9 votes

Topic deleted by author

1 comment

  1. onyxleopard
    Link
    I liked this. My own personal defense against pessimistic reductionism is that reductionism needn’t be pessimistic at all. There are plenty of things that we understand are reducible, but...

    I liked this. My own personal defense against pessimistic reductionism is that reductionism needn’t be pessimistic at all. There are plenty of things that we understand are reducible, but nonetheless bring us joy. Does the choreographer despair when they conceive of dance as a sequence of human movements? Does the painter despair when they conceive of a painting as a collection of brushstrokes? Does the writer despair when they conceive of prose as a sequence of symbols? If they do, I think they are missing the point. These reductions are essential to understanding these media, and it is through understanding the basic parts that let’s us move on to the more interesting relationships between them. Understanding that human brains are made of neurons and synapses and that the signals passed between these cells can be measured and redirected is certainly useful. But those are the 'atoms' of the brain and what we don’t yet understand is how these atoms compose into emergent consciousness. And when we finally crack that nut, that will be as joyful as witnessing a ballet, listening to a harmonious song, or espying a masterful fresco.

    3 votes