Where Does Our Sense of Purpose Come From?

[RuroumiKenshin]

In response to this, I will say that "instinct" is merely ~accepted knowledge~. I.e., instinct is 100%-believed knowledge which allows the Mind to work on ^auto-pilot^... so to speak. However, at the end of the day, all knowledge is reasoned by conciousness.
For example, if you instinctively run-away from spiders, then it's because you 100%-believe that spiders are the bogey-man, so to speak. However, if you ever face upto your irrational fear of all spiders, then it comes as no surprise that your 'instincts' suddenly start to become more mature.

Mature? Do you mean to say that when you face your fears, your instincts become mature? If so, you seem to be confused. Instinct only describes subconscious reactions. The maturity of insticts seems, at least to me (and I should note that I have a horrific fear of dogs! And no matter what I can't get over it...), takes more conscious thought than subconscious thought.

In other words, I don't consider 'instinct' to be anything different to 'reason'. I just think that instinct is self-confirmed-reason (emotionally-absolute reason). What I'm saying is that 'instinct' takes over our life until reason steps in. That's why human-beings can change their nature - when they try.

Lifegazer, instinct has nothing to do with reason. Reason is a consciously thought out process that is based on logic. Instinct on the other hand is ruled by the subconscious brain.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Mature? Do you mean to say that when you face your fears, your instincts become mature?

You can change the instincts of your mind by squareing-up to those instincts. You can create new instincts for yourself. You can overcome fear and habit. I'm not saying that it's easy; but it can be done... and has been done by many people.

Lifegazer, instinct has nothing to do with reason. Reason is a consciously thought out process that is based on logic. Instinct on the other hand is ruled by the subconscious brain.

This is incorrect. If reason had no power over instinct, then we'd still be swinging in the trees and beating our chests. The mind of humanity is slowly changing our animalistic-instincts. We are not slaves to emotion, or physical-habit. Or at least, we do not have to be slaves to our emotions and habits.
When you confront and challenge instinct, you slowly change them. You create new instincts for yourself.

 

[Deslaar]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I'll try to remember the recommendation. But in the meantime - for discussion's sake - I would like to hear your synopsis.

On second thoughts I cannot present a synopsis that would add to the discussion or that I could defend without going into rigorous detail. I'm not prepared to make that effort, even if I were capable, but I'm happy to discuss it if you read the book.

I'm not trying to be evasive but it takes a book to build the case and answer the questions of consciousness.

 

[FZ+]

You can change the instincts of your mind by squareing-up to those instincts. You can create new instincts for yourself. You can overcome fear and habit. I'm not saying that it's easy; but it can be done... and has been done by many people.

You have misunderstood the concept of instinct. Instincts are inborn psychological traits. They cannot be created by the mind - rather, they form the low level backbone of the mind.

This is incorrect. If reason had no power over instinct, then we'd still be swinging in the trees and beating our chests. The mind of humanity is slowly changing our animalistic-instincts. We are not slaves to emotion, or physical-habit. Or at least, we do not have to be slaves to our emotions and habits.

Nope. All that means is that the instincts of man are different to that of apes. You can mask instincts by conscious effort, but they are not changed themselves. Hypnosis anyone? If you remove the conscious entity, or the weight of experience, they re-emerge.

Please note how the beginning of DT Strain's invalidation of my philosophy starts-out with an assertion that "the organs" are responsible for my behaviour. So from the onset, DT Strain was set-out in defending his own beliefs. He had no intention of discussing my philosophy.

Showing an alternative to your philosophy is a way of discussing them.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Please note how the beginning of DT Strain's invalidation of my philosophy starts-out with an assertion that "the organs" are responsible for my behaviour. So from the onset, DT Strain was set-out in defending his own beliefs. He had no intention of discussing my philosophy.

That is because your philosophy is superfluous and irrelevant.

LG, what you don't seem to want to face up to is that what DT Strain wrote there is backed up by tested theories. Your ideas, on the other hand, are backed up by nothing but appeals to ignorance and whatever you make up to fill in the details. Your discussions of 'how the mind works' and 'what instinct is' just proves that in spades.

I am satisfied with FZ's answers to the rest of your post, so I am not going to go into the part about instinct.

If you read the responses in this thread and the one on beauty, then you should understand why people think that the mind is a function of the brain.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
You have misunderstood the concept of instinct. Instincts are inborn psychological traits.

If I was to see a bear, I'd probably either freeze or run like hell. Either action would require practically-zero thought, except a recognition of "There's a giant bear here, looking at me.". Thus, concious-recognition of sensation is the instigator of all proceeding instinctual actions.
But there can be no instinct without the subconcious-mind knowing how to respond (on 'my' behalf) to any such experience. Its actions are dependent upon my feelings towards any such situation. And my feelings about such unknown-dangers would have me run-away like crazy, or freeze to the spot and hope the bear ignores me. So the subconscious - knowing my feelings intimately - acts on my behalf to effect the desire of my feelings. And then I scarper or freeze, without a seconds thought.
Thus, though instinctual-actions are effected by the subconcious, they really originate through concious-recognition, and then concious-feeling.
But having self-awareness allows us a certain freedom to change our attitudes & feelings towards any given sensation(s). A drastic change in emotional-attitude would drastically alter our instincts and habits. People can actively manipulate the way they behave by actively addressing their negative-feelings towards given situations. Not just concious-behaviour, but instinctual-behaviour also.

They cannot be created by the mind - rather, they form the low level backbone of the mind.

This "low level backbone", is not just a lump of flesh. It understands feelings. For if it doesn't understand feelings, then how does it know that I really want to run like hell (from the bear) and I don't want to waste time thinking about it?
The mind must understand concious-feeling intimately. Otherwise, of what possible use is 'instinct'? Instincts are supposed to serve our needs, after-all.

 

[FZ+]

Either action would require practically-zero thought, except a recognition of "There's a giant bear here, looking at me.". Thus, concious-recognition of sensation is the instigator of all proceeding instinctual actions.

Wrongo! Most subconscious instincts involve subconscious recognition of triggering factors, without actually entering into the awareness of the mind. By the time you realized it's a bear, you would already have frozen.

Its actions are dependent upon my feelings towards any such situation.

Wrongo again. Your feelings are dependent on your instincts, and perhaps any experiences that work against your instincts. You feel fear due to a instinct against predators, not feel an instinct against predators because of fear. The instinct is the default feeling you have.

And my feelings about such unknown-dangers would have me run-away like crazy, or freeze to the spot and hope the bear ignores me.

In that case, you have trained your mind to mask your instincts. You instinct would be to panic, and not consider the possibilities as you have listed.

This "low level backbone", is not just a lump of flesh. It understands feelings. For if it doesn't understand feelings, then how does it know that I really want to run like hell (from the bear) and I don't want to waste time thinking about it?

Illogical! It would be a waste of time waiting for you to formulate a feeling, and a rather large disadvantage. The instinct acts regardless of your feelings - it is a subconscious default. The bear is probably a bad example... try parental instincts, or instinctual fear of strangeness/darkness, the curiosity instinct etc. Instincts are often irrational.

The mind must understand concious-feeling intimately.

Subconscious => unconscious. The word isn't just there for fun.

Otherwise, of what possible use is 'instinct'? Instincts are supposed to serve our needs, after-all.

Biologically, instincts are templates for the mind to tell it to deal with situations it does not have prior experience on. Evolved survival aids.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
Wrongo! Most subconscious instincts involve subconscious recognition of triggering factors, without actually entering into the awareness of the mind. By the time you realized it's a bear, you would already have frozen.

LOL. So I am prone to freezing on the spot, for no observed reason?
Come on Fz. There has to be concious-recognition of a situation before the mind can react to that knowledge. There has to be an awareness of situation, before the body reacts to that situation.

Wrongo again. Your feelings are dependent on your instincts

My feelings are my own. I can change my attitude to any particular situation and choose my own feelings in regards to that situation. Fears can be conquered. It's hard work, but it can be done.
So, it might even be possible to reduce myself of my fear of bears. Though I'm not sure I'm ready to change my mind about the dangers that a wild bear presents. I'll stick with the feelings I have on this matter, and I'll scarper or freeze when the need arrives. Gulp.
My feelings are not dependent upon my insticts. They're dependent upon my attitude, which is formed with judgement/reason.
My instinctive bodily-response, in this case, is dependent upon my feelings towards large wild-animals which are staring at me, menacingly. You seem to state this back-to-front.

You feel fear due to a instinct against predators, not feel an instinct against predators because of fear. The instinct is the default feeling you have.

The instinct refers to the bodily-response. Standing still, or running fast, are not indicative of having fear. Have you ever been frozen by 'awe', for example, having sensed something 'wonderful'? It doesn't happen very often, I know. But you must know what I mean.
Your instinct is defined by what you do. Not by what you feel. But the feeling is the cause of the response.

In that case, you have trained your mind to mask your instincts.

Trained the mind to change its instinctive-responses.

 

[FZ+]

Dictionary.com:

in·stinct __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(nstngkt)
n. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
A powerful motivation or impulse.
An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy.


Now, notice ENVIRONMENTAL stimuli. NOT mental stimuli. The freezing occurs by instinctive recognition, and conscious recognition happens afterwards. If you are instinctively afraid of bears, you would run even if you did not know bears are dangerous. Whether you have an instinctive fear of bears is another question.

My feelings are not dependent upon my insticts. They're dependent upon my attitude, which is formed with judgement/reason.

No they are not. They are based on your instincts. But other influences may come on top of them. The bear thing is a hard example because it is probably not an instinctive response. A better example is a maternal instinct. Do you ever feel... say... hunger when you see a baby? No, you instinctively find babies cute, until experience teaches you otherwise. You can't reason out cuteness. Can you?
By the definition, instincts are INBORN. If you consider instincts to be dependent factors, then you are not actually talking about instincts, but rather ingrained responses, which are different.

The instinct refers to the bodily-response. Standing still, or running fast, are not indicative of having fear. Have you ever been frozen by 'awe', for example, having sensed something 'wonderful'? It doesn't happen very often, I know. But you must know what I mean.
Your instinct is defined by what you do. Not by what you feel. But the feeling is the cause of the response.

Feeling is something you DO. Instincts work on what you do, and that includes the act of feeling. As per the definition of instincts themselves.

Trained the mind to change its instinctive-responses.

The dictionary is a powerful ally. This time, it's on my side. Instincts are not what you say they are, by definition. Can we start talking about real instincts now, instead of your personal concept of them?

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

LOL. So I am prone to freezing on the spot, for no observed reason?
Come on Fz. There has to be concious-recognition of a situation before the mind can react to that knowledge. There has to be an awareness of situation, before the body reacts to that situation.

No, there is no need for conscious recognition. Instinct is actually very primitive. Take for example, someone who's hand touches a burning piece of paper. They instinctively remove their hand from the paper. They know WHY they shouldn't put their hand on a burning piece of paper. That is conscious reason of course, on what happens when you touch something that is on fire. But, basically, if something hurts you, you automatically pull away from it. But through conscious reasoning, you know why. Tell me, do frogs have insticts?

No, you instinctively find babies cute, until experience teaches you otherwise. You can't reason out cuteness. Can you?

What a drastic example, FZ!. Anyway, you can't reason on why babies are cute because that is trying to reason on what makes something beautiful.

 

[CJames]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
CJames, are you referring to Genetic Algorythms?

Tom, thanks for the ballast from the past!
There is an interesting phenomenon involved with BEES.

Bees exhibit a large amount of intelligence. They communicate to one another the location of specific flowers and specific nutritional values of flowers as well as the exact coordinates of those sources of nutrition. This is all transmitted through the use of wing beats, dances and variations of the sound of their wings... bzzz...etc.

Research was done to determine the accuracy of this communication. Each bee was instructed by a "scout bee" concerning the location of the food source.

The food gatherers were acutely aware of the height of the plant, the colour and other details. We are talking about some very complex neural nets here. This is where the phraze "BEE LINE" originates. The efficiancy factor is very high in this instance.

And it does resemble the "path of least resistance" taken by a rock down a hill.

You could look up the bee story at Discovery.com, perhaps... with Allan Alda.

Hi Carl. I'm talking about various different experiments. Programs that imitate evolution by mimicking genetics. Programs that use multiple agents to solve a problem, similar to the way that an anthill devolopes from the mindless action of individual ants, or the way thought devolopes from the action of mindless neurons (or the bee example you've given). I'm also talking about hard-wired neural nets built from computer chips that have demonstrated the ability to problem solve. It's too much evidence to ignore, as LG is.

 

[CJames]

A baby doesn't have to learn how to make it's heart beat. It does so instinctually. Instincts are not controlled by the conscious mind, they are on a much more primal level, an ancient piece of the puzzle handed down since long before we were human. The example of heat given by MajinVegeta is excellent. When you touch your hand to a hot stove, you litterally remove your hand before you feel the heat. Instincts are built by evolution, not thought.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by CJames
Hi Carl. I'm talking about various different experiments. Programs that imitate evolution by mimicking genetics. Programs that use multiple agents to solve a problem, similar to the way that an anthill devolopes from the mindless action of individual ants, or the way thought devolopes from the action of mindless neurons (or the bee example you've given). I'm also talking about hard-wired neural nets built from computer chips that have demonstrated the ability to problem solve. It's too much evidence to ignore, as LG is.

CJames, yeah, well... we assume these little actions of each ant are mindless... but, have you ever been an ant?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Tom
That is because your philosophy is superfluous and irrelevant.

LG, what you don't seem to want to face up to is that what DT Strain wrote there is backed up by tested theories. Your ideas, on the other hand, are backed up by nothing but appeals to ignorance and whatever you make up to fill in the details. Your discussions of 'how the mind works' and 'what instinct is' just proves that in spades.

I am satisfied with FZ's answers to the rest of your post, so I am not going to go into the part about instinct.

If you read the responses in this thread and the one on beauty, then you should understand why people think that the mind is a function of the brain.

There are more things LG does not want to face up. Remember his long thread on the Mind hypothese? This was about disqualifying all of material existence as an "unnecessary" and "unprovable" extention to "the reality of the mind".

When asked however, if his hypothese does not require proof also, namely for the existence of at least his mind, he has obstinately refused to deliver us any proof that his mind really exists, and judged on his posts here, only delivered proof to the contrary. This raises the question about his state of mindlessness if those acts of ignorance are conscious facts for him or not. Maybe his ignorance is instinctive??

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
There are more things LG does not want to face up. Remember his long thread on the Mind hypothese? This was about disqualifying all of material existence as an unncessary and unprovable extention to the reality of the mind itself.

When asked however, if his hypothese does not require proof also, namely for the existence of at least his mind, he has obstinately refused to deliver us any proof that his mind really exists, and judged on his posts here, only delivered proof to the contrary.

You want me to prove to you that you are having sensations of existence? You want me to prove that you comprehend the order present, within these sensations? You want me to prove that you have emotions in relation to these sensations?
Why do you want me to prove something which you have direct experience of? Do you doubt your own existence?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You want me to prove to you that you are having sensations of existence? You want me to prove that you comprehend the order present, within these sensations? You want me to prove that you have emotions in relation to these sensations?
Why do you want me to prove something which you have direct experience of? Do you doubt your own existence?

No, I wanted proof that you have a mind, jusged from your ignorance to all of what is being said here in this thread, it can be said that you only disproof that. Oh, and yes, of course, there must be at least some brain cells working up there, but in general we do doubt the overal quality of the functioning of your mind.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
No, I wanted proof that you have a mind, jusged from your ignorance to all of what is being said here in this thread, it can be said that you only disproof that. Oh, and yes, of course, there must be at least some brain cells working up there, but in general we do doubt the overal quality of the functioning of your mind.

Your proof is your own existence. And your own existence is formed from sensation; reason; and emotion. Mindful-traits. Or would you have the readers believe that a "lump of matter" can sense; think; and be emotional? Then if so, you've got some explaining to do. Because I haven't heard one single explanation to show how this can even be feasible.
Picture your brain right now. How is it possible that a "lump of matter" could hold bitterness towards another lump of matter (myself)?
I'm not asking you to justify your emotions. I'm asking you how a lump of matter can become 'aware', and can have the experience of sight; taste; smell; touch; sound; reason; emotion; will; imagination...
How about some answers for a change? That was the point of this thread, remember.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Your proof is your own existence. And your own existence is formed from sensation; reason; and emotion. Mindful-traits. Or would you have the readers believe that a "lump of matter" can sense; think; and be emotional? Then if so, you've got some explaining to do. Because I haven't heard one single explanation to show how this can even be feasible.
Picture your brain right now. How is it possible that a "lump of matter" could hold bitterness towards another lump of matter (myself)?
I'm not asking you to justify your emotions. I'm asking you how a lump of matter can become 'aware', and can have the experience of sight; taste; smell; touch; sound; reason; emotion; will; imagination...
How about some answers for a change? That was the point of this thread, remember.

I am not seeing any contradiction between the qualities of my mind (those which you describe) and the fact that all those qualities originate from the material world. This at first.
As to the actual "how did it happen" question, I hope you understand that this involves a very deep insight knowledge on how evolution of all the living species went on, which costed more as 3 billions of years, since none of the traits of the mind, happened instantaniously, but all arived from preceding qualities. Much of this knowledge lies outside of my actual understanding, which is to say, I don't have all that knowledge of all these features.
Most of that knowledge, and in so far we know about this, is however available, and I have no doubt that many, if not all of the questions you raise on this topic, can be answered quite precisely.
I don't know what kind of answer you are in fact wanting to receive, but an investigation into this topic, judged from your profound questions you raise, urges one to come up with a quite substantial scientific knowledge. An in depth explenation of your question, could easily extend to a small encyclopdy, if not more. What do you expect me to do? Give you an extensive answer to all the questions? Since my knowledge on that field of knowledge is not very deep, it would take me probably about a couple of weeks up to a year, to acquire all that knowledge myself. All the information that is available to me however, is evenly available to you, and I see no reason why you would not dig into this scientific knowledge yourself, if you really want a profound answer.
Fact is of course, that the length of the answer you require, and the profound knowledge that your question implies, goes well beyond the ordinary length of posts in this thread.
All we can do on here, is give some indications of where things as perceptions originated in evolutionary terms. Which I would think, is not profound enough of course, since your questions imply a far deeper understanding of these issues.

 

[Another God]

How is it possible that a "lump of matter" could hold bitterness towards another lump of matter

This is an argument from incredulity. Just because u have trouble believing it, is not an argument against it.

As for arguments for the mind being a lump of matter (an incredibly specific lump of matter... you chose to ignore this fact though), range from simple observations such as:

Where this particularly structured lump of matter exists, a mind tends to exist. Where no such lump of matter exists, no mind exists.

Or: Every attributed attributable to a mind, has been shown to relate in some way or another to changes in the brain. There is a correlation of activity.

These two reasons are enough for us to start inspecting the brain as the location of the 'mind.' We really don't need anything else.


As for your incredulity that a lump of matter can show bitterness: J.J.C. Smart expresses in his paper 'Sensations and Brain Processes', "Sensations are nothing over and above brain processes. Nations are nothing over and above citizens, but this does not prevent the logic of nation statements being very different from the logic of citizen statements, nor does it ensure the translatability of nation statements into citizen statements."

So I suggest that your incredulity arises because u are actually commiting a category error. You are placing the logic of the 'mind' into the same category as the logic of the 'brain'. Even though it is being claimed that a mind happens to be a brain, does not mean they are subject to the same category of logic. It makes sense that a mind is bitter, it does not make sense that a brain is bitter. A mind is a brain, and still the previous statement makes sense.

It makes sense to say that a nation is going to war, it does not make sense to say that every citizen is going to war. A nation is just all of its citizens, and still the previous statement makes sense.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Another God
This is an argument from incredulity. Just because u have trouble believing it, is not an argument against it.

I do not disbelieve the notion merely because it sounds incredible. I disbelieve the notion because I have never heard a reasonable and full-explanation of the material-processes which are advocated as the source of the mind/brain's attributes. I literally have no reason to believe such a notion.

As for arguments for the mind being a lump of matter (an incredibly specific lump of matter... you chose to ignore this fact though)

The complexity of this "lump of matter" does not change the issue. Nor does it give you a curtain to hide behind. Behind all of the complexity, the brain is just matter/energy, in motion, in accordance with physical-law. All of it.
At what point does matter/energy in motion become awareness; reason; emotion; sensation; imagination; will? At what point does a physical-process become an abstract concept of existence?

range from simple observations such as:

Where this particularly structured lump of matter exists, a mind tends to exist. Where no such lump of matter exists, no mind exists.

I advocate that the mind-matter link is through the complexity of the brain, rather than because of the brain. I.e., I advocate that the brain is a tool of the mind. Your statement here is not a proof that the brain is the absolute-cause of thought, any more than saying that
a gun/weapon is the absolute-cause of wars.

Or: Every attributed attributable to a mind, has been shown to relate in some way or another to changes in the brain. There is a correlation of activity.

Similarly, we could say that when a gun is pointing purposefully at a human-being, and the trigger is pulled, that this action correlates to fear or anger within the mind of the person holding the gun. But it doesn't mean that the gun has fired itself, nor that it has caused the emotions of the individual holding that gun.

These two reasons are enough for us to start inspecting the brain as the location of the 'mind.' We really don't need anything else.

If these are your reasons for believing that matter is the source of mindful attributes, then I find them woefully inadequate.

As for your incredulity that a lump of matter can show bitterness: J.J.C. Smart expresses in his paper 'Sensations and Brain Processes', "Sensations are nothing over and above brain processes. Nations are nothing over and above citizens, but this does not prevent the logic of nation statements being very different from the logic of citizen statements, nor does it ensure the translatability of nation statements into citizen statements."

'Nations' are created by the minds of men. This is a fact. However, Mr. Smart conveniently asserts that sensations are the creations of brain-processes. Am I expected to believe such stuff because Mr. Smart says that it is so? That's not reason AG.

So I suggest that your incredulity arises because u are actually commiting a category error.

No. My incredulity arises because I am engaged in reason.

 

[Another God]

The complexity of this "lump of matter" does not change the issue

My reference to the brain being a rather complex piece of matter was only stated as an attempt to counter your reference to it as a 'lump of matter'. A term so loaded with implications that it is only used to confuse the subject, not help it. I was not using the complexity of the brain to change anything, I was just trying to fix the loaded situation.

Your statement here is not a proof that the brain is the absolute-cause of thought

Thats correct. I wasn't trying to prove anything with this statement other than explicitly what was being said, that being, that wherever a mind is, a brain also tends to be. This correlation is important because it indicates where we need to look to find out more about the mind.

This point is not an argument in my favour, nor an argument in your favour. It is merely an attempt to state an agreeable fact which is vital to any position taken by either anyone in this discussion. While 'minds' may be created in the future on computers, atm all we have is the perception that where there is a brain, there is likelihood of mind. And where there is a mind, there is certainly a brain.

If these are your reasons for believing that matter is the source of mindful attributes, then I find them woefully inadequate.

Thanks for telling me that, but if you spent less time assuming conclusions which I might reach from my statements and pay more attention to my own conclusions, then u might leave this discussion in a better position than you entered it in.

'Nations' are created by the minds of men. This is a fact. However, Mr. Smart conveniently asserts that sensations are the creations of brain-processes. Am I expected to believe such stuff because Mr. Smart says that it is so? That's not reason AG.

Now, first things first. Smart does not assert that sensations are the 'creations' of brain processes. No, it is the very claim that 'Brain processes ARE Sensations' which he spends this whole paper defending. (The position was originally stated by U.T. Place)

But this isn't important. you have completely missed the point of this example. This wasn't posted to 'prove that brain = sensations'. If I wanted to prove that, then I would need to post an entire textbook of articles, and then ask for you to be nice in your appraisal of them. Of course brain = sensation isn't "proven", because if it was, there would be no debate about it.

The point of that quote, was to show you that you cannot use your incredulity of the concept of a brain showing bitterness as an argument against the brain being the mind. BECAUSE, now please, pay attention to this bit.. IF it is true, that a brain is identical to the mind, then you still cannot apply the same logic to the mind as you apply to the brain...They are identical, just as a nation is identical to united citizens, but the logic application is still different.

So don't go talking about 'bitter brains don't make sense'...because it is correct, and it still doesn't mean anything.


Incredulity never arises from reason. Incredulity is a precise lack of reason.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I do not disbelieve the notion merely because it sounds incredible. I disbelieve the notion because I have never heard a reasonable and full-explanation of the material-processes which are advocated as the source of the mind/brain's attributes. I literally have no reason to believe such a notion.

Your statement is like I want to know the full and absolute truth and the complete knowledge about this, or I - Lifegazer - have reason to disbelief it in total.

It is clear that this kind of in depth knowledge about the complete evolution of the human mind, requires us to have complete and full knowledge of everything that happened in the material history of the evolution of mankind and all it's predecessors, richt back to the time where the first forms of life came into existence.

Do you think it is possible to have COMPLETE and FULL knowledge of ALL the material processes involved on such a long timescale?

What we have, is not nothing, but is in comparance with this FULL story, a rather fragmented part. All we can provide therefore is only partial knowledge and fragmented knowledge. There are many places in the history of evolution of life, we simply have no evidence of what happened, and have to fill in gaps. In some details of evolutionary history, we do have lack of knowledge, and it can be we are completely mistaken in our interpretation of what went on.
But for the large picture, we do not have reason to doubt that the overall process of evolution as described by the evolution theory is in any way wrong.

The complexity of this "lump of matter" does not change the issue. Nor does it give you a curtain to hide behind. Behind all of the complexity, the brain is just matter/energy, in motion, in accordance with physical-law. All of it.
At what point does matter/energy in motion become awareness; reason; emotion; sensation; imagination; will? At what point does a physical-process become an abstract concept of existence?

Your argument here assumes that we can clearly define a distinct point in the evolution of the brain, and it's predecessory organs, for such a transformation of non-awareness into awareness.

This is the same like asking, when adding molecules of water, where the precise transformation happens between 'a bunch of water molecules' and 'a sea'. Clearly, such a definite and distinct point, can not be found. That is because the change is a gradual change.

I advocate that the mind-matter link is through the complexity of the brain, rather than because of the brain.

Since the brain denotes a very complex organ, I see absolutely no difference in both statements. The concept of a brain, already denotes that it is a very complex organ, which developed in more as 3 billions year of evolution.

I.e., I advocate that the brain is a tool of the mind. Your statement here is not a proof that the brain is the absolute-cause of thought, any more than saying that
a gun/weapon is the absolute-cause of wars.

You are not reasoning against what scientist claim to be the relation between brain and mind, but you are just arguing against your own prejudices on what that relation might entail.

Of course one can make a distinction between the brain as 'the hardware component' and the mind as 'the software component'. The software runs on the specified hardware basis, and there is a rough correspondence between the software functions, and the hardware functions. Like for instance memories are stored within the brain in chemical form.

Similarly, we could say that when a gun is pointing purposefully at a human-being, and the trigger is pulled, that this action correlates to fear or anger within the mind of the person holding the gun. But it doesn't mean that the gun has fired itself, nor that it has caused the emotions of the individual holding that gun.

Would you somehow suggest that the reason for the fear/anger comes from the gun itself? Who made you believe that?

If these are your reasons for believing that matter is the source of mindful attributes, then I find them woefully inadequate.

What can be said in the above example, that the mental state of fear/anger, somehow corresponds with material processes going on within the brain. Perhaps the invocation of a traumatic memory about the person, against whom the gun is directed (for instance the memory that that person killed your father or brother).

My incredulity arises because I am engaged in reason.

Your reasoning show us only that your assumptions you use to reason against, are somehow inadequate.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Matter is a slave to physical-law. That's my point. So any 'thing' which acts, does so without choice.
But when it comes to life - humanity especially - 'choice' becomes an option, since our actions are not determined by physical-law, but by desire and will (self-purpose).

You are assuming here that physical laws and the way they determine the way how matter evolves and transforms, is in contradiction with the fact that humans have free will.
The point is of course, that such a contradiction does not exist. Even when we have free will and can make choices, this does not conflict in any way with the fact that we as material beings, are bound to the same physical laws. I can not continue to live (even if I want that and choose that) when I don't drink and eat. Because my human body needs the energy from the food and the other material derived from the food, to keep the human body functioning.

And another wrong assumption is that you state that 'matter is a slave to physical-law'. That is putting things upside down. Matter is not subject to physicial law, but the way matter transforms, develops and changes, this orderly behaviour and in some parts chaotic behaviour, is what we determine or observe the physical laws to be (based on orderly observations and reasoning).
There is for instance no law that forbids matter to travel faster then the speed of light. It is because of the fact we witness that behaviour of matter, that we came up with such a 'law'.

So, in fact the position is directly opposite: the way matter behaves, determines physical laws. And not the other way around.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by heusdens
So, in fact the position is directly opposite: the way matter behaves, determines physical laws. And not the other way around. [/B]

Excellent point, heusdens.

The two cents I have time to drop:

1. As you mentioned, what we observe (when doing careful measurements) to repeat reliably every time, is what we tag as "physical law".

2. There is not a single instance in which a behavior attributed to "free will" has been observed to be unrelated to brain activity, neither an instance in which brain activity seems to violate chemistry or physics [Edit: i.e., the currently known laws of chemistry or physics; actually, if such an instance was found, we would simply redefine what we do and do not consider a 'law'; the behavior of nature cannot possibly violate the laws of physics, since such laws are defined precisely based on such behavior!].

3. When asking about "absolute-causes", LG usually means "causes that involve the 'Mind' or 'God'". Every possible statement can be followed by the question "and what is the absolute-cause of that" (even, of course, statements referring to 'the Mind' or to 'God'). LG (and religious people in general) only accept explanations as 'absolute' or 'final' if they reflect their beliefs.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by ahrkron
Excellent point, heusdens.

The two cents I have time to drop:

1. As you mentioned, what we observe (when doing careful measurements) to repeat reliably every time, is what we tag as "physical law".

2. There is not a single instance in which a behavior attributed to "free will" has been observed to be unrelated to brain activity, neither an instance in which brain activity seems to violate chemistry or physics.

Right! Thanks for this addition.

3. When asking about "absolute-causes", LG usually means "causes that involve the 'Mind' or 'God'". Every possible statement can be followed by the question "and what is the absolute-cause of that" (even, of course, statements referring to 'the Mind' or to 'God'). LG (and religious people in general) only accept explanations as 'absolute' or 'final' if they reflect their beliefs.

Yes. And this comes from the fact that he firmly believes that the chain of causal events throughout all of material history can not be without a 'begin'. And because he assumes that, he concludes that material reality had a final cause, and to explain that, the concept of God is needed.
That is to say, on the infinite timeline we place an 'arbitrary' (or not so aribtrary, cause it has to coincide with what is our current horizon of perception, which shifted from about 6-12.000 years to now near to 13 billions of years) event, and declare that the begin, and the infinite history that came before that, we then just claim that is God.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by ahrkron
Excellent point, heusdens.

The two cents I have time to drop:

1. As you mentioned, what we observe (when doing careful measurements) to repeat reliably every time, is what we tag as "physical law".

The point of the matter is that matter behaves without choice. Its behaviour is not reflective of an entity with concious-choice. Indeed, to argue otherwise is to argue a case for the whole universe having free-will, which clearly supports my own position.
My mind however (note: not my body), is free from thinking in accordance with 'order'. Dreams, fantasies, and imagination, should suffice to inform us of this.
The mind is free. Even to know God.

2. There is not a single instance in which a behavior attributed to "free will" has been observed to be unrelated to brain activity,

Similarly, there is not a single instance in which a behaviour exhibited by a cyclist has been observed to be unrelated to his bike.
... Human behaviour is clearly associated with matter, and therefore the brain. Humanity interacts with his perceived universe. The point being: which is the cyclist, and which is the bike?

3. When asking about "absolute-causes", LG usually means "causes that involve the 'Mind' or 'God'".

That's where my arguments take me. I don't ask the reader to simply 'believe' this to be the case.

Every possible statement can be followed by the question "and what is the absolute-cause of that" (even, of course, statements referring to 'the Mind' or to 'God').

Existence is eternal. Something could not have come from absolute-nothingness. Hence, when my philosophy points to an absolute-cause, one must simply accept that this source is without beginning, and without end.

LG (and religious people in general) only accept explanations as 'absolute' or 'final' if they reflect their beliefs.

There is reason associated with my philosophy. Therefore, I do not consider my philosophy to be a belief-system.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The point of the matter is that matter behaves without choice. Its behaviour is not reflective of an entity with concious-choice. Indeed, to argue otherwise is to argue a case for the whole universe having free-will, which clearly supports my own position.
My mind however (note: not my body), is free from thinking in accordance with 'order'. Dreams, fantasies, and imagination, should suffice to inform us of this.
The mind is free. Even to know God.

Humans have free will without choice (we never choosed to have free will). So as far as that is concerned, our position is not very different then that of an atom.

In other words: the portrayed contradiction which would exist between the way matter behaves, and humans having free will, is not a real contradiction. According to my mind, matter is also freely behaving, is free to move, transform and change. The large scale patterns we detect however in the way matter moves, indicate that even free and chaotic behaviour of the underlying material forms, still exhibit regularity and order, which can be observed and examined, and gave rise to describing nature using physical laws.

Take for instance statistical behaviour. If I drop a cube of sugar in my coffee, the sugar molecules are free to move within the coffee, and are free also to reshape the original form. That we never witness that behaviour, is not because it is impossible, but just very unlikely to happen.

Similarly, there is not a single instance in which a behaviour exhibited by a cyclist has been observed to be unrelated to his bike.
... Human behaviour is clearly associated with matter, and therefore the brain. Humanity interacts with his perceived universe. The point being: which is the cyclist, and which is the bike?

A bicyclist can however abandon his bike, and still exhibit will power and all that. If the bike is gone, it does not mean the bicyclist is gone too.

Existence is eternal. Something could not have come from absolute-nothingness. Hence, when my philosophy points to an absolute-cause, one must simply accept that this source is without beginning, and without end.

Which is of course the same thing as matter, although you have a confused mind about matter, and have argued against the fact that there is no begin to time (in a thread a couple of weeks ago; the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=958" thread).

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The point of the matter is that matter behaves without choice.

Matter also "behaves without thunderstorms", exactly in the same way (i.e., some behaviors of matter can be tagged as "thunderstorms" or as "choice", and yet nobody worries that they are not present in all instances of matter), does that mean that thunderstorms are the result of an invisible all-knowing god?

Not at all. It just means that our word "choice" or "thunderstorm" does not apply to all aggregations of matter. Both words exist because there are instances of systems in which you can identify a peculiar behavior, but there is no rational justification to assume that such behavior should be present in all systems.

The gaseous atmosphere of a planet can display the physical behavior we call storms. A rock cannot. It is a matter of definition.

Similarly, a "lump of matter" composed of zillions of adequately interconnected processors can, after many years of stimulation and training, display the behavior we call "choice". A rock cannot.

Giese and ducks travel sometimes in triangular formations, yet "triangularness" is not a feature of the individual ducks. At what point does a ducks become triangular? They don't. It is a collective feature.

My mind however (note: not my body), is free from thinking in accordance with 'order'. Dreams, fantasies, and imagination, should suffice to inform us of this.
The mind is free. Even to know God.

Is it?

In your very same style, we could perfectly well argue that all is determined; that all about free will is just an illusion imposed on us by the way the brain works.

No matter what you reply, it is bound to be. You have no way out. Every sentence I write is affecting your mental state at this very moment, while you read these words. This, plus your memories of remote and recent events, trigger specific neural circuits, which in turn leave a trail on your memory. All your life you have been trained to call such responses "free will" or "my own choices", and you use that same training every time you state that "I do make choices".

Similarly, there is not a single instance in which a behaviour exhibited by a cyclist has been observed to be unrelated to his bike.

If that was the case, we would have just one word for the full entity, but we know otherwise. Cyclists clearly are different and independent entities from their bikes. Also, both are perceived and demonstrably existent, while a "brainless mind" has never been observed.

... Human behaviour is clearly associated with matter, and therefore the brain. Humanity interacts with his perceived universe. The point being: which is the cyclist, and which is the bike?

Without any rational justification, you are taking for granted the existence of an entity (the "mind") that is just the name we give to specific behaviors of a physical system. It is in the same category as "triangularness", nationality, thunderstorms, shape, or a good hand in a poker game: all of them are "real", but none of them correspond to a singular entity that "exists" independently of its components.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by ahrkron
Matter also "behaves without thunderstorms", exactly in the same way (i.e., some behaviors of matter can be tagged as "thunderstorms" or as "choice", and yet nobody worries that they are not present in all instances of matter), does that mean that thunderstorms are the result of an invisible all-knowing god?

Not at all. It just means that our word "choice" or "thunderstorm" does not apply to all aggregations of matter. Both words exist because there are instances of systems in which you can identify a peculiar behavior, but there is no rational justification to assume that such behavior should be present in all systems.

The gaseous atmosphere of a planet can display the physical behavior we call storms. A rock cannot. It is a matter of definition.

Similarly, a "lump of matter" composed of zillions of adequately interconnected processors can, after many years of stimulation and training, display the behavior we call "choice". A rock cannot.

Giese and ducks travel sometimes in triangular formations, yet "triangularness" is not a feature of the individual ducks. At what point does a ducks become triangular? They don't. It is a collective feature.



Is it?

In your very same style, we could perfectly well argue that all is determined; that all about free will is just an illusion imposed on us by the way the brain works.

No matter what you reply, it is bound to be. You have no way out. Every sentence I write is affecting your mental state at this very moment, while you read these words. This, plus your memories of remote and recent events, trigger specific neural circuits, which in turn leave a trail on your memory. All your life you have been trained to call such responses "free will" or "my own choices", and you use that same training every time you state that "I do make choices".



If that was the case, we would have just one word for the full entity, but we know otherwise. Cyclists clearly are different and independent entities from their bikes. Also, both are perceived and demonstrably existent, while a "brainless mind" has never been observed.



Without any rational justification, you are taking for granted the existence of an entity (the "mind") that is just the name we give to specific behaviors of a physical system. It is in the same category as "triangularness", nationality, thunderstorms, shape, or a good hand in a poker game: all of them are "real", but none of them correspond to a singular entity that "exists" independently of its components.

These are all excellent points, and good examples.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by ahrkron
Not at all. It just means that our word "choice" or "thunderstorm" does not apply to all aggregations of matter. Both words exist because there are instances of systems in which you can identify a peculiar behavior, but there is no rational justification to assume that such behavior should be present in all systems.

The gaseous atmosphere of a planet can display the physical behavior we call storms. A rock cannot. It is a matter of definition.

By "choice", it is implied that the entity itself has decided its own future. Whereas the term "no choice" implies that the entity has been forced to behave in a specific manner by other entities/forces.
I'm sure we can agree that particles don't conciously-decide to behave the way that they do. The question is, is the mind forced to behave the way it does?
What possible force can result in sensation; reason; emotion; boundless-imagination; will/choice? Physical-forces result in physical-transformations of structure/composition and position. But how do we account for a force which results in these traits of the mind?

Similarly, a "lump of matter" composed of zillions of adequately interconnected processors can, after many years of stimulation and training, display the behavior we call "choice". A rock cannot.

It is clear that a rock cannot. What is not clear, is how a specific arrangement of matter can enable that matter to ~think~ of whatever its imagination allows it to think of. That of course, includes entities which don't actually exist in the material-world (if we adopt your stance, that is). The prime-example is 'God' itself.

... This actually creates a paradox - if we adopt your position - for how can a "lump of matter" be determined to behave as it does (no choice), and yet come to ~think~ of an entity that does not exist? Can a computer, for example, think in terms and contexts beyond our own input? I.e., can a computer have original/unique & meaningful (to it) output which we do not comprehend? Certainly not without choice of its own.
From your perspective, there is no 'God' in material-existence. And yet you advocate the fact that material-existence alone has created a structure which has original/unique output... whilst also advocating the fact that this "lump of matter" has no choice. Therefore, ultimately, you ~blame~ the universe itself for this thought of 'God'.
And clearly, this cannot be the case where no God actually exists.