Reply to comment

As a staunch fence sitter in the class so far I was hoping to use the boxes within boxes model of the nervous system to help me decide between the Dickinson and the Descartian models of the brain/mind. On the one hand it does support the Dickinson model in that it represents the brain as a series of interconnected nerves that receive input and create output, that are influenced by one another and can cancel each other out. This presents a distinctly physical representation of the brain. The empirical evidence for the boxes model strongly supports the concept that the brain and mind are purely physical entities. I find the physical argument to be extremely convincing.
However, it must be noted that the boxes model still leaves open the possibility that there may be a metaphysical mind that operates outside of the physical. The boxes model has unexplained portions within the smaller boxes. How are inputs processed? What happens within the workings of the mind that creates and output, or not? We have come to increase our understanding of how the brain works by an unbelievable amount in the last few decades. We understand the chemical, electrical, physical capabilities of the brain and yet, we do not understand the mind. We are able to view neurons under a microscope and recreate the psychology of ancient civilizations and yet we still know very little about how our minds form and function. To me, this suggests a lack of evidence and since we have been focusing on the physical in the studies of the last few years, it could be indicative of something that exists beyond the physical.
The boxes within boxes model is a very good story based on evidence, but it is not yet complete and so, until we totally understand what goes on within the smaller boxes, I must remain a fence sitter on the Dickinson/ Descartes question.