Posted by Ahmed Dullah on January 15, 2001 at 04:23:45 PM EST:
In Reply to: Le concept est en et pour soi en apparence, mais pas en réalité posted by observatoire de téléologie on January 14, 2001 at 03:00:45 PM EST:
: 1. Jusqu'à présent, nous avions négligé de définir ce que nous appelons pensée. Notre conception de la pensée, en effet, est logiquement différente de celles qui sont connues, et il n'apparaît pas du tout certain qu'elle puisse se déduire facilement pour un tiers de ce que nous en avons dit. Soyons donc clairs et simples : la pensée est ce qui est, et observation de ce qui est.
Until now, these leninphilosophers have neglected to tell us their "conception of thought" (which they consider "different of those known", naturally) because this is a dangerous ground, obviously. So dangerous that they present as "different" what is the worst and most outdated kind of reflectionist thought theory, good for priests and state philosophers.
Let's see what the latest research has to tell us about thought:
"The two phenomenal domains in which a living system exists cannot be reduced to each other, because they take place in non-intersecting phenomenal domains, and then any attempt to explain the phenomena of one domain in terms of the other is inadequate. There is, however, a recursive dynamic generative relation between them through the structural changes that living system and medium trigger in each other in the course of their interactions: A) as living system and medium interact they trigger in each other structural changes; B) the structural changes triggered in the living system result in a change in the manner in which the living system encounters the medium in the next interaction, and the same happens with the medium with respect to the living system; C) as a result of what happens in moments A) and B), the relation between living system and medium changes, and the structural changes that living system and medium trigger in each other in their next encounter change too; and D) the process indicated in points A, B and C, repeats recursively in a manner that appears to an observer both as if the behaviour modulated the physiology, and as if the physiology modulated the behaviour, even though they take place in phenomenal domains that do not intersect.
(...)
9. It follows from the previous points that a nervous system operates with different dimensions than those with which the observer sees the organism to operate in the relational and interactional space in which it exists as a totality. The observer sees the organism in its relational and interactional space interacting and relating with entities of different kinds or (in the case of social animals) with relations and symbols as if these were also entities. The nervous system in its internal dynamics, however, operates as a closed network of changing relations of activities between its component elements, and not with the kinds of entities that arise in the domain of relations and interactions of the organism.
(...)
Furthermore, the structural changes triggered in the external sensors, both as components of the sensory surfaces of the organism and as neuronal elements, are determined in their structure and not by the circumstances of the interaction that triggers them. In these circumstances, as the organism interacts with its medium, its nervous system undergoes changes in the flow of its synaptic operations that are contingent to the interactions organism-medium, but that are determined by the structure of the nervous system, and not by the characteristics of the medium. As a result, the nervous system cannot operate with representations of the medium, and what it does, it does according to its structure at any moment."
(Maturana, Letelier, and Mpodozis, Nervous System as a Closed Neuronal Network: Behavioral and Cognitive Consequences)
-----------------
So much for thought "observing what there is".
Kids, do not try to go deeper than what your abilities allow. Go read, and leave the serious thinking for your elders.