Comment on [deleted]
camilledockham@jlai.lu 4 weeks agoCan you explain how you reached that conclusion? Since you’re a rigorous thinker, no doubt it would be trivial for you.
Comment on [deleted]
camilledockham@jlai.lu 4 weeks agoCan you explain how you reached that conclusion? Since you’re a rigorous thinker, no doubt it would be trivial for you.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 4 weeks ago
Aristotle believed in it too, along with the four humors and classical elements.
Doesn’t make his thoughts on rhetoric irrelevant, but those also don’t make his mystical solutions to problems he didn’t have the tools to solve correct.
camilledockham@jlai.lu 4 weeks ago
That someone like Russell subscribed to a form of protopanpsychism is not a proof that his position is right. It does indicate, on the other hand, that I could be a kind of metaphysical position that’s more serious than you believe it is, serious enough that vaguely recognizing a few words in a few sentences on wikipedia is not enough to actually understand it. Not only that but it’s had actual scientific productivity through ergonomics (eg “How the cockpit remembers its speed”), biology (biosemiotics), sociology (actor network theory), and even arguably in physics through Ernst Mach and information theory.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 4 weeks ago
No it doesn’t.
camilledockham@jlai.lu 4 weeks ago
What are you even responding to? You don’t seem too keen on learning anything honestly. Can we at least agree that saying “panpsychism is woo/mysticism” is a form of ignorance, willful, stubborn ignorance in your case? It’s fine, it’s impossible to learn everything in a single lifetime, but at least let’s be honest.