3
   

Philosophy Needs a Visceral Connection

 
 
coberst
 
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2009 06:14 am
Philosophy Needs a Visceral Connection

The visceral (instinctive, unreasoning, and ‘earthy’) domain of human reality is not exclusively the domain of intellection but is a partnership with the crude and earthy emotions that are so dominate a part of human experience.

A new manner of thinking was born in Greece in the five centuries BC. This might properly be called the Pagan Period. Webster informs me that a pagan is a follower of a polytheistic religion or one with little or no religion and who delight in sensual pleasures and material goods. Modern day America seems to fulfill at least one aspect of that definition of paganism.

The Pagan Period was followed by what might be called the Catholic Period. The Catholic Period was a millennium in which the Catholic Church dominated Western civilization.

The manner of thinking born in the Pagan Period and nurtured during the Catholic Period might properly be called the philosophical manner of thinking. Philosophy, born in Greece and nurtured during the millennium following, was grounded in the mind/body dichotomy introduced by Descartes under the heavy influence of an overseeing Catholic Church.

I claim that Western philosophical tradition is today at the cusp of adolescence leading into adulthood. This major paradigm shift is constructed on the recognition that we can no longer ground our philosophical attitudes on the mind/body dichotomy and must recognize the validity of the empirical scientific theories centered about the idea of the embodied cognition. This theory can be justified as a result of the technology that makes observation of brain actions observable.

Classical cognitive science assumes that “cognition consists of the application of universal logical and formal rules that govern the manipulation of “internal” mental symbols, symbols that are supposedly capable of representing states of affairs in the “external” world.” Classical cognitive science treats mind as a computational program.


Alan Turing (1937) developed the idea of the human mind acting as a universal computing machine. Further developments of Turing’s ideas led to the development that the human brain was conceived as a physical symbol system capable of operating on symbols in a logical fashion. Hence the metaphor ‘Mind as Computer’ became the rage of the electronic and computer sciences.

The internal/external split characterizing this view illuminates the idea that this computational function can be detached from the body of the organism, which means that any number of contraptions might perform adequately the actions of the human mind.

First generation cognitive science developed a science of cognition constructed around the ‘Mind as Computer’ metaphor. This was labeled as AI (Artificial Intelligence).

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) developed a science of cognition constructed around the ‘Cognition in the Body’ metaphor. Rather than thinking of cognition as a manipulator of symbols, human cognition and our bodies are a gestalt; so integrated as to constitute a functioning unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts.

Quotes from The Meaning of the Body by Mark Johnson



  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 1,175 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2009 07:10 am
@coberst,
I could have said this in 3 sentences and not sound half so pompous. Why not try again?


PS, a suggestion about writing in clear concise statements....
Quote:
SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) developed a science of cognition constructed around the ‘Cognition in the Body’ metaphor. Rather than thinking of cognition as a manipulator of symbols, human cognition and our bodies are a gestalt;


If you took a little more time you could have written that in a much clearer and precise manner.


fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2009 12:26 pm
@farmerman,
FM,
Summarization=Understanding....so don't hold your breath!

BTW, coberst is playing games with this latest spam. He has changed the title of his collage to
"Cognitive Science Needs a Visceral Connection" for the purpose of posting on some science forums. Wink
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2009 12:26 pm
@farmerman,

A steady diet of Twinkies and chips make for a fat gut; a steady diet of sound bites and bumper stickers makes for a fat head.
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2009 01:22 pm
Visceral philosophy is generally referred to as ideology.
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2009 02:13 pm
@coberst,
Quote:
a steady diet of sound bites and bumper stickers makes for a fat head.


http://able2know.org/topic/70687-1
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2009 02:17 pm
@coberst,
Quote:
Living on a diet of sound bites and bumper stickers is as deadly for the intellectual health as a diet of Twinkies and chips is for the physical health.
coberst on scam.com Oct 2008
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2009 02:32 pm
@kuvasz,
Hi Kuvasz !

In coberst messianic case that's true!

What he fails to establish is that Johnson writes within a well known paradigm established by Piaget's genetic epistemology of the 1950's which saw "cognitive schema" as natural developments of "motor schema". A parallel development is that of Maturana who deflates "cognition" to a synonym for "the general life process". The trail ultimately retraces to Kant's concept of the a priori.

Coberst's ideology owes as much to Kant (which he probably has not read) as Christianity does to the Epic of Gilgamesh.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2009 02:51 pm
@coberst,
Quote:
A steady diet of Twinkies and chips make for a fat gut; a steady diet of sound bites and bumper stickers makes for a fat head.
As you deliver another bumper sticker from your vast storehouse. Hat size reportedly is directly proportional to IQ . I have a large head but , unlike yours, its not FAT.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Philosophy Needs a Visceral Connection
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/29/2021 at 10:02:54