This is good but isn't it useful to distinguish between internal and external physiological causes (like, is the call coming from inside the house or not)?
-
-
-
somewhat, though people also want internal vs. external to be an ontologically magical distinction that it isn't... it's an idea that a particular syndrome is "your brain being rewired" and "not psychological" that i'm mad at though
-
to some extent that's just exigent praxis because in popular usage "psychological" somehow still literally means "not actually happening or real" but i can't abide feeding into that
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
dunno, there's a difference between having the contents of DDR memory altered by normal processor access, and having it altered by EMP pulse
-
true, but the "brain being rewired" under discussion is just by sense data, i.e. normal processor access in the metaphor, not by the surgical insertion of wires, which would do much more to justify the distinction, and also be considerably more cinematic
-
I would think there are ways of 'rewiring the brain' through normal sense data that are also hostile, but they're not procedurally that distinct from making a good argument. What's the context for all this?
-
i'll DM it
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
We can explain all psychological phenomena without reference to internal states. For example, the claim that there is a brain "inside" my head is completely unprovab
-
get back in your jar, Rene
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
not as bad as when ppl write psychological-multiplicity dialogues and 'brain' is one of the interlocutors and also depending on who writes it, 'brain' is not even a consistent role like savages talking abt thoughts in their organs
-
'heart' is holding up strong as the seat of kind thoughts and also secret ones, though.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.