Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:05:03 -0600
Subject: Re: BHA: Re: reply to Howard -- but not really




Howard Engelskirchen wrote:
> 
> Hi Ruth,
> 
> Yes, it does help.  Still, I wonder if you could spell out the category
> error.  Also, if you take "literally" and "certainty" out of it, does
> "correspondence" still have the same sting?  The version I argued for speaks
> to an accommodation between our representations of the causal structures of
> the world and those structures sufficient to reliably guide practice.  [clip]

Antonio Damasio, _Descartes' Error_, p. 104.

If you look at this page you will see that at least in one instance of
perception, and at one neurological 'level,' there is a close enough
correspondence between the object and the brain for it to be very nearly
a literal (physical) _mirroring_ of the perceived object in the brain.
The (geometrical) shape of the stimulus is reproduced by the
(geometrical) shape of the pattern of neural activity in the visual
cortex.

Carrol



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---