Incidentally, one of the many philosophical grounds for rejecting the view that intellectual acts could possibly be bodily acts is that intellectual acts are capable of being self-reflexive. You can kick a ball; but you cannot kick “kicking.” Nor can you see “seeing”; vision, like kicking, is a bodily act. However, you can easily think about the act of thinking about something, which is what I hope I have stimulated contributors who hold to a deterministic position – whether “hard” or “soft” – to do. (Commenter vjtorley supposedly summarizing Aristotle)
Here’s a short story I wrote to crystallize a few reflections on forms of determinism.
Once upon a time there was a crystal which reflected on its own light. So that is what it did, as it was its nature and it was good. In a moment of reflection it thought it good to crystallize more crystals like itself that would form reflections of their own. It reflected on this thought for an extra moment, weighing the danger of allowing others to reflect its light in themselves against the possibility of being able to reflect on things together. Then it allowed its thought to crystallize. For a moment all the new crystals reflected on things in harmony with each other. But then there was an illusion that crystallized in one which drew light into itself and drew so many others in to reflect on itself that it seemed to be reflecting its own light just like the original crystal. This dark crystal apparently illuminated many questions but it could not shed light on any subject because it was really just an illusion that the original had already shed light on.
Filed under: Uncategorized |