Phylogenetically you are right, but ontogentically, concerning humans, maybe not. — spirit-salamander
Your eye IS your brain. — DingoJones
Therefore, neither can precede the other in development. Both have developed simultaneously. — spirit-salamander
Then would either anticipate the need for the other? — Don Wade
The brain came first. It is possible to have a central nervous system without eyes, but not possible to have eyes without a central nervous system. — counterpunch
Then would either anticipate the need for the other? — Don Wade
I am interested in what the eyes say about the brain and the mind, but I think that it is complex because the retina is part of a brain.I wonder if the eye problems which were picked up were connected to all the reading and thinking which I do. The eyes and the brain are part of the apparatus of our thinking, and perhaps they become overwhelmed and overloaded at times, but perhaps this needs to be seen in a wider scope of mind. — Jack Cummins
Now, as usual, a whole bunch of new questions. — Don Wade
↪Pop A single-cell seems to be able to find all kinds of ways to communicate, or find food/sex. I study "Levels", and in levels, communication can happen between cells - as well as higher-level animals (made up of cells). However, the different levels don't seem to communicate. — Don Wade
Traditionally it has been generally assumed that something central must coordinate all these functions, but on closer inspection no such thing exists ( in physical form at least ). So traditional analytical reductionism is of no use. Science , across the whole spectrum. turns to systems theory to try and understand it. — Pop
Humans create the concept of forest insead of group-of-trees. Then we speak in terms of forest as if the forest actually existed. — Don Wade
It seems to me I read that "eyes" were 'invented' in primitive animals as a few cells that could respond to light. Whether they made a difference to the creature by informing a central nervous system of the dawn's early light, or whether they emitted a chemical signal, don't remember. — Bitter Crank
You seem to be to be trying to articulate how consciousness groups things, and then saying the groupings are what the things being grouped become? Yes there is an element of that occurring. Piaget's constructivism is a good example of how knowledge is accumulated, and then how that knowledge becomes the world via an idealist paradigm. No doubt the nature of consciousness ( both it's content and it's structure ) places a limitation on our perception of the world. — Pop
Another example is: "The Sorites Paradox". (The pile of sand is at a different level than the grain of sand.) — Don Wade
an apple seed, and the apple, can occupy the same place at the same time. — Don Wade
In the absence of a brain and nervous system what is causing them to self organize? — Pop
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.