Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 31 2007,12:49)|
|Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 31 2007,10:57)|
|... But context is all - our brains don't exist independently of our bodies, and we could not think without hearing, or seeing, or (in the case of that great atheist, Helen Keller) the "language" of touch. All of these perceptions are mechanisms, too. The brain exists in context of the body...|
Sorry to be pedantic, but you may want to rewrite that. I doubt that you really mean that deaf and/or blind people are less capable of thought. The UD eejits could have a field-day with that comment and I don't think that you mean what it implies. OTOH, I could have missread you (I am on my 2nd bottle of wine).
You misread me because I did not say "hearing AND seeing," and because you didn't include the example of Hellen Keller after the second "or."
Hearing OR seeing OR touch. The brain needs stimulation in order to develop and think.
Or to put it another way, take the sad case of "closet children." In extreme cases, they are given no stimulation (light, sound, touch) and upon discovery their language/cognitive skills have never developed. The UDudes know this and know what I mean. They're the ones who are harping upon what other people should teach their children, after all. (Why teach anybody anything if "thinking just happens" without the brain, without a mechanism? Why do we need education at all, then? Isn't that a naturalistic assumption in itself?)
If anybody wants to misquote what I said then they confirm my suspicion of them being liars.
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?
AtBC Poet Laureate
"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive
"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr