Through an analogy whose nature escapes physics's confines but whose existence is imposed on the physicist's mind, we surmise that it [i.e., the ordering of physical phenomena that constitutes physical theory] corresponds to a certain supremely eminent order. In a word, the physicist is forced to recognize that it would be unreasonable to work for physical theory's progress were this theory not the increasingly better defined and more precise reflection of a metaphysics - the belief in an order transcending physics is the sole justification of physical theory.
Duhem says this somewhere in La théorie physique, son objet, sa structure (1906); but I'd have to look up precisely where.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Login
?
Anonymous
0 points
13 years ago
What would it mean to "think with one's body"?
B
branemrys
0 points
13 years ago
The real question is what it would mean not to think with one's body. Some ways in which we do:
- We estimate heights relative to eye-level.
- Goal-directed movement involves constant kinaesthetic feedback -- it's not a mere brain-to-hand thing, for instance, but a complex interaction.
- We develop motor learning skills.
- We count with our fingers, thus using our bodies directly as cognitive instruments.
- When trying to rotate imaginary shapes, we can use our hands to simulate the rotation, thus keeping track of the sides.
- When trying to understand what someone else's feelings are, it often helps to go physically through the same motions and facial expressions.
- We make use of 'gut feelings'.
- We analogize things to our bodies (Roger Scruton has some good discussion of this, if I recall correctly, in the context of music).
In other words, we measure with our bodies, simulate with our bodies, train our bodies to give the right solutions to problems, use our bodies as metaphors, not to mention sense with them. The list could be made very long. Despite the fact that we do this a lot, we don't do it very systematically, nor do we take full advantage of the potential. And despite that only very specific kinds of cognitive activity, a much smaller number than our full cognitive panoply, can be located wholly in the brain, we still tend to think of ourselves as stuck inside our skulls somehow. But when I am counting with my fingers, my cognitive act of counting is not in the brain; it's a brain-nervous system-muscular system interaction involving brain, arm, and hand.
B
branemrys
0 points
13 years ago
Hmm. MrsDarwin had a comment, but it seems to have bypassed Disqus somehow. Here it is:
I was going to protest "Love is drama", but on further consideration this makes sense. Drama is change, and love (at least human love) requires constant change and alteration to thrive. Even an externally happy, peaceful love demands constant internal self-abegnation and readjustment of priorities on the part of the individual lovers - "dying to self" is the traditional religious description of the drama of love.
?
Anonymous
0 points
13 years ago
For research purposes: sent that comment from my cell phone.