2 ms·
It's hard to have this conversation without having a specific way to talk about the inner workings of the mind. For example, a biologist could (possibly) say t
by everdrive 7y ago
It's hard to have this conversation without having a specific way to talk about the inner workings of the mind.
For example, a biologist could (possibly) say that a person who couldn't visualize things had a mind that was almost identical a person who could.
A psychologist might say that nonetheless this represents a large difference in function.
Both would be right in their own way, but you'd need to define the internal thought process in a specific and uniform way before you could qualify it was a "different" or "similar."
- the_af 7y agoYes, agreed. It's very hard to have this conversation! I guess I'm just saying it's very unlikely (to me) that any given two people function "totally differently" internally. I agree there must be differences, some of them astonishing, but I have a hard time believing those two people are totally different. It's the same biological hardware supporting the same kind of software -- maybe one is Windows and the other is Linux though ;) Nothing of what I'm saying is scientific or definitive, just my gut feeling. I'm aware of the dangers of comparing people to hardware/software, and I know it's a flawed analogy.