[evol-psych] Re: Essay: Without Infinite Regress
- --- In email@example.com, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
>No - I'm simply saying that the people who perceive a problem here
> 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.
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_morleyuk wrote:
>To be strictly correct, that is impossible. One can only talk about how
> 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.
and there is no guarantee that anyone can actually feel the same subjective
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.