I just thought this was an apt quote to tag onto the end of this thread.When the crocodiles are biting your arse - it is difficult to remember that the original plan was to drain the swamp.
![Wink ;-)](https://www.booktalk.org/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
In total there are 4 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 4 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 1086 on Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:03 am
I just thought this was an apt quote to tag onto the end of this thread.When the crocodiles are biting your arse - it is difficult to remember that the original plan was to drain the swamp.
What do you think? By the way Chris - this isn't such a bad thread to post this on after all, is it?What we refere to as 'mind' is not a substance, it is a process (actually the same can be said of what we refer to as 'matter', but that's another thing). If by fundamental one means 'serving as a foundation' then clearly matter is fundamental, since it was goiong on long before there was anything we could refer to as 'mind'.
A philosophical realist would probably say thism though a sopical idealist would probably say that 'matter' becomes just that when 'mind' interacts with it.
An evolutionary point of view would be that by utilising energy form the sun, organic matter was able to achieve a complexity where it became able to respond to energy changes ('sense') its external and internal environment. Because there is a selective advantage in being able to do this, complexity evolved through sexual reproduction. As the complexity of respons to, and eventually representation of, sensory information evolved, so did the process we refer to as mind.
The anthropologist Leslie White suggested we use the term 'minding' rather than 'mind' to avoid the delusion of considering the process as a noun rather than a verb.