Wait, Where Was The Starting Line?

"The highest activities of consciousness have their origins in physical occurences of the brain just as the loveliest melodies are not too sublime to be expressed by notes."
-- William Somerset Maugham

"We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities... still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."
-- Charles Darwin


On page 97 of Hofstadter's book, he mentions Herbert Simon, a cognitive scientist who claims "...that everything of interest in cognition takes place above the 100-millisecond level, which he characterizes as the time it takes for you to recognize your mother...". Simon is obviously in opposition to the idea of studying the smaller fractions of seconds that make up thought. According to Hofstadter on page 98, he claims that Simon is "...allowing one to totally sidestep or ignore all biological substrates of thought." This idea makes me immediately oppose or question Simon, in all of his views on thought, whether I believe he has any/many good arguments.

I consider myself a researcher who stresses a great deal on origins, from the universe itself to a single thought. Simon's arguments may get to the heart of what is currently able to be studied, such as macro thought processes (like identifying your mother), but I utterly disagree with his belief that the fractions of a second occurrences between neurons are not significant enough to consider. He equates the billions of neurons involved in thinking to the number of electrodes in a diode.

I believe that many cognitive scientists, as well as many physicists, would argue that those billions of neurons, or electrodes, respectively, are exactly what need to be studied in greater detail. To cast off some string of connections so easily seems reckless and unconcerned about the actual building blocks which make thinking possible. I believe that better technology and more research is all we need to change Simon's mind, as well as other like-minded scientists. It matters not which area of thought processing you study, it all comes back to the interaction between individual neurons that makes a difference.
No matter which field you're in: from philosophy, to geometry, to political science, to psychology, to neurology; breaking down your area of study to its original building blocks can and will offer great insight into your topic of interest.