* "thought and physicality are not antithetical"

To understand Hume means to accept that thought and physicality are not antithetical, this very much resonates with the 4EA (embodied ,embedded, enactive, extended and affective) cognition extensively described by John Protevi. Thus once this confusion has been resolved then someone can sense that the subject emerges from a field of physical sensations and other physical intensities.

Delanda nicely makes the analogy between software (thought) and hardware ( neurons) there is no way something significant to emerge when someone tries to map the word processed text that you are reading at this moment with the firing of and-gates or–gates deep within the transistors in the hardware. There are only different layers or better several softwares that bring the transistors and text into communication. The problem with the human mind is that no one has ever identified any of those layers that happened to be between neurons and thoughts.

The only thing neuroscience is capable of saying is not how we think but only “what our brain must be for it to be possible to think and feel in other ways” (Rajchman, p137). Delanda then provides through Deleuze an approach to the issue, “this problem should be approached evolutionary” to start from the simplest organism with simple sensations and minimum consciousness and then to add layers of complexity. for this argument Deleuze in different context brings forth Uexkull’s Umwelt to describe Tick’s cognitive process through three affects.

This kind of understanding concludes to the non antithetical nature of thought and physicality.

The above text is in form of scattered notes from the following sources

* Manuel DeLanda in

DeLanda, M., Ellingsen, E.(2007) Possibility of Spaces. In Models-306090, eds (Abruzzo et all), 306090 Inc. New York.

Rajchman, J.(2001) Deleuze Connections. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, London