Transcribe
Translate
Milty's Mag, December 1941
31858063105104_009
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
Milty's Mag Page nine In afterthought.... Since writing the above argument, the little suspicion that had been tickling my subconscious rose to the surface and explained why I had doubted, all along, the very presence of the subjective difference, but was reluctant to say so for fear of being dogmatic. All science is based on the proposition that a given cause will always produce the same effect in this universe of ours. It is recognized, further, that the reception of sensory stimuli is physical in nature, and consists purely in the translation of various forms of energy impacting upon receptor cells into nervous impulses. Unless a physical or chemical difference can be demonstrated in the receptor cells of different individuals, it follows from our axiom that the nervous impulse produced by any given stimulus will always be the same in all individuals. From this point, our path depends on whether or not we accept the animistic or behavioristic concepts as our signpost. Animism is the school of thought which, roughly, treats the "mind" as an entity that is separate from the body, contains the thoughts, personality, and soul of the individual, and controls the actions of the body. Behaviorism defines "mind" as the operation of the entire nervous system, and subjects mental activity to the same physical laws that all other actions are subject to. Under animism, the "mind" would have the power to take the raw nervous impulse and translate it into something which is different for each individual. The "mind" has no such power under behaviorism, unless it is shown that there is some physical difference in each nervous system to bring this about as a logical consequence. Which do we choose? I, personally, choose behaviorism for reasons which must be dogmatic since I am not a psychologist. I choose it because it is what all men who work scientifically use as their basis. Therefore, to prove to me the existence of sensory differences you must do one of the following: Disprove the axiom of cause and effect, or show some physical difference in individual nervous systems. While I admit that we know relatively little about the nervous system, on the other hand there is no evidence to show sensory differences, and logical considerations from all sorts of angles point toward sameness. This problem, to me, is in the same category as religion: While I cannot prove rigorously that God does not exist, for all practical purposes my belief is negative. .... Speer is a funny guy. What makes him think that because people don't like Ramblings he should stop publishing it? How about the alternative of making it interesting? For Jack's prime fault is in spouting endlessly on subjects which are as dry as his native Oklahoma. The cure for that is, simply: compose away
Saving...
prev
next
Milty's Mag Page nine In afterthought.... Since writing the above argument, the little suspicion that had been tickling my subconscious rose to the surface and explained why I had doubted, all along, the very presence of the subjective difference, but was reluctant to say so for fear of being dogmatic. All science is based on the proposition that a given cause will always produce the same effect in this universe of ours. It is recognized, further, that the reception of sensory stimuli is physical in nature, and consists purely in the translation of various forms of energy impacting upon receptor cells into nervous impulses. Unless a physical or chemical difference can be demonstrated in the receptor cells of different individuals, it follows from our axiom that the nervous impulse produced by any given stimulus will always be the same in all individuals. From this point, our path depends on whether or not we accept the animistic or behavioristic concepts as our signpost. Animism is the school of thought which, roughly, treats the "mind" as an entity that is separate from the body, contains the thoughts, personality, and soul of the individual, and controls the actions of the body. Behaviorism defines "mind" as the operation of the entire nervous system, and subjects mental activity to the same physical laws that all other actions are subject to. Under animism, the "mind" would have the power to take the raw nervous impulse and translate it into something which is different for each individual. The "mind" has no such power under behaviorism, unless it is shown that there is some physical difference in each nervous system to bring this about as a logical consequence. Which do we choose? I, personally, choose behaviorism for reasons which must be dogmatic since I am not a psychologist. I choose it because it is what all men who work scientifically use as their basis. Therefore, to prove to me the existence of sensory differences you must do one of the following: Disprove the axiom of cause and effect, or show some physical difference in individual nervous systems. While I admit that we know relatively little about the nervous system, on the other hand there is no evidence to show sensory differences, and logical considerations from all sorts of angles point toward sameness. This problem, to me, is in the same category as religion: While I cannot prove rigorously that God does not exist, for all practical purposes my belief is negative. .... Speer is a funny guy. What makes him think that because people don't like Ramblings he should stop publishing it? How about the alternative of making it interesting? For Jack's prime fault is in spouting endlessly on subjects which are as dry as his native Oklahoma. The cure for that is, simply: compose away
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
