One radical branch of philosophy would state that everything is matter, our thoughts too, that are defined by electronic states in our neurons. Other schools would say that all is in our minds, constructed on an individual or social level.
Let us take these viewpoints and look again at Bartlett's Cat/Owl proto-animal. First it is the drawing of an owl and finally it turns - after several generations of reproduction- into a more familiar animal, a cat. In between it is a sort of animal shaped blob, but it stays an animal.
It is fascinating for me.
Before I continue I have to go back to my University office and reread the experimental instructions, because I need to be sure about some details.
However, let us assume that all is in our heads. What keeps the drawing a picture of an animal? Was it Bartlett's instruction? Was it something inexplicable (scientists love such a question)? Was it some constraint of reality, some outer limit that confines our construction to certain borders of perception?
The owl could have turned into a house, a hammer or a plant.
Even without knowledge of the experimental instruction I will pose the following question: Is there always an experimentator who tells us what to do? (A Freudian über-ich or an alter or Bartlett himself)
Nevertheless, the truth somehow transcends the above-mentioned duality and in opposition to Descartes I would like to state: "As soon as I think, I am not."
No comments:
Post a Comment