Would you like to discuss what we should understand when we use the word "category"?
Refusal to Accept Conspiracy
- Thread starter matthew809
- Start date
- Status
Would you like to discuss what we should understand when we use the word "category"?
But Baftan, how do you explain the fact that we can see repeated activity in the specific areas of the brain when test subject are asked to think of specific concepts? Do you really think it's impossible that concepts are physical?
You could go back to the Big Bang, for without out we would have nothing or at the very most, infinite potential.
You say nature did not make human imagination... that we made it on our own. If that is the case then why can't apes, even with extensive training, do everything that we can?
You could go back to the Big Bang, for without out we would have nothing or at the very most, infinite potential.
You say nature did not make human imagination... that we made it on our own. If that is the case then why can't apes, even with extensive training, do everything that we can?
Of the same family or classification.
At the moment only motor commands of the brain. When we come to the level of being able to transfer entire human mind to software, all of our actual discussion will automatically be answered. Yet, we are not in this technological level yet, no sir, not yet...
But if you are honest with your quests on physical vs. mind issues (I still give a benefit of doubt that you are), I strongly recommended these two threads I submitted in my previous post.
That's why I mentioned the Big Bang, because if we don't limit our subject topic to a particular issue (human) and if we don't determine how we should define our categories, we can extend any discussion beyond recognition. We can simply say that everything comes from some other thing therefore elements are not important: Totalitarian infinity. Doesn't take us anywhere.
One of the ape kind found this opportunity, it's us. But it doesn't mean that all other apes had or will ever have the same positional, historical, environmental conditions to develop being human. Being human, or producing humans itself is not a target for nature, neither for apes. Nature doesn't work on purposeful plans. Ancestors of ancient humans could have been wiped out of earth any time in the past due to a volcanic eruption or an asteroid hit. We can still be wiped out by nature.
By the way, your "extensive" training can not compensate 6 million year of human evolution history. Yet we can do better: If we can completely solve how brain works, we can "artificially" (remember this word) modify ape, alligator or elephant brains and make them talk like us. They would be our experiment subjects. But our experiment subjects, not of nature...
You see, we go back to initial problem of this discussion: "sameness". If you type "category" to Wikipedia, you will see a rich culture behind this word. Actually, if I wanted to point out the single most important key problem in any human discussion and/or thinking process, I wouldn't hesitate a single moment to show the word "category": Because if we could agree on categories; in terms of what is in, what is out; in terms of what is within the family or what is out of family, etc. I think we could at least halve the amount of time we spend on issues, and we could finish off a discussion even before it started.
Seriously, this "category" issue is not as easy as it sounds like, we need to open an entire new thread in philosophy section.
Right, so it's silly to act so cock-sure that the human mind/imagination is immaterial.
It's not that it doesn't take us anywhere, it's that you can't see the importance in it. If the Big Bang didn't happen then we wouldn't have human imagination - you admit that, therefore it comes from the Big Bang.
So you admit that nature didn't only provide an ape brain like you said a couple posts ago.... glad we're clear on that. I don't know why you brought up "nature don't work on purposeful plans" as it seems kind of irrelevant NOT TO MENTION it's a huge assumption on your part... YOU don't know that. Prove it.
And I'm not saying I know it is or isn't either - but I admit that I don't know.
I understand how you're using "artificially" now. You're using it in the sense of man-made. The crux of this argument does not rely on that definition of "artificial" though. The "artificial" I'm talking about means "unnatural". Man comes from nature and so man is natural. Man can do nothing but natural things for he is an expression of nature.
The uniqueness of man's mind is not evidence of a third party. There is good evidence, in fact, that man evolved through the long and slow process of evolution. I don't see how you guys are disagreeing with this.
- Status