Phenomenology doesn’t begin from objective causality, it deconstructs it by grounding it in structures of intentionality, which is is neither objective nor subjective in a traditional sense. — Joshs
If you unite the eyes and the brain, in this way, you cannot say that it is the brain which produces eyesight, because it cannot be done without the eyes. And if you separate eyes from the brain, then you need to account for how an eye can see without a brain: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130227183311.htm#:~:text=2-,Eyes%20work%20without%20connection%20to%20brain%3A%20Ectopic%20eyes,without%20natural%20connection%20to%20brain&text=Summary%3A,neural%20connection%20to%20the%20brain.
Either way, you are wrong to say that eyesight is produced by the brain. — Metaphysician Undercover
The eye is the tool that the brain uses to generate sight. It has no function without the brain. — Garrett Travers
You speak of 'biological function' and, I am not dismissing biology. However, it is one model and way of seeing reality. To what extent can everything be reduced to this model, which is materialism. I am not advocating idealism as the opposite instead of materialism, but would suggest that reality may be larger than either model. — Jack Cummins
That is because, ultimately, all these views are models, including neuroscience, and none of these can be viewed as 'absolute reality.' I am not opposed to neuroscience because it is important but to see it as 'the Unequivocal Triumph' may be to put it on a pedestal and see it concretely, in the way 'religious' perspectives were once seen. The findings of neuroscience are important in science but may not contain all that is known about consciousness because it can describe consciousness but is not consciousness itself. — Jack Cummins
Did you read the article, and see how the experiments showed the tool to function without the brain? — Metaphysician Undercover
"Eyes and other sensory organs probably evolved before the brain: There is no need for an information-processing organ (brain) before there is information to process.[19] A living example are cubozoan jellyfish that possess eyes comparable to vertebrate and cephalopod camera eyes despite lacking a brain." — Metaphysician Undercover
those who do not accept his Scientism-based bible-thumping as philosophical arguments. — Gnomon
And all of my proffered "evidence" came from credentialed practitioners of various fields of science — Gnomon
He continued to insist "show me the evidence", yet ignored my many links to quotes by professional scientists supporting my modest comments. He didn't seem to be interested in the opinions of individual scientists. Instead, his absolute authority is capital "S" science -- as-if modern science is a monolithic institution like the Catholic Church, with canonical scriptures. — Gnomon
So, I began to reflect his bullying tactics back at him. And he didn't like it at all, e.g. being treated as a naive idiot, ignorant of holy Science. Yet, he made no attempt to justify his own bragging boast of "Unequivocal Triumph" of Science over Philosophy. — Gnomon
Your not paying attention Garrett. The eye does not need the brain, and most likely evolved into existence prior to the brain. Therefore it does not exist as a tool of the brain. — Metaphysician Undercover
And semiotic on both the biological and sociological levels. — apokrisis
What do you think it means when it clearly states, overtly, "There is no need for an information-processing organ (brain) before there is information to process?" — Garrett Travers
That's so ludicrous -- the idea that the rest of our bodies are all in service of the brain. How ridiculous.
We are our whole bodies, including, but not limited to, our brain. If, when you refer to yourself as "me" you're referring strictly to your brain, you're a cartoon villain. — theRiddler
The brain and body are ONE, not separate: — Garrett Travers
It means, that there is no need for an information processing organ (brain), in order for there to be an organ which receives the information (eye). Therefore we can conclude that the organ which receives the information (eye) does not exist as a tool of the organ which processes the information (brain). — Metaphysician Undercover
Now you're really not making sense. Are my feet a part of my brain? — Metaphysician Undercover
You seem to have conveniently forgotten how to read now. — Metaphysician Undercover
We are more than brains. To see just how much more than a brain you are you could subtract the average weight of a human brain from your total weight.
I know enough biology. The body is the “source of consciousness”. The brain is only one of many integral parts to a conscious or unconscious organism. — NOS4A2
Now, it's time for you to address even the first topic of the research I've posted, or scram. — Garrett Travers
Sorry Travers, just like you are uninterested in the truth about the relationship between the eye and the brain, I'm not interested in the research you posted. — Metaphysician Undercover
And do some research on that eye thing, you're completely clueless about it. — Garrett Travers
Of course the brain and the body are one: the brain is a part of the body. The body, even the brain, is not located "in the brain", though, and yet, we actually are our entire bodies -- not just our brains. — theRiddler
The research has been done, and referenced above. You are in denial of the facts, because they are incompatible with what you believe. So be it. — Metaphysician Undercover
not just our brains. — theRiddler
Who's insulting who? I don't even take this conversation seriously -- you've insulted half the people in it! — theRiddler
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.