Manning gives an example of this in terms of a certain phenomenology of dance. She writes: “Two dancers take a step forward. [They] begin to feel the dance take over. They feel the openings [of movement] before they recognize them as such, openings for movement that reach toward a dance of the not-yet. As [the dance] takes form, the intensity of moving together translates into a step, this time to the front and around. — StreetlightX
Some men can't dance because they are too inhibited, and some men suffer from "pelvic lock" which makes it difficult for them to "get down and boogie" so to speak. — Bitter Crank
On a few occasions, sufficiently lubricated, I made a stab at it — Bitter Crank
It's fairly clear, though, that the movement of the leg is determined by the stimulus it receives from the brain. If we severed the spinal cord so that the brain couldn't cause the leg to move a certain way, the leg would remain lifeless. — Hanover
But this is just to say that the brain is the center of the nervous system with nerves extending out to the legs, with those nerves communicating input back to the brain. Nothing here suggests that thought is occurring outside the brain anymore than it would make sense to say that my thinking of my desk occurs at the desk simply because the light rays have bounced off them and then back to my eye and then my brain. That is, the stimulus is "out there" and it somehow interacts with a sensory organ and then it is processed by the brain. With touch, the sensory organ is the body making contact with the object. With sight, it's the light coming off the object back to the eye.And if there were no environment for a leg to move - to exert pressure against, to be oriented amongst - there would be no such stimulus from the brain. — StreetlightX
But you could think without having any movement outside the brain, as a quadriplegic would. What makes an inanimate object unable to think is the fact that there must be certain matter in motion to bring about thought. The movement that occurs within a rock on the subatomic level is actual movement; it's just not the sort of movement that leads to thought. We could quibble over the term "animate" I suppose, but things like cockroaches, oysters, and worms all move about, but I don't know how much thought we might attribute to them. There are even plants that move, and as I noted there are humans that can't move, so it's hard to relate movement to thought.The body's significance for me has less to do with it's flesh and blood than it's kinesthetics capacities; there's a reason thought is not associated with inanimate objects. It's animation, motility and the ability to engage in encounters that form the basis of thought. — StreetlightX
If for some reason we believed our thought occurred in our feet, it would only mean we would be wrong. Thought occurs in the brain. We can test that theory by first crushing our foot and then crushing our brain and then measuring which resulted in a greater decreased loss of thought.(I sometimes wonder - if by evolutionary chance our mouths were in our feet, would we not 'hear' our 'internal voice' in our feet? — StreetlightX
One thing that annoys me about a great deal of contemporary materialist approaches to mind is an overemphasis on brains. — StreetlightX
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.