|
Page 2 sur 2
So, interactive levels of the understanding are rich of information as for life's dynamics and as for primordial causes.
Let's insist more.
If we consider for example, the very young japanese macaques, of the Koshima island, who learn to wash their food (dirty potatoes), with their mother,
or the plains's gorillas discovered in Congo, who teach to their progeny how to rinse roots so as to eat them,
evidently this behaviors requires more that physical activities : of the abstract activities as the recognitions, choices, previsions, …, and decisions.
Here is another similar interrogation,
how to explain that chimpanzees can associate some symbols to things,
more exactly for example, can associate three designs which represent "the red", "a circle" and "a tail ", to vision of an apple ? (cf. The animal intelligence - J. Vauclair, Le Seuil).
For it, it is necessary that some characteristics of this apple and of these symbols are transferred in a same virtuality domain (abstraction's domain),
and are compared by a creative entity, master of "sense" and "time".
What can we say of this mysterious domain ?,
ignored by the philosophers and theologians, where "is reigning" present moment, without duration.
We could also quote behaviors of kanzi.
Educated in Yerkes Center of Atlanta, this chimpanzee was recognizing more than six hundred words and was capable of "building" some embryos of sentences with symbols.
Although these sentences have been rudimentary, even stupid, it would not have been possible without the innate memorization of specific abstract references which were judged, utilized and constantly updated,
and if there are "innate judgments ...", obviously, there are innate interpretations.
Concerning the "innate", and the biological processes which are associated with it, let us emphasize some grave mistakes and ambiguities of the philosophers and biologists ; examples are numerous :
* "Instinct is the innate capacity that enables an animal to have a typical behavior of his species, in specific environmental conditions, in particular to parents's contact..
Man does not really learn to speak, no more than bird learns to fly.
This knowledge is put by his genes in his brain and parents reveal this treasure.".
It's necessary to be serious !
Indeed, genes do nothing, but they enable memorization of genetic potentialities,
potentialities which are fruits of ceaseless creative activities, of transcendent order,
potentialities which can be actualized (materialized to become realities) by means of parents, of the education or other "initiators" as the environmental constraints.
* "Reality which is perceived by animal is put in his brain or more exactly, within neuronal complex of his brain.".
Yes, but who puts and what are processes ?
Matter by means of its physical properties which would enable to brain from "transcending" reality to recognize, judge, choose, decide and do ?
Evidently no.
* "It is not necessary any more to search and to define observer who forms images memorized in brain, if we admit that brain works as an active metaphor,
in other words, when representation is merged with action, …
The representations are at the same moment the forms and forces which produce and reproduce subject's world, …".
An active metaphor, what is it ?!
Do we have to laugh or cry in front of this speech ?
Let's repeat, virtual images which are located in abstraction's domain, are not creative entities ; these abstract references, only enable recognitions, judgments, choices, …, and actions.
But then, who does elaborate them, enable their coherence and adequacy with reality, who does use them ?
So, we must be vigilant in front of simplistic explanations which are conveyed by the scientists, philosophers and theologians !
Paul Moyne
|
