-none and the VNO

[Mtnjim]

"Reductionist principle could still

work. Create a map of the locations and momentums of every atom in all 12 trillion neurons, 100 trillion glial

cells, and every other chemical and ion inside the head. Run an extremely complicated computer simulation to

calculate thier trajectories, of course taking into account heisenberg uncertainty, and you will get an answer of

what most likely happens next (anytime you invoke quantum physics you can only end up with a probable

answer.)"

The only problem with this is that the very act of observing the event will change it.

[DrSmellThis]

Reductionist

principle could still work. Create a map of the locations and momentums of every atom in all 12 trillion neurons,

100 trillion glial cells, and every other chemical and ion inside the head. Run an extremely complicated computer

simulation to calculate thier trajectories, of course taking into account heisenberg uncertainty, and you will get

an answer of what most likely happens next (anytime you invoke quantum physics you can only end up with a probable

answer.) The past experiences of the individual are taken into account by the current layout of the neurons.
Its

not practical, earth will have been swallowed by the sun before the first round of calculations is done, but that

doesn't mean reduction won't work.

Note, this assumes a materialistic universe. The mind-body problem is a

classic philisophical debate, I could go on for hours. Science usually takes the materialist position, but not

always. One theory of quantum physics suggests that the ethereal mind affects the physical body by influencing how

the wave function collapses in a brain event.

...assuming there are no non-atomic forces that influence

behavior -- it wouldn't even have to be "spiritual" things, per se; there is so much happening in the

universe...and assuming nothing outside the skull is a force influencing behavior. You'd have to account for the

orgainiztion of all that through time, too, without meaningful labels to make sense of anything (due to that lack of

narrative elements). But, SURE! Sounds great! Actually, I found your post very interesting. If you were right

about all this your position would not be reductionist, except of course that it maps the individual animal

separately from the environment.

Fortunately it's not necessary to take a position on mind/body stuff to have a

narrative psychology. It could go either way and still work. For example, there are non-atomic and/or sub-atomic

elements of nature that could well be involved in mental phenomena. That would help explain plasticity, parallel

processing, networks; and non-locality in neural function without getting too spiritual. Neurochemicals, on the

other hand, may be too slow and limited (especially when thought of as part of an extremely long linear progression

of an impulse from one neuron to another, weaving around everwhere to form a thought or other useful

"micro-impulse".) to be the "hub of mentality". That is similar to the situation with the lock/key model of

olfaction. It just doesn't seem to work. Being the only well developed, bad theory out there is a dubious

accomplishment.