The Imperfection of Perfection?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by TruthSeeker, Sep 8, 2005.

?

Do you agree?

  1. Yes

    5 vote(s)
    31.3%
  2. No

    3 vote(s)
    18.8%
  3. Partially

    3 vote(s)
    18.8%
  4. You are insane

    5 vote(s)
    31.3%
  1. Onefinity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    401
    PJ, I have to say, at this point, I find your definition of knowledge to be somewhat arbitrary and unnecessarily weighted toward the world of ideas. You stated that knowledge is an awareness of the way things actually are, of what is true. Every organism, whether it has conscious thought processes or not, has an awareness of the way things actually are - to the extent of things that are relevant to maintaining its own structure and its activity of autopoiesis. Which also applies to human beings. It is just that with humans, in addition to knowledge that is embodied in the cells and in the organism as a multicellular structure, there is also knowledge that is embodied in the lingusitic code and mental objects (e.g., concepts such as "laws" and "doctor" and "holiday" and "events" and "facts".)

    These things facilitate thinking about knowledge, but there is no reason for them to displace the notion of embodied knowledge: awareness of the way things actually are which is represented in the very structure and process of the living thing, because without that awareness, those structures and processes would not exist.

    .
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Onefinity:

    Does a rock have an "awareness" of "the way things actually are"? But I also claimed that knowledge was not awareness, but apprehension, of what reality is. It's a highly mental thing.

    This is only true in the sense that natural-selection would have weeded out that which does not correspond well to how reality works, though even then biological life is never "adapted perfectly" to the life around it, but only to a level beyond which they are given good chance to survive till procreation.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Actually an interesting question came up:
    we often think of our sense as being essentially only 5 in type.
    Yet sensing gravity is probably our most prevasive. Yet it is not included in the list of senses.

    Our entire ability to be mobile, to move, relies on our sense of gravity.

    It is puzzling is it not that we often refer to our 5 senses as being somehow a complete list?
    I would place our sense of gravity as more important than even our sense of sight which most persons consider as our most useful sense.

    Hmmm interesting.......
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Quantum Quack:

    We could conceive of our sense of gravity being related to the sensation of touch, as the feeling of graivty is primarily felt as a "pushing down", which in normal conditions is ignored as we are so used to it. If gravity were suddenly more powerful I'd imagine we'd feel something very akin to how it feels when one places two powerful magnets near eachother, one hand on each.
     
  8. Onefinity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    401
    Doesn't seem to. A rock doesn't have the qualities of a living thing. History can be recorded upon it, but it doesn't use that history. A living organism does.

    I don't find that the distinction you are making represents a useful model.

    Natural selection notwithstanding, a living organism in its lifetime lives for itself, not for its past or for its future. (Only humans sometimes "live for the future," and unfortunately, often miss the present that creates that future). And what it does works for it, to sustain itself.

    I recommend Maturana and Varela's book, The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding.
     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    the interesting distinction here though may be that every bit of your body feels the effects of gravity. I agree though it could be related to the sense of touch however touch is usually felt by the toucher and the touchee, I don't think gravity would recognise our touch as such....
    Also gravity is always sensed as a pull. Touch though is felt more as a pressure.

    Because it is a pull and not a pressure I would suggest that it not be considered as touch per se,
    What do you think given my contention?

    also we sense our center of gravity, as any gymnast will state.

    Sensing the center of gravity would fall under which of the 5 senses?
    BTW I am not postulating anything here and just find it curious why this sense of gravity so often neglected....when talking about sensing in general.

    it just dawned on me that it plays a bigger part in our sensorium than we give it credit for.
     
  10. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Quantum Quack:

    Can not one be pulled by another person and feel this? Can one not also conceive the pull of gravity being felt from the sensation of downward movement? Also, if one wraps oneself in a blanket, does not one feel it touching every part of one's body? Does a rock sense itself touching us?

    Sensing the centre of gravity is related to finding where one's mass is concentrated the most.
     

Share This Page