On 11 February 2014 11:23, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Continuity and the idea that physical laws will be consistent in >> different times and places are definitely assumptions. They could turn >> out to be false tomorrow. > > > The possibility of continuity seems like it is implicit in almost every kind > of experience. A mouse has an expectation of continuity. The idea of > physical laws though is a much more sophisticated intellectual construct. Arguably psychological continuity isn't real for either mice or people. If you were destroyed last night and replaced with a copy the today version of you would declare that he was continuous with the yesterday version. I would say that's correct, the two versions are a continuation of the same person, while you would presumably say that it was a delusion. >> > That the difference in what language we speak >> > could be 'due to brain difference" I would not say follows as a >> > condition >> > which is plainly evident. >> >> I would say it's plainly evident. The alternative is that we think >> with something other than our brain. > > > Another alternative is that the brain is itself is only a brain-shaped > experience which arises from a consensus of many nested ongoing experiences. > It's a lot easier to explain why a storytelling cosmos evolves a brain than > why a mechanical universe evolves a brain that thinks it is a person. If it were possible to have a change in mental state without a change in brain state that would be evidence that we don't think with our brain. >> > To the contrary, computational models of >> > consciousness would be hard pressed to explain so many differences in >> > language. Why should we all be able to communicate with each other >> > genetically irrespective of geography and culture, but did not begin >> > from a >> > similarly unified linguistic genome? The fact that human languages, even >> > ones which are tightly related etymologically are incomprehensible to >> > non-speakers suggests that in fact, the characteristics of language are >> > very >> > different from biological systems. If language was closely associated >> > with >> > brain differences, then we might expect certain drugs to work only if >> > you >> > spoke a particular language, or that there could be particular foods or >> > drugs which would aid understanding particular languages. If you want to >> > understand Russian better, you might drink a lot of vodka to condition >> > your >> > brain into a more conducive brain difference. >> >> None of this reasoning is plausible. > > > Why not? Why should different languages be comprehensible to different cultures? Different computer languages run on identical hardware and are mutually incomprehensible. And why should food and drugs have a differential effect depending on native language? There are drugs which have the same effect on species as far apart as humans and bacteria. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
