New Buddha Posted April 7, 2017 Report Share Posted April 7, 2017 38 minutes ago, dream_weaver said: Given what has been presented thus far, I concur with Binswanger in life as being mechanistic in nature. The axiomatic nature of consciousness still leaves it outside the purview of proof. Axioms are not "outside the purview of proof". Axioms are nothing more than very broad generalizations -- arrived at via induction from empirically acquired evidence. Axioms are not a priori truths. We arrive at the concept of "consciousness" (via induction) by observing things that are not conscious (trees, rocks, sodium, stars, etc.). We also know that organisms that are conscious are not always conscious (i.e. sometimes sleeping, comatose, or having impaired consciousness due to mental retardation, autism, alcohol etc.). What does it mean "life being mechanistic in nature"? As opposed to what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Buddha Posted April 7, 2017 Report Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Eiuol said: Rand was wrong to say animals work automatically, I agree with this, and believe that it forms a part of HM's misunderstanding of the issues being discussed. To the extent that Rand considered animal (non-human) intelligence at all, she was largely incorrect. Edited April 7, 2017 by New Buddha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted April 7, 2017 Report Share Posted April 7, 2017 5 hours ago, New Buddha said: What does it mean "life being mechanistic in nature"? As opposed to what? As opposed to vitalism. As I understand axioms, it is proof that is dependent on the self-evident nature of the axiom. Axioms are validated, not proven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.