As a lay reader, the label 'hierarchy' seems fitting, but 'mechanistic' seems not an apt term. Do you rule out hypotheses for quantum aspects? Penrose and other hypotheses?
Seems to me the immense numbers of interactions happening in the brain at any moment, some neuroscience more or less understands and others it does not yet understand rules out any reductionistic 'mechanical' account where 'mechanics'. This may only be a question of terminology for your findings, but as someone from the humanities and 'soft' sciences, the term turns my interest off, and will likely do same for others?
Dear James,
Thank you for the question. "Mechanistic" was carefully chosen, and in this particular case, is perfectly appropriate. I believe you may have confused my use of it here with its use (and connotations) elsewhere.
Best wishes,
Paul
I didn't confuse "use of it here with its use elsewhere". I was only pointing out the fact that its usage places an obstacle between a humanities perspective and a science perspective, and what you are talking about should be read by non-scientists. "here" and "elsewhere"? -- we are all in the same biosphere . . .
Dear James,
I am sorry if I caused offense - it was not intended. As a psychologist, I certainly do not want to place an obstacle between science and the humanities! Incidentally, I was also aware of the issue you raise when I first coined the "HMM", but on balance, "mechanism" still remained the most appropriate term.
With best wishes,
Paul
And we still use the term "quantum mechanics", not quantum magic ...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Neuroscience