Glossary entry (derived from question below)
French term or phrase:
n'y a d\'intelligence sans organe
English translation:
There's no intelligence without a brain
Added to glossary by
B D Finch
Nov 15, 2018 06:23
5 yrs ago
French term
n\'y a d\'intelligence sans organe
French to English
Science
Music
Here’s the complete sentence:
car, il n'y a pas d'observation désincarnée de toute action physique, pas plus qu'il n'y a d'intelligence sans organe ni d'homme sans corps
Here’s my translation:
For there is no disembodied observation of any physical action, no more than there is intelligence without an organ or a person without a body.
car, il n'y a pas d'observation désincarnée de toute action physique, pas plus qu'il n'y a d'intelligence sans organe ni d'homme sans corps
Here’s my translation:
For there is no disembodied observation of any physical action, no more than there is intelligence without an organ or a person without a body.
Proposed translations
(English)
4 +4 | There's no intelligence without a brain | B D Finch |
2 +4 | without a physical organ | Sandra & Kenneth Grossman |
2 -1 | there is no intelligence without mind | SafeTex |
Change log
Nov 29, 2018 10:34: B D Finch Created KOG entry
Proposed translations
+4
3 hrs
French term (edited):
n'y a d'intelligence sans organe
Selected
There's no intelligence without a brain
I think that use of the word "brain" is essential. "Organ" just doesn't work in English, which is a shame because, if it could be used, there'd be a nice musical reference. "Mind" is self-referential, so it also doesn't work and it fails to link the conceptual with the physical entity.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2018-11-15 10:10:46 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Omit the "There's no", as that doesn't fit in with the text.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2018-11-15 10:10:46 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Omit the "There's no", as that doesn't fit in with the text.
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Selected automatically based on peer agreement."
-1
11 mins
there is no intelligence without mind
Hello
I think this is what it is. I wouldn't use "brain" personally here
I think this is what it is. I wouldn't use "brain" personally here
Peer comment(s):
neutral |
Sandra & Kenneth Grossman
: mind is not an organ, and is not opposed to "intelligence"
26 mins
|
Brain is the physical organ but "mind" fits better in my opinion.
|
|
disagree |
Daryo
: that's not what is said in the ST - the point made is in the necessity for some material support / tangible container for the "intelligence". // same as the fact that any kind of "software" can not exist without IT "hardware" as its container / support
7 hrs
|
neutral |
Nikki Scott-Despaigne
: As this is about Catersian-type duality of body and mind, then (the immaterial) "mind" becomes a synonym of intelligence. Unfortunately, this suggesstion does not distinguish the immaterial from the material so it does not work here.
5 days
|
Hello Nikki. I prefer "mind" but accept "brain". Not "organ" though and I'm surprised by the support for that suggestion. Regards
|
+4
37 mins
without a physical organ
or even physical brain.
This is about the dichotomy between the physical and the spiritual;
This is about the dichotomy between the physical and the spiritual;
Peer comment(s):
neutral |
SafeTex
: you were kind enough not to give me a disagree so I will do the same and say that my foot is a physical organ too. I expected someone to say "brain" but not this
1 hr
|
agree |
GILLES MEUNIER
3 hrs
|
Thanks!
|
|
agree |
Daryo
: or "without a physical support" // "brain" is no good - the ST doesn't say anything specific about the type of "intelligence"
7 hrs
|
Thanks!
|
|
agree |
Yvonne Gallagher
: I think it might be more natural English with THE physical organ.
7 hrs
|
Thanks!
|
|
agree |
Nikki Scott-Despaigne
: I like "physical brain". This is basically about Cartesian-type mind-body duality, as indicated in the phrases before and after the one in question. The solution needs to point to a clear distinction between the two.
5 days
|
Thanks!
|
Reference comments
5 days
Reference:
Descartes, mind-body dualism/-ity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind–body_dualism
Mind–body dualism, or mind–body duality, is a view in the philosophy of mind that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical,[1] or that the mind and body are distinct and separable.[2] Thus, it encompasses a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, and between subject and object, and is contrasted with other positions, such as physicalism and enactivism, in the mind–body problem.[1][2]
Aristotle shared Plato's view of multiple souls and further elaborated a hierarchical arrangement, corresponding to the distinctive functions of plants, animals, and people: a nutritive soul of growth and metabolism that all three share; a perceptive soul of pain, pleasure, and desire that only people and other animals share; and the faculty of reason that is unique to people only. In this view, a soul is the hylomorphic form of a viable organism, wherein each level of the hierarchy formally supervenes upon the substance of the preceding level. Thus, for Aristotle, all three souls perish when the living organism dies.[3][4] For Plato however, the soul was not dependent on the physical body; he believed in metempsychosis, the migration of the soul to a new physical body.[5]
Dualism is closely associated with the thought of René Descartes (1641), which holds that the mind is a nonphysical—and therefore, non-spatial—substance. Descartes clearly identified the mind with consciousness and self-awareness and distinguished this from the brain as the seat of intelligence.[6] Hence, he was the first to formulate the mind–body problem in the form in which it exists today.[7] Dualism is contrasted with various kinds of monism. Substance dualism is contrasted with all forms of materialism, but property dualism may be considered a form of emergent materialism or non-reductive physicalism in some sense.
Mind–body dualism, or mind–body duality, is a view in the philosophy of mind that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical,[1] or that the mind and body are distinct and separable.[2] Thus, it encompasses a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, and between subject and object, and is contrasted with other positions, such as physicalism and enactivism, in the mind–body problem.[1][2]
Aristotle shared Plato's view of multiple souls and further elaborated a hierarchical arrangement, corresponding to the distinctive functions of plants, animals, and people: a nutritive soul of growth and metabolism that all three share; a perceptive soul of pain, pleasure, and desire that only people and other animals share; and the faculty of reason that is unique to people only. In this view, a soul is the hylomorphic form of a viable organism, wherein each level of the hierarchy formally supervenes upon the substance of the preceding level. Thus, for Aristotle, all three souls perish when the living organism dies.[3][4] For Plato however, the soul was not dependent on the physical body; he believed in metempsychosis, the migration of the soul to a new physical body.[5]
Dualism is closely associated with the thought of René Descartes (1641), which holds that the mind is a nonphysical—and therefore, non-spatial—substance. Descartes clearly identified the mind with consciousness and self-awareness and distinguished this from the brain as the seat of intelligence.[6] Hence, he was the first to formulate the mind–body problem in the form in which it exists today.[7] Dualism is contrasted with various kinds of monism. Substance dualism is contrasted with all forms of materialism, but property dualism may be considered a form of emergent materialism or non-reductive physicalism in some sense.
Something went wrong...