| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"P8d75ygiei","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ17Ӻ","startOffset":330,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ17Ӻ","endOffset":1127°Ӻ,"quote":"Only the part above the dashed line corresponds to what an observer would consider to be an organism, for instance a frog. The area below the line represents that part of an observer’s experiential field that remains as “environment” or “background” from which the observer has perceptually or conceptually separated the organism. Hence, the observer may see (and speak of) the frog as interacting with its environment. The frog, that is the organism itself, as we shall argue in what follows, has no possible cognitive access to its environment. And, if we apply the model to ourselves as organisms, we too cannot have access to our own environment because our experience, whatever it may be, lies on this side of the dashed line and can be composed only of the signals within our neural network.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery3210139467198483622":^°°,^"jQuery3210139467198483622":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1580314919698°
|
