> I think cladking sounds like he's doing the
> "Dragons of Eden" thing that Carl Sagan taught us,
> sort of a conceit among atheist scientists that
> science saved them from superstition when of
> course we can find scientists who belong to faiths
> or sects or cults.
OK, I had to look that up;
In the introduction Sagan presents his thesis – that "the mind ... [is] a consequence of its anatomy and physiology and nothing more" –
Yes. Homo Sapiens were exactly and only a product of the anatomy of the brain and the 40,000 years of knowledge that was gained by the association of people trying to understand their external reality. This knowledge accumulated in language and was added to the way each brain operated. As more was learned everyone capable of learning it adapted his language toi reflect that learning.
But it's different now. We build models of our beliefs and use a symbolic and deconstructible language to think and communicate. Our "mind" isn't a reflection of the anatomy but a reflection of our beliefs formatted in a new language. We must "think" this way because language programs the brain. If we must compare sensory input to belief and deconstructable words to think then the anatomy of the brain (which is digital) is no longer congruent with our thought and language which are both analog. We still have parts of the brain operating digitally but these are parts (like the amygdala) with which we lack direct contact. We don't sense things like the medulla and communication is in only one direction even though the medulla probably communicates with the rest of the body.
The brain is infinitely adaptable and humans experienced the mother of all change 4000 years ago. Sagan's thinking is interesting here but I believe it misses the mark.