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

[evol-psych] Re: Essay: Without Infinite Regress

Expand Messages
  • andy_morleyuk
    ... No - I m simply saying that the people who perceive a problem here have so far comprehensively failed to define what that problem is in anything
    Message 1 of 51 , Nov 30, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > RKS:
      > The problem here is that on the one hand you say the 'we' is
      > beyond explanation, and on the other hand you use the 'we'
      > to explain your position.

      No - I'm simply saying that the people who perceive a problem here
      have so far comprehensively failed to define what that problem is
      in anything approaching clear and unambiguous terms.

      We have a lot of facts at our disposal about how the human brain
      (the organ) and the human mind (its cognitive processes) function.
      There's still a lot there that we don't know, but there are no great
      and puzzling contradictions in that information. These philosophical
      so-called problems are merely chimera. I would challenge anyone
      to define them in a way that makes sense, as a problem.

      What is actually going on here is that homo sapiens is something
      of an anomaly, being exceptionally high in intelligence but trapped
      in a mammalian body that forces him/ her to accept being anchored
      in the very physical, nitty-gritty world of mortality. Conversations
      of this sort are just the confused attempts of humans to subjectively
      grapple with fact of their own existence.

      That's not something that can be or needs to be defined
      scientifically. If you want to read about it, I would say that the
      most authoritative text is probably *The Hitchhiker's Guide to the
      Galaxy* and in particular, that passage that describes the thoughts
      of a whale that suddenly materialises, along with a bunch of
      flowers, several miles above the surface of some planet or other.

      The speculations of that creature on life, the universe and all that
      as it plummets to meet the planet's surface pretty much say it all
      with regard to this sort of stuff.

      Andy Morley
    • Mark Hubey
      ... To be strictly correct, that is impossible. One can only talk about how one feels and there is no guarantee that anyone can actually feel the same
      Message 51 of 51 , Dec 3, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        andy_morleyuk wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > Really, to communicate and understand the world of the subjective,
        > you need art and literature. That is the best language we have for
        > addressing such things at the present stage of Human development.
        >

        To be strictly correct, that is impossible. One can only talk about how
        one feels
        and there is no guarantee that anyone can actually feel the same subjective
        feelings.

        This is nothing but silly circularity. The only thing you accomplish,
        thru a long
        laborius and wasteful exercise is to let people know that they seem to have
        things in common.

        There are lots of ways of doing it without art (painting-sculpture) or
        literature (professional lies).

        To be sure, if everything is art, then by definition science is art. If
        everything is a
        narrative (literature) then physics is literature. We just wasted months
        on this topic.

        --
        Regards,

        H.M. Hubey
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.