ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Penis controls urges, surely you know that ElM?
Leftists
- Thread starter GhostWriter16
- Start date
Saying "he thinks with his penis" is inaccurate, but acceptable in a society that commonly mentions that the brain is what does the thinking.
Dozens of verses talking about "evil thoughts in the heart" indicate that maybe they thought that evil thoughts came from the heart.
It's metaphor now, but it certainly wasn't always.
Dozens of verses talking about "evil thoughts in the heart" indicate that maybe they thought that evil thoughts came from the heart.
It's metaphor now, but it certainly wasn't always.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
I have big brain and little brain and occasionally we get along. Big brain can often be disappointed the next morning though.
I'm not sure about the claim that references to falling stars meant that the ancient Hebrews really thought meteors were stars. But that's by the by really.
Of course, the heart does in fact play a role in cognition; it's not just the brain, by any means. The heart contains neurons, and they do play important roles in our emotions, so it is not just a metaphor to say that you feel emotions in your heart. In fact even the stomach contains neurons. And it is increasingly evident that our thought processes - taking this term in the widest sense, to include emotions and impulses - also have a lot to do with quite different structures and chemicals throughout the body, such as peptides. So the notion that thinking is all down to the brain seems to be quite wrong, although you'd be surprised how many analytic philosophers assume otherwise. The upshot of all this is that if any physical object thinks, it is the body as a whole, not the brain. People who have their heads cryogenically frozen in the belief that the head contains everything that is "them" are unfortunately mistaken, although I suppose they're unlikely ever to realise this.
Plus, of course, extended mind theory holds that it's not just the biological body that thinks; processes which bring about thought may extend beyond the body in certain cases. For example, if you store masses of information in your phone, it could legitimately be said that your phone is taking on a function normally performed by part of your brain or another part of your body, to such an extent that it may be said to be part of your mind in the same way that part of your body may be. In which case thinking is not confined even to the biological body, let alone the brain.
However, whether the ancient Hebrews meant by "heart" the physical organ, I don't know. Certainly in later Middle Eastern spirituality, such as Pseudo-Macarius, the "heart" plays an important role as the seat not only of human emotion but of human spirituality, but the physical organ is not meant.
Of course, the heart does in fact play a role in cognition; it's not just the brain, by any means. The heart contains neurons, and they do play important roles in our emotions, so it is not just a metaphor to say that you feel emotions in your heart. In fact even the stomach contains neurons. And it is increasingly evident that our thought processes - taking this term in the widest sense, to include emotions and impulses - also have a lot to do with quite different structures and chemicals throughout the body, such as peptides. So the notion that thinking is all down to the brain seems to be quite wrong, although you'd be surprised how many analytic philosophers assume otherwise. The upshot of all this is that if any physical object thinks, it is the body as a whole, not the brain. People who have their heads cryogenically frozen in the belief that the head contains everything that is "them" are unfortunately mistaken, although I suppose they're unlikely ever to realise this.
Plus, of course, extended mind theory holds that it's not just the biological body that thinks; processes which bring about thought may extend beyond the body in certain cases. For example, if you store masses of information in your phone, it could legitimately be said that your phone is taking on a function normally performed by part of your brain or another part of your body, to such an extent that it may be said to be part of your mind in the same way that part of your body may be. In which case thinking is not confined even to the biological body, let alone the brain.
However, whether the ancient Hebrews meant by "heart" the physical organ, I don't know. Certainly in later Middle Eastern spirituality, such as Pseudo-Macarius, the "heart" plays an important role as the seat not only of human emotion but of human spirituality, but the physical organ is not meant.
There're independent neurons throughout the body, but they're not involved in cognition or emotional processing; that's entirely cortical. You can affect your thoughts by affecting your organs, of course - a simple stamp on the foot proves that. However, the processing done in the organs is merely sensory (or interpreted as sensory).
The heart being the seat of evil thoughts is quite wrong. It's as wrong as saying that the eyes have evil thoughts. It's important to distinguish between thinking and sensory integration. You can replace an entire heart and maintain a completely robust emotional cognition; even before there're any neuronal integrations between the new heart and the nervous system. As well, organs release hormones that will end up affecting the brain, but these hormones are integrated into thinking firstly through sensory transduction.
Hearts certainly process information, but so does a rock.
If you're going to go to extra-CNS origins of thoughts, then you're going to have to go ahead and include our entire visible universe. Because all calculations can affect your thoughts, as long as 'you' eventually interact with the results of those calculations. But that entirely ignores the concept that your thoughts are not the entire universe.
The heart being the seat of evil thoughts is quite wrong. It's as wrong as saying that the eyes have evil thoughts. It's important to distinguish between thinking and sensory integration. You can replace an entire heart and maintain a completely robust emotional cognition; even before there're any neuronal integrations between the new heart and the nervous system. As well, organs release hormones that will end up affecting the brain, but these hormones are integrated into thinking firstly through sensory transduction.
Hearts certainly process information, but so does a rock.
If you're going to go to extra-CNS origins of thoughts, then you're going to have to go ahead and include our entire visible universe. Because all calculations can affect your thoughts, as long as 'you' eventually interact with the results of those calculations. But that entirely ignores the concept that your thoughts are not the entire universe.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
We all have urges. It is natural.
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
There is no perfect alignment. I would say that the mean of the Democratic Party would fall somewhere near the mean of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) in terms of voters' opinions.
Both are "free-market blah blah", but I would bet the average CPC voter in Canada wouldn't want to scrap public health care, and the Democrats would want to introduce it... the only way the CPC got anywhere close to where they did was because they dropped that private health crap from their (revealed) platform.
Both of them were to the right of the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) on financial regulation pre-crisis. The Clinton administration, for one, holds much responsibility.
On social issues, their mean support is kind of similar. In fact, I bet an atheist has a much better chance of being CPC leader in Canada than with the Democratic Party. Both parties would rather just not talk about gay rights, abortion, etc. due to the risk of fracturing its own divided voter-base.
An personal, anecdotal experience shows that many, if not most CPC supporters in Canada find the Republicans repugnant. They hope Harper wins at home and Obama wins in the States. I think a proper poll on that would really interesting.
That being said, it is very difficult to compare a multi-party country to a two-party country. The Democratic Party has a tail of its voter spectrum that stretches to the left of the LPC and into NDP territory, as there is no major party to its left. The CPC has a tail of support that stretches well into the loonie fringes of Republican territory, as there is no major party to its right.
The voter distributions are complicated and do not overlap well. It is just their mean support that is fairly close. That being said, you could argue that the Democrats are maybe at the separation point between the Liberals and the Cons. If you could divide the CPC into its Reform and Progressive Conservative components, then you could say that Reform is to the right of the Democrats on the majority of issues. But even then, the Democrats are at least as religious.
Similar threads
