LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+41 41 0
Published 3 years ago with 1 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • Boethius (edited 3 years ago)

    The problem with arguments via "The map is not the territory" is they tend to forget the map represents the territory. This means that, although what we see in terms of color is of processes built within our biological systems, they nonetheless represent the same order of spectra for the majority of people. A given wavelength will invariably be "red", or "orange", and nevertheless indicate something about the wavelength in question. If you do not ground the discussion in the fact the map is representing something, you quickly happen upon a scenario where it's "turtles all the way down" - that is, maps all the way down (As in Steps to an Ecology of Mind by Gregory Bateson). Which is why Epicurean philosophy grounded itself in the (erroneous) opposite extreme that sense data was infallible, because the alternative platonic theory of forms idea (which is essentially what you get with "everything being an infinite series of maps") loses touch with reality entirely.

    The preface done with, I must remark from here upon the apparent conclusion of the author from his non-novel realization that sense data is subjective to the biology of an organism. This proposition of "adverbalism" of color, and its relationship with Noe's suggestion of consciousness being an "in between" factor analogous to it, is built upon the infinite-maps straw-man when one rejects that sense data must represent something. Sensations do not occur in a vacuum. They are rooted in these biological processes and objective reality those processes interpret. For, were they not interpreted, they would become useless.

    A brief moment of reflection also reveals that, in order to suppose even if they existed in this vacuum that consciousness exists as a property "in between" biology and ontology, it begs the question of "Where is it then?" This so-called "in-between" space appears nothing more than an abstract notion rooted in the prerequisite (unproved) premise that the mind, consciousness, must exist as something "other" than the sum of biology and physical reality. Therefore, insofar as the author has any coherent idea, the necessary premise of that idea is not supported. Worse still, in being unsupported, it falls yet further to something akin to a modern platonic theory of forms (where the original western concept of an "external mind" or "soul" comes from). This is simply unsupportable rationally, still without proof empirically, and further indicated by the simple fact the map represents a territory. Given the author did not give us the territory this map points to, the whole line of reasoning is grounded in fantasy.

Here are some other snaps you may like...