It doesn't have to be conscious or of the mind, either. If you have an eye that can only see green, then you'll only see green (although you likely won't call it green). Similarly, if your eye can't see IR or UV, then your direct reasoning will be biased by only seeing the visible spectrum. Some lack of congruence might only be noticeable after it has been improved.
If you stretch the definition, I suppose you could consider thinking itself a kind of sense, but it's not one that translates between the universe and the being, but one that does between the mind (or itself). There's always the question of how much sophistication, if you will, resides in the core, and how much is merely being used like one might use a sense or a limb... and the traditional dualist perspective doesn't seem to work completely, as it's very easy to fall into infinite regress.
I wrote a bit about that as a reply to the LJ duplicate of this entry. Lhexa said DW would copy back, but it seems not to have done so, at least not yet - so you may find that of interest, here.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2010-09-13 09:42 pm (UTC)If you stretch the definition, I suppose you could consider thinking itself a kind of sense, but it's not one that translates between the universe and the being, but one that does between the mind (or itself). There's always the question of how much sophistication, if you will, resides in the core, and how much is merely being used like one might use a sense or a limb... and the traditional dualist perspective doesn't seem to work completely, as it's very easy to fall into infinite regress.
I wrote a bit about that as a reply to the LJ duplicate of this entry. Lhexa said DW would copy back, but it seems not to have done so, at least not yet - so you may find that of interest, here.