Ok, but I don't think we can think in non-human ways, ways that require a different type of brain. Even the sci-fi writers need to be happy with stretching the limits of what we are. We don't have alternatives to our anatomy. We can't be dogs or dolphins even if we do share a lot. We don't know their metaphors. wc
________________________________ From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 6:56:45 PM Subject: Re: inevitable and resolved On Jun 13, 2009, at 7:47 PM, William Conger wrote: > So, I have no problem with this. We humans already have quite a few devices > that enable us to see things and matter beyond our given range. Actually, I'm not talking about devices we already have, because those things are outside us, outside our brains, and so we treat them like any sensory input. Oh, it's the TV. Oh, it's an MRI. Oh, it's the phone. Etc. > What's your point? My point is that our sensory perceptions seem so linked to the stimuli--the tree out there bouncing rays of light into our eyes or the dog making the sound waves--that we do not distinguish the two. Your repeating the business of the metaphor of thought points out this distinction, but, alas, it is lost on some aesthetes. So, if you imagine a dramatically altered form of internal human perception, you might grasp the dual nature, the input itself and the way it is made known to us (the internal representation). | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady [email protected]
