-
Show this thread
-
While I'm still happy that I was raised religiously (as it helps me understand those I don't agree with) ditching dualism took a lot of work
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Research_Tim
It's baked right in, isn't it? Took me years too
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @PsychScientists
Yes it can be very persistent, because it is often implicit and because it is weaved into our language.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @PsychScientists
Tim van der Zee Retweeted Tim van der Zee
Sadly, yeah. In case you missed it:https://twitter.com/Research_Tim/status/916605421321940992 …
Tim van der Zee added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Research_Tim
It's all physical, but not necessarily 'contained in the science of physics' :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PsychScientists
I'm not sure what you mean - is that an ontological or epistemological statement?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Research_Tim @PsychScientists
Kinda tangent, sorry: Have you noticed that sometimes things that're actually dual called "dualism" when they aren't? Like soft vs hardware?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @PsychScientists
Yes good point. "Software, as opposed to physical devices" is a common phrase. They confuse physicality with tangibility.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Also levels of abstraction/layer of analysis like e.g., Marr's but others exist too, are relevant for realising what is and isn't multiple.
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.