![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Posting in progress...
Feb. 6th, 2016 00:341. Human is a collective, and the so called "person" objectively does not exist. Likewise, in reality, there is no so called "god" or the so called "soul" (in relation to the latter term, the term "person" is a euphemism).
It's clear, that the illusion of "person" emerges along the illusion of "free will" in the individual brain of a separately taken ape of a certain species when it finds itself in a certain environment, of which an essential element for the apes, as well as for all the political animal species, consists in the social relations of the specimens within the collective.
That is, "human" - in relation to each specific ape called Joe Doe or Vasya Pupkin is environment. And those very Joe Doe and Vasya Pupkin are "humans" only so long as they are part of that environment for the rest of the members of a given collective of the species called Homo sapiens.
In fact, any allusion to the so called "person" is, at best, a birthmark of anthropocentrism on the body of scientific world outlook.
2. Sapience and reason cannot be a property of a single member of a collective (or of a nonexistent "person"). Sapience and reason may (or may not) be a property only of a collective taken as a whole. Sapience and reason may emerge out of and continue to exist in the social relations within a collective. Naturally, emergence and existence of sapience and reason require that the collective consisted of specimens with suitable (powerful enough) brains. Yet this is only a necessary, but not the sufficient condition. Without enough number of specimens with powerful enough brains organized via certain social relations into an intraspecimen neural network, no semblance of sapience and reason can emerge and maintain itself.
3. The only actual concept of the so called "freedom" is when it is defined as the realization of necessity via reason and sapience. From which it follows that "human freedom" may be attainable only at the level of a collective. And then again, without collective, free or not, there is no human at all.
( Read more... )
It's clear, that the illusion of "person" emerges along the illusion of "free will" in the individual brain of a separately taken ape of a certain species when it finds itself in a certain environment, of which an essential element for the apes, as well as for all the political animal species, consists in the social relations of the specimens within the collective.
That is, "human" - in relation to each specific ape called Joe Doe or Vasya Pupkin is environment. And those very Joe Doe and Vasya Pupkin are "humans" only so long as they are part of that environment for the rest of the members of a given collective of the species called Homo sapiens.
In fact, any allusion to the so called "person" is, at best, a birthmark of anthropocentrism on the body of scientific world outlook.
2. Sapience and reason cannot be a property of a single member of a collective (or of a nonexistent "person"). Sapience and reason may (or may not) be a property only of a collective taken as a whole. Sapience and reason may emerge out of and continue to exist in the social relations within a collective. Naturally, emergence and existence of sapience and reason require that the collective consisted of specimens with suitable (powerful enough) brains. Yet this is only a necessary, but not the sufficient condition. Without enough number of specimens with powerful enough brains organized via certain social relations into an intraspecimen neural network, no semblance of sapience and reason can emerge and maintain itself.
3. The only actual concept of the so called "freedom" is when it is defined as the realization of necessity via reason and sapience. From which it follows that "human freedom" may be attainable only at the level of a collective. And then again, without collective, free or not, there is no human at all.
( Read more... )