Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: (From OWL): Mind in Objectivism

Expand Messages
  • Ed Minchau <spider_boris@yahoo.com>
    ... wrote: I only bring up those two ... im such an idiot sometimes. I don t mean etymology at all. I mean
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 1, 2003
      --- In Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Minchau
      <spider_boris@y...>" <spider_boris@y...> wrote:
      I only bring up those two
      > names to show the analogy between physics and etymology:

      im such an idiot sometimes. I don't mean etymology at all. I mean
      epistemology.

      :) ed
    • Rafael Eilon
      ... Aha, that s a different matter. You remind me of Kant s claim that space and time are not out there , nor do they represent anything about what really
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 1, 2003
        --- "Ed Minchau <spider_boris@...>" <spider_boris@...>
        wrote:
        > --- In Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Minchau
        > <spider_boris@y...>" <spider_boris@y...> wrote:
        > I only bring up those two
        > > names to show the analogy between physics and etymology:
        >
        > im such an idiot sometimes. I don't mean etymology at all. I mean
        > epistemology.
        >
        > :) ed
        >
        Aha, that's a different matter. You remind me of Kant's claim that
        space and time are not "out there", nor do they represent anything
        about what really exists "out there"; that they are mere "forms of
        perception" which the human psyche "forces" on the "amorphous stream of
        raw data" presented to the senses. As obviously fallacious as Kant's
        position is, he most certainly gave a tremendous push to the philosophy
        of science, because his view takes to extreme the more moderate
        observation that the human "framework of perception", namely space and
        time as intuitively implicit in perception, does not necessarily
        correspond _exactly_ to the actual properties of spacetime. This led to
        many productive hypotheses about spacetime, including non-Euclidean
        geometries and special and general relativity.

        However, how exactly this relates to the discoveries supporting the
        view that the mind is _physically_ present (and actively developing) in
        the brain I am not sure I understood, beyond the fact that the two
        classes of discoveries were made roughly in the same time-frame.
        Perhaps the paradigm change involved is also similar, in forcing people
        to rethink and reform some of their most fundamental and intuitive
        concepts (space, time; body, mind). The willingness to reform such
        fundamental concepts certainly requires exercise.

        Regards,

        Rafael


        __________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
        http://mailplus.yahoo.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.