Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The other night, I'm lying in bed, I've got a water bottle next to the bed that I take a swig from on occasion, On this occasion I don't even open my eyes in the dark because I know where the bottle is on the floor, I lift it up, take off the top, put the top on the bed, take a swig, reach for the cap, put it back on, put the bottle back on the floor, all without sight. It then dawns upon me what my perception of "reality" might be if I didn't have sight, the use of eyeballs, light waves, etc. I suddenly realize how much my concept of reality is based on my use of vision. Could I even handle math equations without sight? If my perception of reality is dependent on my most "sensitive" sensing organ, then am I fooling myself to believe that I have any real idea what reality truly is? We all go running around like the big-bang is real but what would we think without the use of sight? What if touch was our most sensitive sensing ability? What then?

They tried to assimilate me. They failed.
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Fri Aug 26th, 2011 at 07:15:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You need to get out more.

You could also read Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought

What are human beings like? How is knowledge possible? What is truth? Where do moral values come from? Questions like these have stood at the center of Western philosophy for centuries. In addressing them, philosophers have made certain fundamental assumptions--that we can know our own minds by introspection, that most of our thinking about the world is literal, and that reason is disembodied and universal--that are now called into question by well-established results of cognitive science. It has been shown empirically that:Most thought is unconscious. We have no direct conscious access to the mechanisms of thought and language. Our ideas go by too quickly and at too deep a level for us to observe them in any simple way.Abstract concepts are mostly metaphorical. Much of the subject matter of philosopy, such as the nature of time, morality, causation, the mind, and the self, relies heavily on basic metaphors derived from bodily experience. What is literal in our reasoning about such concepts is minimal and conceptually impoverished. All the richness comes from metaphor. For instance, we have two mutually incompatible metaphors for time, both of which represent it as movement through space: in one it is a flow past us and in the other a spatial dimension we move along.Mind is embodied. Thought requires a body--not in the trivial sense that you need a physical brain to think with, but in the profound sense that the very structure of our thoughts comes from the nature of the body. Nearly all of our unconscious metaphors are based on common bodily experiences.Most of the central themes of the Western philosophical tradition are called into question by these findings. The Cartesian person, with a mind wholly separate from the body, does not exist. The Kantian person, capable of moral action according to the dictates of a universal reason, does not exist. The phenomenological person, capable of knowing his or her mind entirely through introspection alone, does not exist. The utilitarian person, the Chomskian person, the poststructuralist person, the computational person, and the person defined by analytic philosopy all do not exist.Then what does? ...


Economics is politics by other means
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 26th, 2011 at 07:22:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thought requires a body--not in the trivial sense that you need a physical brain to think with, but in the profound sense that the very structure of our thoughts comes from the nature of the body.

An assumption I disagree with. When I'm dreaming, I'm very body non-conscious. I'm not aware of my face, hands, legs etc. Although I do do (?) human like things and I'm always dealing with humans. Odd.

They tried to assimilate me. They failed.

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Fri Aug 26th, 2011 at 07:53:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
An assumption I disagree with.

Which assumption?

It has been shown empirically that

I guess I really have to read the book myself (the one I've read is this one) to see what assumptions underlie the empirical tests and their interpretation...

Economics is politics by other means

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 27th, 2011 at 03:18:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series