All you've managed to do is contradict me... Give us something to chew on.
J.
1) Virtually every elementary music book has a chapter on "how to write a good melody". How can you even begin to claim this hasn't been done???? Every aspect of traditional, functional harmony was drummed-up through analysis of previously successful musical decisions... what exactly are you trying to say?
2) It sounds as though you haven't read the Edelman -- it is, as I said, an explanatory model for the (possible) neural foundations of consciousness. It is a model that works from a set of attributes traditionally associated with conscious experience, then goes about showing how neural processes can explain such attributes. Without reading it there's not much point in discussing it further...
3) ...particularly since you are clearly on nothing more than another tear into me and whatever it is I post that shows even slightest tone of disagreement with one of your edicts.
4) i was merely pointing out that this statement:
"no psychologist nor neurologist has the slightest idea of how to explain consciousness, let alone translate it into machinery"
...save for the "translate it into machinery" part, is simply untrue. You're all geared-up for a battle of science vs. philosophy, and I understand completely the problems you have with science. But it is naive to maintain that the development of a deeper understanding of how consciousness functions is possible without any acknowledgment of science. Science does have valuable things to add to the investigation, so to simply throw on the blinders and let consciousness be a magic trick, or the hand of God, is little more than an arbitrary, emotional, and reactionary stance.
"I also have "hobbies", JBM."
So why not actually say something to support your position? All you've managed to do is contradict me... Give us something to chew on.
J.