Skip to main content

an infinite variety in the ways in which one can engage in hand waving

When Pinker brings up the infinite creativity of the human mind, his reductionist way of handling it is to use the word "combinatorial": to put it in computer language (not his) it's the nearly infinite number of different combinations of 1s and 0s that accounts for our ability to invent. Such a way of describing creativity leaves out of consideration the intentionality involved therein. If so then humans are creative because they have a really good randomizer, i.e., machine for generating original combinations of 1s and 0s.

Actually, it's very easy to create something that is capable of producing an endless variety of 1s and 0s. Surely the fact that humans are creative has to do with more than that. Surely it has to do with the fact that we are turned toward the world in an exceptional way, that we thematize and question being itself, that we can seek truths applicable always and everywhere: what combination of 1s and 0s does he think are sufficient to generate such wonder, and (on a good day) such wisdom?
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

what is an organism?

How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...
13 comments
Read more