 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)big ...and 397 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614125 Today 4 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you can still see the screen etc. (evidently) but the colours you see are different. on this screen here, the column down the middle with the posts is browny-yellow, and outside that its grey. but you might associate completely different colours to the words "browny-yellow" and "grey" to the ones i do. but there is no way of telling whether or not this is true, because every individual's colour scheme would seem like normality to them |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't understand why people insist on this false dichotomy between holism and reductionism - it's just viewing the same problem at different levels of abstraction, different levels of "zoom". Do people who react with horror to examination of details and components think anyone working at that level is committing a fallacy of composition - projecting "consciousness" into in the individual parts? Because I think that's a projection of latent vitalism on the part of the holists. In any case this has turned into what Dennet would call "greedy reductionism" versus "mysterianism" which I don't think is terribly fruitful. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That was mostly addressed to DM |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
not bull shit. good experimental design recognizes the limits of it's vision. don't try and tell me my work. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think we should just declare you minister of jargon so you can rule over xltronic with a reductionist fist inside a holistic glove. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but then there's the issue of oversimplifying; a physical explanation of the mind is an oversimplified one even within reductionism; no-one understands that you're even talking about mind states if you're talking about brain states. Neuroscience can go as far as listing correspondences, but there's no way for it to actually talk about mental phenomena. There's no vitalism here, I'm just stressing that while the mind, as one could say, is in the brain, any mind state is not reduceable to any mind state as that would imply that a neuroscientific study of the brain would be able to explain any mental phenomenon and it can't and it never will because it has to use the mind (which then wouldn't exist) as a presupposition. I feel I'm repeating myself a bit here, but oh well... also mysterianism was a really really silly way to brand something.. it makes the idea that certain things are beyond natural sciences' grasp seem like something occult... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, he was kind of talking to me, and though I don't always know the english terms, I know the concepts they refer to once I look it up in the dictionary... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
how do you say "joke" in norwegian? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Norway" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i made an unfunny norway. :( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The Norwegian is Batman's arch enemy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"FLYVEHUND" THE CAPITAL LETTERS ARE IMPORTANT |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
flying dog? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
flughund |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
