So when you say 'recognize' are you implying that reason, causal relations are 'out there'? — aporiap
Well I think the whole psychologism framing creates a dualism in posing the origin of logic being 'mental' vs 'physical' so I just took you saying 'recognize' as opposed to 'construct' to mean you side on the 'physical' side of the division.Notice the implicit dualism of 'out there'. It imagines 'the world', as object, to me, the observer, 'in here'. Whatever is real is 'out there somewhere'. That is what I call 'instinctive naturalism'. I'm not saying it's wrong - but it is something to be noticed. — Wayfarer
But I say the development of language, logic and reasoning - which I'm sure are inextricably connected - requires something more than the fortuitous combination of elements. [It requires the ability to recognise meaning, to see that one type of thing equals or differs from another type of thing. That is inherently an abstract process, isn't it? Where else in nature do you find an analogy for that? I think this is why semiotics and bio-semiotics have become so influential of late - it's because of the 'language-like' processes that seem inherent in nature itself, which are not amenable to reduction to physical or lower-level processes.
That's not possible. "Raw experience" as such is an abstraction, not an actual phenomenological way of experiencing. Even with the presence of some or the other form of aphasia, there still are background experiences present. — Ying
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.