Jonti
what the dormouse said
"your earlier statement has now changed " -- I don't follow. Can you quote it please?
This thread may answer some of your questions.
This thread may answer some of your questions.
Atheism vs Agnosticism
- Thread starter Gmart
- Start date
gorski
customised free radical
I did it earlier, m8 - and asked the Q. Unfortunately, you chose to ignore it a bit, so I pressed gently...
You said:
So, I asked:
Amoeba consciously choosing? Have I missed or heavily misunderstood something here?
The statement you made is terribly general, unqualified and hence easily questioned, I think. Which is what I did. So, then you qualified it by adding the "brain" requirement. That did not mean any more sense to me, so I asked another question. And it is in line with my previous post regarding a certain strain of Darwinian development which I have serious difficulties in coming to terms with. My problem is that they build these little theories on so many presumptions that closely resemble a specific type of a society.
In effect, what Critical Theory insists on: how did our society affect our thinking. In other words, where did we get our notions from? And THAT is a TRULY MATERIALIST position, in my mind...
I hope that makes it clearer, as to where my questions come from, methodologically and ideologically?
You said:
So, I asked:
Amoeba consciously choosing? Have I missed or heavily misunderstood something here?
The statement you made is terribly general, unqualified and hence easily questioned, I think. Which is what I did. So, then you qualified it by adding the "brain" requirement. That did not mean any more sense to me, so I asked another question. And it is in line with my previous post regarding a certain strain of Darwinian development which I have serious difficulties in coming to terms with. My problem is that they build these little theories on so many presumptions that closely resemble a specific type of a society.
In effect, what Critical Theory insists on: how did our society affect our thinking. In other words, where did we get our notions from? And THAT is a TRULY MATERIALIST position, in my mind...
I hope that makes it clearer, as to where my questions come from, methodologically and ideologically?
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Ah, you're asking "which organisms can read a situation and choose how to react to it" ??
Certainly humans, I'd say. I think it likely many others as well. The thread I linked to above contains some discussion of that very point. But *if* the conjecture is correct, one would need to identify the physical structures involved in information creation to be sure.
As for the role of the brain, I think it is clear that some sort of integration and processing goes on in the human brain which results in the sensation of human awareness -- there is something it is like to be a human, and that this is so is likely a result of things that happen in the brain.
But again, it's an empirical question as to whether the same sort of processing occurs in the brains of other animals. And we cannot answer that question yet, for we do not know what to look for (as far as I know).
Certainly humans, I'd say. I think it likely many others as well. The thread I linked to above contains some discussion of that very point. But *if* the conjecture is correct, one would need to identify the physical structures involved in information creation to be sure.
As for the role of the brain, I think it is clear that some sort of integration and processing goes on in the human brain which results in the sensation of human awareness -- there is something it is like to be a human, and that this is so is likely a result of things that happen in the brain.
But again, it's an empirical question as to whether the same sort of processing occurs in the brains of other animals. And we cannot answer that question yet, for we do not know what to look for (as far as I know).
gorski
customised free radical
Jonti said:
Come again?
Or is this the tautology you mentioned before?
Jonti said:
There is nothing in our reflection on phenomena that is just an empirical question, as far as I know... There is an awfully lot of "theorising" in it, one way or another... "Purely emipirical notions/ideas" is, for humans, a "wooden steel" type of contradictio in adjecto, m8...
Similar threads
