2 ms·
Even if you are a full materialist it's fallacious to assume there is one "part" that does something, like it's a factory assembly. Instead it might be a functi
by bsdpufferfish 3y ago
Even if you are a full materialist it's fallacious to assume there is one "part" that does something, like it's a factory assembly. Instead it might be a function of the composition of brain parts.
It's like asking which part of a bat makes it fly. The wings? Well kind of, but you need more than that. I guess you can fly without feet... it's just not a well formed question.
- red75prime 3y agoIf you ask question a bit differently, then it's not a mystery at all. Why brain parts that have neural structure, which is conductive to fine and agile motor control, perform motor control?
- bsdpufferfish 3y agoWhy is it in a part? Which part of the violin makes it sound in tune?
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Even if you are a full materialist it's fallacious to assume there is one "part" that does something, like it's a factory assembly. Instead it might be a function of the composition of brain parts. Its true that a particular function may mot be localizable more specifically than the brain (or even the whole body), because defining it as a distinct function may not reflect the organization of conponents within the body. But that's still performed by a defined physical system, and there are still sub-functions necessary to perform that function that are localizable to narrower components. > It's like asking which part of a bat makes it fly. Its like that in that we absolutely can describe specific parts of the bat and what each contributes to flight.