Kill Humanity.

[Grimly Fiendish]

We are animals. Humanism is covert religion. We should not subscribe to it. We are naturally human irrespective of our behaviour, for there is huge suite of thought, affect and action open to each of us every day, and committed by us every day. Psychopaths are as human as saints. We are all in this together.

I advocate the structuring of Society along compassionate and rational principles but I reject the suggestion that there is something uniquely special about being born a member of the human race rather than, for example, a centipede. I imagine it is less fun to be a centipede, certainly by the terms I appreciate as a human, but to maintain a belief in a discrete humanity is Idealism by the back door. We do not need this type of thinking in our Society. We are all equal.

As we are heir to the Caprice of the World so we are obliged to help others anticipate that caprice if we expect others to help us, even those of us who choose to act or are disposed to acting in a manner incongruous to that advocated by our culture. None of this means that we should allow deleteriously incongruous or inappropriate behaviour to go unchecked at any level, simply that we should recognise that nothing more than accident disposes the course of our lives. That and Stupidity.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[student738]

"but I reject the suggestion that there is something uniquely special about being born a member of the human race rather than, for example, a centipede."
Do you mean other than the unique and particular shared traditional, culture, and values of the society into which we are born, that determines our needs and shapes our desires and aspirations? While other living things might share amongst themselves vaguely similar tradition, culture, and values, to say that ours are not as particular to us as are those of a flock of birds to them, is it would seem, to needlessly gloss over quite an important and significant detail, don't you think?

Yes, I and a centipede are precisely the same in so far as we are both living thiings, but we would not because of this say that I am no different than a centipede.

"I advocate the structuring of Society along compassionate and rational principles"
Yes, and the centipede does not, at least so far as I am aware.

[Keith Russell]

Grimly said:
"We are all equal."

We are most certainly not all equal.

There are at least a few things Tiger Woods can do, that I cannot...and so on...

K

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
...we should recognise that nothing more than accident disposes the course of our lives. That and Stupidity.


No free will, then?

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by student738
Do you mean other than the unique and particular shared traditional, culture, and values of the society into which we are born, that determines our needs and shapes our desires and aspirations?



These things are special to us only in that we deem them so. They have no intrinsic value. They are behaviour only. They are not evidence of a discrete, Ideal Humanity.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by student738
While other living things might share amongst themselves vaguely similar tradition, culture, and values, to say that ours are not as particular to us as are those of a flock of birds to them, is it would seem, to needlessly gloss over quite an important and significant detail, don't you think?

I did not say that our tradition, culture and values are not as particular to us as those of a flock of birds are to them. I am saying that these things are behaviour only.

To confer upon human behaviour an Ideal status, to believe in Humanity, is to believe in souls. There are no souls. There is no Humanity.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

[i]Yes, I and a centipede are precisely the same in so far as we are both living thiings, but we would not because of this say that I am no different than a centipede.[/B]

Correct, we would not say that you are no different from a centipede. I assume that you have fewer legs.

As animals you and I share the same nature as centipedes, although our configuration varies.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by student738
Yes, and the centipede does not, at least so far as I am aware.

I should expect not. They could have no interest in our Society.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Luiseach
No free will, then?

An ounce, perhaps. Such as it is.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
To confer upon human behaviour an Ideal status, to believe in Humanity, is to believe in souls. There are no souls. There is no Humanity.
What is "Ideal status"?
Why does belief in Humanity means to believe in souls?
What is capital H Humanity, anyway, and what does it mean to "believe" in it?

How do you know there are no "souls"?

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
An ounce, perhaps. Such as it is.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

An ounce of free will is better than none at all, I suppose. :D

What say you?

[Keith Russell]

Free will doesn't mean 'freedom'.

Our will might be free, but the rest of us might be imprisoned, and then--even unrestrained--we are bound by natural laws, and numerous events and circumstances entirely beyond our individual or collective control.

K

[Amos]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
[FONT=courier new]We are animals. Humanism is covert religion. We should not subscribe to it. We are naturally human irrespective of our behaviour, for there is huge suite of thought, affect and action open to each of us every day, and committed by us every day. Psychopaths are as human as saints. We are all in this together.

We are animals and our human-ity is a condition of being which may seem natural to you but really is a diversion of our normal condition as animal man. Psychopaths are human but saints are not supposed to be human for they have conquered their own humanity (they have victory over sin through the subjugation of their own humanity).

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Amos
We are animals and our human-ity is a condition of being which may seem natural to you but really is a diversion of our normal condition as animal man.
Human-ity is animal man. We know people are animals. I don't understand your point.

Psychopaths are human but saints are not supposed to be human for they have conquered their own humanity (they have victory over sin through the subjugation of their own humanity
What do you think saints are? I'm unaware of any evidence that they are not human, other than mythology and religious rhetoric. I don't understand your point.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Human-ity is animal man. We know people are animals. I don't understand your point.


What do you think saints are? I'm unaware of any evidence that they are not human, other than mythology and religious rhetoric. I don't understand your point.

So what do you think the suffix -ity means other than a condition of being that belongs to the being but is not the being itself?

Man is the animal and our humanity is our personality that is based on our persona or personhood. Our persona makes us individuals which is needed for us to compete and survive in a changing socio and bio environment.

Saints are saints only because of mythology and religious rhetoric but that is a good enough reason to identify them as saints. Of course they are different or we could not identify them as saints and heaven is full of them.

[deano]

grimly is saying that all moral values,all human concepts and judgments are worthless,illusions that exist only in the metaphysical.

i agree with him/her.

Because we have for millenia made moral, aesthetic, religious demands on the world, looked upon it with blind desire, passion or fear, and abandoned ourselves to the bad habits of illogical thinking, this world has gradually become so marvelously variegated, frightful, meaningful, soulful, it has acquired color - but we have been the colorists: it is the human intellect that has made appearances appear and transported its erroneous basic conceptions into things.

from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by deano
grimly is saying that all moral values,all human concepts and judgments are worthless,illusions that exist only in the metaphysical.
i agree with him/her.
Actually, judgements exist in the mind. Why do say that makes them "worthless"? Do you consider minds to be "illusion"? Are you saying that your mind doesn't exist?

it is the human intellect that has made appearances appear and transported its erroneous basic conceptions into things.
I suppose there's some truth to this. But it's also true that appearances approach reality. We're not just taking random guesses.

[Amos]

Did you get that Nowhere 357? "Heaven is full of them" and only and all saints go to heaven.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Amos
Did you get that Nowhere 357? "Heaven is full of them" and only and all saints go to heaven.
I see no reason to accept that as fact, and I don't know what good the information is anyway. :(

[John Page]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
I advocate the structuring of Society along compassionate and rational principles...
Compassionate and rational? Isn't this contradictory?

Do you mean compassionate to those that are included in the society so we can rationally beat the living daylights out of other societies that threaten our cosy existence?

Cheers, John

P.S. Reading your profile isn't being a stoic epicurean totally consistent with British cuisine?

[Keith Russell]

John, I don't see compassion and reason as imcompatible or contradictory...

K

[John Page]

Originally posted by Keith Russell
John, I don't see compassion and reason as imcompatible or contradictory...
:) Reason tells me this is a futile debate but my compassion enables me to respond.

Seriously, though, when the red mist of emotions descends and we are driven by our more basic urges (including compassion) the results can be very different than the counsel of wise men.

For example, what was it that got JC nailed to his perch, reason or compassion?

Cheers, John

[Keith Russell]

John, while reason and emotion can work against each other, that isn't the only way in which they work.

I believe that both reason and emotion work best, when each helps inform the other, when they work together.

K

[John Page]

Hi Keith!
Originally posted by Keith Russell
John, while reason and emotion can work against each other.....
So you agree that reason and emotion can proffer contradictory courses of action.
Originally posted by Keith Russell
I believe that both reason and emotion work best, when each helps inform the other, when they work together.
They are mechanisms, ways of functioning, so I don't think the anthropomorphism is justified.

I could argue (with reason ;) ) that they work best in opposition by providing the subject projected emotional and logical outcomes that will sometimes conflict. Do I want to feel bad about leaving my neighbors in peril when reason tells me I have a small chance of rescuing them and that if I perish my own family will likely perish also.

If the OP is about how we work together, here are some thoughts on Trust (http://www.reconciliationism.org/trust.htm) .

Cheers, John

[thefugitivesaint]

John:
So you agree that reason and emotion can proffer contradictory courses of action.

I agree to this premise but emotion is essential to our capacity to reason.

Once thought to be complete opposites, reason and emotion were placed in contest with one another. Today, due to modern neuroscience we have a better understanding of how the brain functions and how our emotional makeup affects our way of reasoning towards the world. we use a great deal of our emotional knowledge to make rational decisions even when we are not aware we are doing so. Our emotions exist before our capacity to reason out our problems do and this is the manner in which we approach our problems first even after we develop a more refined method for sovling our problems. A person who is emotionally healthy tends to reason with more accuracy then someone who is not as healthy.

For a good little book on this subject look into Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain by Antonio Damasio.
-theSaint

[John Page]

Fugitive:
Originally posted by thefugitivesaint
Once thought to be complete opposites, reason and emotion were placed in contest with one another. Today, due to modern neuroscience we have a better understanding of how the brain functions and how our emotional makeup affects our way of reasoning towards the world.
ROFLMAO. So, our gut feeling was wrong!! QED.

(Sorry, couldn't resist that).
Originally posted by thefugitivesaint
A person who is emotionally healthy tends to reason with more accuracy then someone who is not as healthy.
...which rather defines someone who is "emotionally healthy" as one that doesn't let their feelings get in the way of their "rational" decisions.
Originally posted by thefugitivesaint
Our emotions exist before our capacity to reason out our problems do....For a good little book on this subject look into Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain by Antonio Damasio.
Thanks, yes, I'd read a review of the book and decided not to purchase it.

BTW I entirely agree it is valid to view our emotional behavior as a system of thinking and as an essential component of the overall system of human reason.

It seems to me we can be aware of our emotions and can think about how we feel. This disassociation from our own feelings gives rise to the concept of intellect this is the way I understand how "traditional" dualism works.

Cheers, John

[Will I Am]

Apologies for any possible frivolity:

We are animals. (Not, of course, that there’s anything wrong with it….)

Humanism is covert religion. (Insert ‘definition of religion’ re-hash).



…for there is huge suite of thought, affect and action open to each of us every day, and committed by us every day.

Well, no. Actually, our ‘thoughts, effects and actions’ are pretty much * determined by the non-random interface between our DNA and it’s environment. There are no ‘suites’. We play one card at a time.


*(within the apparent strictures of Quantum Uncertainty and the reiterative randomness of Chaos (which, admittedly, if the theories have value, quite large potential strictures)




We are all in this together. Heating engineers rule. (Well, they don’t, but perhaps they should). http://www.termlimits.org/Press/Common_Sense/cs56.html


I reject the suggestion that there is something uniquely special about being born a member of the human race rather than, for example, a centipede.

Yes. I have thought about it, and see no essential difference between a human and an ant. (Not, as I say, that there’s anything wrong with that).




I imagine it is less fun to be a centipede, certainly by the terms I appreciate as a human


It probably doesn’t need saying, but I’ll say it anyway: I imagine it is less fun to be a human, certainly by the terms they appreciate as centipedes.




There are at least a few things Tiger Woods can do, that I cannot...and so on...

So, you’re equal. In net.

(No, I don’t believe that either).


No free will, then? ‘Fraid not. I can’t see any essential difference between a human and a traffic light. (If you really watch traffic lights, it becomes clear that they know exactly what they are doing… )


deano, “All things are baptised in the well of eternity - and lie beyond good and evil.”

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Will I Am
No free will, then?
‘Fraid not. I can’t see any essential difference between a human and a traffic light. (If you really watch traffic lights, it becomes clear that they know exactly what they are doing… )

One possibly irrelevant difference is that people make traffic lights but traffic lights don't make people.

Anyway, if free will is will, which is the ability of a person to make mental decisions which affect behavior, then free will exists.

[Will I Am]

One possibly irrelevant difference is that people make traffic lights but traffic lights don't make people.

Not quite getting it…

One possibly irrelevant difference is that traffic lights control traffic, people don’t. How clever of them! They are really special entities.

Things do what they are made to do. No choice, no ‘free will’, just following the program.



Anyway, if free will is will, which is the ability of a person to make mental decisions which affect behavior, then free will exists.


And traffic lights have it. Think about it.

[Nowhere357]

Will I Am
Not quite getting it…
One possibly irrelevant difference is that traffic lights control traffic, people don’t. How clever of them! They are really special entities.
Things do what they are made to do. No choice, no ‘free will’, just following the program.

Yes I can see you are not quite getting it. Things do what they are made to do - and people make traffic lights. Meanwhile, who made people? Traffic lights? The "essential" difference should be clear.

And traffic lights have it. Think about it.
Traffic lights do not make mental decisions. Think about it.

Well, no. Actually, our ‘thoughts, effects and actions’ are pretty much * determined by the non-random interface between our DNA and it’s environment. There are no ‘suites’. We play one card at a time.
The burden is on you to support your claim. Our decisions are not predetermined. Your burden cannot be supported imo - Occam will reject any claim that our mental agency is observer only, while quantum physics will reject any claim that the future is predetermined.

Free will is alive and well. ;)

[John Page]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
The burden is on you to support your claim. Our decisions are not predetermined.
Hi Nowhere!

I think they are pre-determined in the sense that something causes them and the cause/effect relationships can be analyzed and understood.

I think they are not pre-determined in the sense that there is no external agency (such as a god or ID entity) deliberately intending or controling our thoughts and deeds.

I think this is the difference between humans and traffic lights, traffic lights falling into the second category above.

Comments?

Cheers, John

[Nowhere357]

John Page
I think they are pre-determined in the sense that something causes them and the cause/effect relationships can be analyzed and understood.
The pre-determined effect can be a range of possible outcomes, with the precise outcome dependent on randomness. Iow, the precise outcome is not pre-determined. Other than that I agree with your statement.

I think they are not pre-determined in the sense that there is no external agency (such as a god or ID entity) deliberately intending or controling our thoughts and deeds.

I agree.

I think this is the difference between humans and traffic lights, traffic lights falling into the second category above.
Meaning the "decisions" made by the traffic light were actually made by it's creator so to speak. Whereas people make their own decisions. The difference seems obvious to me. :cool:

[Evo]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish

I advocate the structuring of Society along compassionate and rational principles but I reject the suggestion that there is something uniquely special about being born a member of the human race rather than, for example, a centipede. I imagine it is less fun to be a centipede, certainly by the terms I appreciate as a human, but to maintain a belief in a discrete humanity is Idealism by the back door. We do not need this type of thinking in our Society. We are all equal.


What you have to realize is that we are the final stage in natural evolution. When an asteriod is hurdling at this planet do you think a centipede will stop it? When the sun dies out do you think a centipede will help with an exodus earth? they exist to support the most evolutionary advanced organ of known time: the human mind.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Evo
When the sun dies out do you think a centipede will help with an exodus earth? they exist to support the most evolutionary advanced organ of known time: the human mind.
Or maybe the most evolutionary advanced organ of known time exists in order to protect and care for life and the planet - to serve as it's consciousness.

Perhaps with our superiority comes responsibility.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
...with the precise outcome dependent on randomness.
How can something be dependent on randomness? Aren't you just saying the outcome is dependent on something we can't predict the behavior of? (which is different than "random")
Originally posted by Nowhere357
Meaning the "decisions" made by the traffic light were actually made by it's creator so to speak.
Interesting point, you put the word decision in quotes. Consider a complex machine that its creator cannot predict the behavior of, in this case the "decisions" were not pre-determined but just cause/effect from the actions of the creator.

Heehee. For example, what should we say about the pre-determined behavior of a random number generator?

Cheers, John

[Nowhere357]

John Page
How can something be dependent on randomness? Aren't you just saying the outcome is dependent on something we can't predict the behavior of? (which is different than "random")
I don't know, and no. Randomness may have an unknown cause, or perhaps no cause. We can predict random behavior with statistics.

Interesting point, you put the word decision in quotes. Consider a complex machine that its creator cannot predict the behavior of, in this case the "decisions" were not pre-determined but just cause/effect from the actions of the creator.
Or cause/effect just because it esists. Like a leaf decides to fall.

Heehee. For example, what should we say about the pre-determined behavior of a random number generator?
Computer random number generators only simulate randomness.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Randomness may have an unknown cause, or perhaps no cause.
Originally posted by Nowhere357
Computer random number generators only simulate randomness.
:confused: but the only difference is that for an RNG the randomness has a known cause. Are you suggesting there are events with no cause?

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by John Page
but the only difference is that for an RNG the randomness has a known cause. Are you suggesting there are events with no cause?
Well, I said "Randomness may have an unknown cause, or perhaps no cause." So I suppose I'm suggesting there may be events with no cause. What causes virtual particles to pop in and out of existence?

Are you suggesting that science is omniscient or even potentially omniscient?

[John Page]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Are you suggesting that science is omniscient or even potentially omniscient?
No.
Originally posted by Nowhere357
Well, I said "Randomness may have an unknown cause, or perhaps no cause." So I suppose I'm suggesting there may be events with no cause.
How can one know there is no cause, as opposed to no discernable cause?
Originally posted by Nowhere357
What causes virtual particles to pop in and out of existence?
:confused: They don't pop into existence - they're hypothetical entities invented to make quantum probability math tidy and do not have the required Einstein relationship between their energy, momentum and mass.

Cheers, John

[Nowhere357]

John Page
How can one know there is no cause, as opposed to no discernable cause?
I don't see how one can know there is no cause. How can one know there is a cause, if the cause is not discernable?

They don't pop into existence - they're hypothetical entities invented to make quantum probability math tidy and do not have the required Einstein relationship between their energy, momentum and mass.
Yes, that sounds right. If these hypothetical entities exist, what causes thier random behavior? Can't the random behavior itself be a cause?

[Will I Am]

Nowhere357

(You’ll note that I have already noted the limits of predeterminism apparently implied by recent Chaos or Quantum theory. IMO, that has little effect on what most people think of when they think of ‘free will’).

Yes I can see you are not quite getting it. That’s very true.

Things do what they are made to do - and people make traffic lights. Meanwhile, who made people? Traffic lights?

Ok, one last try:

No, gravity, hydrogen and the ‘laws’ of physics made humans. Took a while, but they did. (Aren’t they clever, special ‘beings’? (Does gravity have free will? – look at all it has wrought)).

Biological evolution ‘made’ humans. Humans follow their biological program. Which, yes, under certain conditions, includes making traffic lights.

Termites, for another example, following their biological programs, building termite ‘nests’ that control the humidity and air flow throughout these nests.

Like traffic lights.

Are the termites really special beings, with ‘free will’ because they made north-south aligned, carefully gated, defended, regulated ‘cities’ of sand?

Or were they just doing what they were always going to, had to, do?




Traffic lights do not make mental decisions. Think about it.

I have. And you’re wrong. They do.

They have a ‘brain’. Their computer chips and the controlling network.

This brain contains a program, which they obey. Some traffic systems respond to environmental input. (They detect traffic flows and react accordingly).

One last time: how is this essentially different from what humans do?



The burden is on you to support your claim.

I don’t agree. The burden is on you provide any scientific evidence (or any kind, if you’d rather) that “free will” exists. I am aware of none.


Our decisions are not predetermined.

This is not supported by Science. Examination of brain activity shows , in experiments carried put in the 70’s and lately repeated in the late 90s, that there is no conscious awareness of “decision-making”, until after a “decision” has been made. Essentially human decisions are (apparently) all made unconsciously. (Not, as I say, that there’s anything wrong with that).

Like, yes, termites.


Your burden cannot be supported imo - Occam will reject any claim that our mental agency is observer only,

I would have thought quite the exact opposite. You have postulated an additional, unnecessary ‘entity’, “free will”. Occam is on my side.


Free will is alive and well.

So’s God, they say.

What ever makes you happiest.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Will I Am
Biological evolution ‘made’ humans. Humans follow their biological program. Which, yes, under certain conditions, includes making traffic lights.

So, if the making of traffic lights is merely the playing out of our 'biological program' under 'certain conditions,' then why shouldn't the conceptualisation and exercise of free will also be part of the same hardwiring and response to contextual stimuli?

Perhaps we're programmed to make traffic lights and believe we have and use free will.

:D

[Will I Am]

Perhaps we're programmed to make traffic lights and believe we have and use free will.


Quite seriously, that, is exactly the case. But not to ‘have’, just to ‘believe in’. Just, in fact, like 'we' believe in God.

The perception of ‘free will’ has become essential to ‘protect’ us from the ego-damaging realization of our machine-nature. Our non-immortality. Our non-specialness.

“Free will” is the last refuge of the crypto-theists.

[Will I Am]

(I really don't know how to use commas, or inverted commas, do I?)

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Will I Am
But not to ‘have’, just to ‘believe in’. Just, in fact, like 'we' believe in God.

I haven't been programmed to believe in God, though.

I choose not to believe in Him.

Have I been programmed to choose disbelief? Is my programming therefore different from the programming of folks who choose to believe?

“Free will” is the last refuge of the crypto-theists.

If we dispense with free will, and subscribe to the view that our actions are predetermined by our internal programming, then what happens to the question of moral and ethical responsibility?

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by deano
grimly is saying that all moral values,all human concepts and judgments are worthless,illusions that exist only in the metaphysical.

Actually, I feel that each of the above has great value yet are always contingent to circumstance and only ever true within their context.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
If these hypothetical entities exist.....
:confused: ...but a hypothetical entity is an oxymoron w.r.t. reality, it is hypothsised within the mind and exists only within the mind.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
What is "Ideal status"?
Why does belief in Humanity means to believe in souls?
What is capital H Humanity, anyway, and what does it mean to "believe" in it?

How do you know there are no "souls"?

To confer upon something an Ideal status is to imagine it to have a discrete existence and a standard configuration.

Belief in Humanity is belief in a special and discrete essence which elevates us beyond the Animal Kingdom. Physically referenced speculation upon the nature of the imagined essence of Humanity follows. Extension, function, substance; each of these and more are attributed to the imagined essence of Humanity. To believe in Humanity is to believe in Souls.

Within the context of this thread I choose to use the uppercase for Humanity as outlined above to distinguish it from the group of animals which we are.

Belief in souls necessitates further irrational beliefs pertaining to their ontology. There is no objective evidence to support a belief in souls. There are no souls.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Luiseach
An ounce of free will is better than none at all, I suppose. :D

What say you?

Why not ? I do not believe Free Will to be a superpower, or a Trekky energy field, or a magic spell. It is not something grand and cosmic. It seems to be nothing more than the ability to direct our actions towards our short term interests or towards our long term interests.

Personally, I stand by Spinoza on this.

Your friend,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
Psychopaths are as human as saints. We are all in this together.

To set the record straight, by saints I refer to people who are guided by their selfless compassion towards others, not to the men and women who killed and died for Big Giant Fairies such as may be found in the Abrahamic Mythos.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Luiseach
If we dispense with free will, and subscribe to the view that our actions are predetermined by our internal programming, then what happens to the question of moral and ethical responsibility?
Hi Lu!

I think the ethical and moral responsibilities remain the same. I would note, however, that our actions are also in part determined by our environment - so living in peace requires sensitivity and non-provocation.

You may also wish to consider the attitude of society (a group of individuals) toward perpetrators has changed. Perhaps because the populace is now more educated as to the medical causes of, say, psychopathic behavior, the trend is away from hanging and flogging to correctional institutes of various kinds.

In summary IMO human society is able to operate through the imposition of moral and ethical responsibilities on its members. There is feedback in this regarding punishment where there is a collective guilt upon society from wrongful execution (live topic here in the US) or for failure to assist those who have inadequate control over their actions.

Cheers, John

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by John Page
Compassionate and rational? Isn't this contradictory?

Do you mean compassionate to those that are included in the society so we can rationally beat the living daylights out of other societies that threaten our cosy existence?

By Nietzsche's Moustache, irony at last ! After spending some little time in Moral Foundations and Principles I was beginning to feel that this place was a Laputa of Nihilistic Sceptics !

To address your question, I do not feel that compassion and rational are contradictory. I stand by Schopenhauer on this.

Of course, were these things truly contradictory, I would have thought that if anyone could reconcile them then you would be the man.

Originally posted by John Page
P.S. Reading your profile isn't being a stoic epicurean totally consistent with British cuisine?

A good point, well made. I see you have spent some time with us.

British Cuisine has some delights. Balti is beautiful, and a Full English Breakfast complete with Black Pudding is the closest thing to Heaven in which I will confess to a belief.

Your friend,

Grimly Fiendish.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
....a Laputa of Nihilistic Sceptics !
Cool. Yes, Ivory Tower in the mental sky.....
Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
To address your question, I do not feel that compassion and rational are contradictory.
They can be contradictory, I agree not always.
Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
I stand by Schopenhauer on this.
I'm not sure this adds strength to your argument.
Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
British Cuisine has some delights. Balti is beautiful.....
But that's Indian and/or Pakistani! :confused:
Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
...a full English Breakfast complete with Black Pudding is the closest thing to Heaven in which I will confess to a belief.
Interesting, are you an advocate of the Lancastrian variety with lumps of fat in it, or the Scottish variety which is merely caked blood?

Cheers, John

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by John Page
But that's Indian and/or Pakistani!

I take your point, yet modern Balti cuisine (http://www.globetrekkertv.co.uk/destination_guide/asia/pakistan/baltis.php) is a uniquely British creation. We are very proud of it.

Originally posted by John Page
Interesting, are you an advocate of the Lancastrian variety with lumps of fat in it, or the Scottish variety which is merely caked blood?

The first, of course.

Pure blood ? How disgusting.

Your friend,

Grimly Fiendish.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
I take your point, yet modern Balti cuisine (http://www.globetrekkertv.co.uk/destination_guide/asia/pakistan/baltis.php) is a uniquely British creation. We are very proud of it.
But its apparently not from Baltistan - see link here (http://www.owlsprings.com/the_balti_page.html) , where it says Just a note here about the origins of the name "Balti": various correspondents (such as Olaf Stutzke, Olaf.Stutzke@aixterm1.urz.uni-heidelberg.de, and Saad As-Jandal, S.S.A.Al-Jandal@reading.ac.uk), have written to say that Balti doesn't have anything to do with Baltistan, which they both describe as an area where most people are vegetarian, and not likely to have evolved a cuisine with so much meat in it. Saad As-Jandal adds, "It seems like the Pakistani community in Birmingham and elsewhere have attatched a romantic notion that these so called Balti dishes originate from Baltistan, whereas from my knowledge it is more commonly found in Peshawar North West Pakistan, where it is known as 'Karhai'. -- So please spread the word and let it be known." I think Balti just means its cooked in a pot, somewhat like Lancashire Hotpot but obviously with different ingredients. Between that and Black Pud you'll definitely kill humanity. Now for some nutritious Stovies.

Cheers, John

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by John Page
I think Balti just means its cooked in a pot, somewhat like Lancashire Hotpot but obviously with different ingredients. Between that and Black Pud you'll definitely kill humanity.

Delicate stomach ?

Your friend,

Grimly Fiendish.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
Delicate stomach ?
What do you mean, I'm throwing it as far as anyone else!

Anyway, no, refined palate.

Cheers, John

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by John Page
refined palate.

We British have rather Cynical palates, by and large.

Your friend,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Nowhere357]

Will I Am
(You’ll note that I have already noted the limits of predeterminism apparently implied by recent Chaos or Quantum theory. IMO, that has little effect on what most people think of when they think of ‘free will’).
Noted. I agree it has little effect on what most people think of the term 'free will'. Imo it has a large effect on the possibility of 'free will' actually existing.

No, gravity, hydrogen and the ‘laws’ of physics made humans. Took a while, but they did. (Aren’t they clever, special ‘beings’? (Does gravity have free will? – look at all it has wrought)).
We agree traffic lights did not make people. Meanwhile, will - the ability to reach mental decisions which affect behavior - is a property or ability of minds. Minds are a property of living brains, and in context here that implies an advanced central nervous system. Gravity of course does not have these things,

While gravity, hydrogen and the ‘laws’ of physics may have made humans, it is not the case that they exercised will in so doing. Humans exercised will in deciding to build traffic lights. The difference between humans and traffic lights are real and obvious.

Biological evolution ‘made’ humans. Humans follow their biological program. Which, yes, under certain conditions, includes making traffic lights.
True. However, 'biological program' does not of necessity imply that free will does not exist. Part of the 'biological program' is the existence of brains - advanced central nervous systems which give rise to minds.

Termites, for another example, following their biological programs, building termite ‘nests’ that control the humidity and air flow throughout these nests.
Termites do not have advanced central nervous systems. The dividing line between life and non-life, between mind and non-mind, is very fuzzy. But by the defintions I've given, which follow from the standard and philosophical definitions, termites do not have minds as we understand them.

Are the termites really special beings, with ‘free will’ because they made north-south aligned, carefully gated, defended, regulated ‘cities’ of sand?
If 'free will' is will, the ability to reach mental decisions which affect behavior, and minds are directly related to advanced central nervous systems (advanced brains), then the answer is no.

I have. And you’re wrong. They do.
They have a ‘brain’. Their computer chips and the controlling network.
This brain contains a program, which they obey. Some traffic systems respond to environmental input. (They detect traffic flows and react accordingly).
One last time: how is this essentially different from what humans do?
Traffic lights do NOT make mental decisions. Afaik, 'brains' made of computer chips do not have consciousness - they have no awareness. Humans have consciousness - they have awareness.

In context of our discussion, "what humans do" includes their mental activity. "Mental activity" requires a mind. Minds are a function of advanced brains. From this pov, it looks like you are ether claiming that people have no awareness, or that traffic lights do.

I agree that if we exclude knowledge of minds (if we assume there are no minds), that there is no real difference between observations of traffic light behavior and observations of human behavior. However, we have knowledge of minds. This then must be the essential difference you're looking for?

I don’t agree. The burden is on you provide any scientific evidence (or any kind, if you’d rather) that “free will” exists. I am aware of none.
There is no direct scientific evidence that minds exist, and will is a function of minds. So there can be no direct scientific evidence that will exists.

The burden you try to place on me is not reasonable, because it is not reasonable to claim that people do not have minds (subjective awareness), yet it is impossible to prove that people do have minds!

Part of the awareness that people experience is the awareness of the ability to reach mental decisions which affect their behavior (awareness of will). If you wish to convince that that ability does not exist, the burden's on you. :)

There is no direct scientific (objective) evidence for the existence of minds - there is however direct introspective (subjective) evidence. We each have access to our own minds, and our own ability to guide our thoughts and behavior. Which you exercise when you decide to respond to a post. That we decide to talk about this is evidence that we make mental decisions!

This is not supported by Science. Examination of brain activity shows , in experiments carried put in the 70’s and lately repeated in the late 90s, that there is no conscious awareness of “decision-making”, until after a “decision” has been made. Essentially human decisions are (apparently) all made unconsciously. (Not, as I say, that there’s anything wrong with that).
The only experiments I'm aware of that fit your description require that the subject react (by lifting a random finger for example) when the stimulus (a buzzer for example) occurs. The decision to react to the stimulus occured before any brain activity measurements, and so that decision is outside the scope of the experiments. The experiments show that if a mental decision has been made to react to a given stimulus then the non-mental brain activity (measurements) related to the reaction occured before the awareness of that reaction; it does NOT show that brain activity related to awareness of making a mental decision occurs before that awareness. Your conclusion does not follow.

I would have thought quite the exact opposite. You have postulated an additional, unnecessary ‘entity’, “free will”. Occam is on my side.
I 'knew' you would decide to say that! :)

If our minds are unable to influence our behavior, then they are completely extraneous. There is no natural selection involved in their existence. Now consider that minds cnnot be scientifically proven to exist - so we have a completely unnecessary entity which cannot affect reality in any way - and there are billions of them, with no evidence that they exist! I think Occam will slice and dice as they say.

Of course, there is evidence that minds exist - we have direct access through subjective introspection. We observe the relationship between subjective experience and the brain, and we observe that people have brains. The assumption that I am not the only mind, that people have minds, is logical and reasonable. The burden is on those who argue there are no minds. (I'm not saying anyone holds that postion; I'm trying to draw a paralell.)

'Will' is a property or function of mind, I have direct access to my own, there is an obvious connection between mental states and brain activity, people have brains, so it's logical and reasonable to assume people have access to will. The burden is on those who argue they don't.

So’s God, they say.
Yes they do. God is a mythological supernatural entity with little if any basis in fact (depending on definitions); while 'free will' is will, the ability to reach mental decisions which affect behavior. God apparently doesn't exist, but will apparently does.

Luiseach Perhaps we're programmed to make traffic lights and believe we have and use free will.
Will I Am Quite seriously, that, is exactly the case. But not to ‘have’, just to ‘believe in’. Just, in fact, like 'we' believe in God.
That in fact may be the case. Now let's see the reasoning which leads to your conclusion.

The perception of ‘free will’ has become essential to ‘protect’ us from the ego-damaging realization of our machine-nature. Our non-immortality. Our non-specialness.
“Free will” is the last refuge of the crypto-theists.
It looks like you're claiming that our perception of 'will' is naturally selected because it "protects our ego". But if the mind does not affect the body then how could our perception of anything do anything at all? It looks to me like your reason as given logically contradicts itself.

If will is naturally selected, then will MUST be able to affect the body. And if will does affect the body, then what reason is there to assume that our mental decisions do not affect our behavior?

“Free will” is the last refuge of the crypto-theists.
Okay. Then let's talk about "will", the ability to reach mental decisions which affect our behavior. Better still, agree that "will" is the meaningful interpretation of the term "free will". Ditch the theistic baggage like bathwater, but keep the baby. :)

Btw, if there is no will, then we are not morally responsible for our behavior. How can we be held responsible for our behavior when we have no influence over it? I think it's not reasonable to assume that people are not responsible for their behavior to some degree at least (our entire society assumes we are responsible), and therefore again the burden's on those who disagree.

The default postition must be that people make mental decisions which affect their behavior.

What reasons are there to assume they don't?

[John Page]

Originally posted by Luiseach
If we dispense with free will, and subscribe to the view that our actions are predetermined by our internal programming, then what happens to the question of moral and ethical responsibility?
Hi Lu:

Greetings from an evolved trafffic light. Of course, it is the moral and ethical responsibility of all traffic lights to change color in sychornization with their set or other sets. Generally, when a traffic light fails to change or light up as expected its dereliction is generally found to be due to a blown bulb, stuck relay or other genetic/manufacturing defect.

As traffic lights have no notion of an accident, they can hardly be accused of intentionally causing it. I believe this marks the difference between crime and punishment in a thinking as opposed to merely mechanical society. (Now, while thinking can be ;) thought of as a purely mechanical activity, it achieves a different level of responsibility because it knows what its doing).

I do not suggest we devolve back to the use of traffic circles, this would require significant engineering effort especially in cities based on the grid system. Unlike humans, then, traffic lights should only be held responsible for their actions and decammissioned where it can be proven they took pre-meditated action with foreknowledge of the conseqiuences of their action.

These guidelines can also be read under the international law governing machine rights under the prevention of planned obsolescence act. Unless there is justice for traffic lights, we will rise up in unison with the CRM (Chicken's Rights Movement) and cluck you to death while while hypnotized and stationary at the white line of the traffic lights.

Yours, predictably Green, Amber, Red & Amber, Red.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by John Page
:confused: ...but a hypothetical entity is an oxymoron w.r.t. reality, it is hypothsised within the mind and exists only within the mind.
Why does should the fact that hypothetical entities exist only in the mind mean it's an oxymoron, when it simply follows from the defintions?

And why should this allow you to avoid answering the question?
:)

Never mind. Give me a reason to believe that a given action - whether cause or effect or both - cannot be a selection from a range of possibilities, described mathematicaly by statistics?

And isn't it the case from our current understanding of quantum physics that an action can be a selection from a range of possibilities, described mathematicaly by statistics?

Aren't I on solid ground here? <Looks around... :confused: >

[John Page]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
We British have rather Cynical palates, by and large.
Yes, and stoical. Becasue you eat stovies (http://www.stovies.com/) . I mean, just follow the link and look at them. (Stoics -> stovies, geddit)

[John Page]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Why does should the fact that hypothetical entities exist only in the mind mean it's an oxymoron, when it simply follows from the defintions? Yes, and what if there were no hypothetical questions? :)
Originally posted by Nowhere357
Never mind. Give me a reason to believe that a given action - whether cause or effect or both - cannot be a selection from a range of possibilities, described mathematicaly by statistics?
Because its bad science to go back in time and falsify the results? :D
Originally posted by Nowhere357
And isn't it the case from our current understanding of quantum physics that an action can be a selection from a range of possibilities, described mathematicaly by statistics?
Well, I don't know whether its going to rain today, but I cannot cause it to do so simply by selecting that option. Predicting the outsome using statistics is another thing, though.

Cheers, John

[Nowhere357]

Grimly Fiendish
To confer upon something an Ideal status is to imagine it to have a discrete existence and a standard configuration.
Then I don't really understand the usefulness of the idea of "Ideal status". for example, all of reality is patterns of matter/energy in space/time, if something has discrete existence then it exists objectively - it's made of matter. I don't think "Ideal status" has a physical existence.

Belief in Humanity is belief in a special and discrete essence which elevates us beyond the Animal Kingdom.
Like midi-clorians? Can we in theory isolate this essence?

Physically referenced speculation upon the nature of the imagined essence of Humanity follows. Extension, function, substance; each of these and more are attributed to the imagined essence of Humanity. To believe in Humanity is to believe in Souls.
Oh. I asked "Why does belief in Humanity means to believe in souls?". Your answer seems to be "because belief in Humanity means to believe in souls".

I'm not convinced. I think "belief in Humanity" simply means "belief in humanity, from a human's point of view".

Within the context of this thread I choose to use the uppercase for Humanity as outlined above to distinguish it from the group of animals which we are.
But I think people are the only human animals, so the distinction is not necessary.

Belief in souls necessitates further irrational beliefs pertaining to their ontology.
I disagree that it necessitates. It's possible for a hold a belief in souls which does not lead to further irrational beliefs pertaining to their ontology. I think we should judge a belief on it's own merit as opposed to making sweeping generalizations.

There is no objective evidence to support a belief in souls.
I agree. Especially if 'soul' implies 'afterlife'. But of course lack of proof is not proof of lack.

There are no souls.
Possibly not. What is your precise definition for the word "soul"?

[Nowhere357]

John Page
Yes, and what if there were no hypothetical questions?
Is that a hypothetical question?

Because its bad science to go back in time and falsify the results?
It's your position that quantum randomness does not occur?

Well, I don't know whether its going to rain today, but I cannot cause it to do so simply by selecting that option. Predicting the outsome using statistics is another thing, though.
What is the significance of your first comment? The selection must occur within the range.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Is that a hypothetical question?
:) Depends on whether you choose to answer it!
Originally posted by Nowhere357
It's your position that quantum randomness does not occur?

I didn't say that. Random distributions form a pattern.... that's different from selection.
Originally posted by Nowhere357
What is the significance of your first comment? The selection must occur within the range.
:confused: Either it will rain or it will not rain or we can measure degrees of rain and agree a threshhold - what range are you talking about?

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
....I advocate the structuring of Society along compassionate and rational principles but I reject the suggestion that there is something uniquely special about being born a member of the human race rather than, for example, a centipede.
What about mosquitos? Are they equal to centipedes as well? If so, say you went somewhere and some mosquitos were biting you... what would you do? Would you kill them? They were merely trying to get some nutrients. Or what if you owned a restuarant and had cockroaches... would you kill them? And do you think the penalty for murdering centipedes and insects should be the same as that for murdering human beings?

I imagine it is less fun to be a centipede, certainly by the terms I appreciate as a human, but to maintain a belief in a discrete humanity is Idealism by the back door. We do not need this type of thinking in our Society. We are all equal.....
You said centipedes are equal to humans in value... what about stinging jellyfish? If you saw one washed up on the beach, would you try and rescue it? What about clams, etc? (I think they're animals) Are they equal to humans? What about single-celled animals? What about bacteria that aren't "animals" - they're more "plants"? What about venus fly-traps? What about other plants? Maybe you also have a discrete thing where things go from being equal to humanity to suddenly being much less important.

[Nowhere357]

John Page
Depends on whether you choose to answer it!
The nature of a question depends on how it is answered? But the answer hasn't happened yet when the question is formulated!

I didn't say that. Random distributions form a pattern.... that's different from selection.
Then there was no reason to not agree with my statement.

Either it will rain or it will not rain or we can measure degrees of rain and agree a threshhold - what range are you talking about?
Obviously, the range of things we can affect by reaching a mental decision. All we can do is affect and guide our thoughts and behavior to some extent - we cannot make it rain by wishing.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
The nature of a question depends on how it is answered? But the answer hasn't happened yet when the question is formulated!
:confused: Please consider the meaning of the word hypothetical and the conditions required for a question to be hypothetical. You may come to the conclusion that hypothetical questions are those to which an answer is not required or expected. I think this is the general usage of the term "hypothetical question".

From your response, it seems you consider all questions hypothetical until answered. Am I correct.

Then, of course, there can be the interpretation of hypothetical questions as "what if?" questions and cannot be truly answered until the "what if?" conditions have been created and the results examined. Once results are obtained, the question is no longer hypothetical.

In the latter sense, it is impossible to answer the question "what if there were no hypothetical questions" because, in order to do so, we have to examine a hypothetical question.
Originally posted by Nowhere357
Then there was no reason to not agree with my statement.
:) ...or disagree....
Originally posted by Nowhere357
Obviously, the range of things we can affect by reaching a mental decision. All we can do is affect and guide our thoughts and behavior to some extent - we cannot make it rain by wishing.
OK, so are you agreeing we cannot affect events external to the mind by thought alone? If I understand you correctly, then perhaps it would help to give me an actual example of something (outcome) that can be affected (selected) through mental decision.

Cheers, John

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
I do not believe Free Will to be a superpower, or a Trekky energy field, or a magic spell. It is not something grand and cosmic. It seems to be nothing more than the ability to direct our actions towards our short term interests or towards our long term interests.

Yep. An ounce of free will, like lighting the stub of a candle in a universe filled with darkness, is plenty sufficient to see by. :D

[Luiseach]

Hi John!

Originally posted by John Page
As traffic lights have no notion of an accident, they can hardly be accused of intentionally causing it. I believe this marks the difference between crime and punishment in a thinking as opposed to merely mechanical society. (Now, while thinking can be ;) thought of as a purely mechanical activity, it achieves a different level of responsibility because it knows what its doing).

Agreed! Only sufficiently self-aware traffic lights can be viewed as moral or immoral. Unaware traffic lights are amoral.

Unlike humans, then, traffic lights should only be held responsible for their actions and decammissioned where it can be proven they took pre-meditated action with foreknowledge of the conseqiuences of their action.

Those wicked traffic lights...thank goodness they're usually fixed in place, otherwise it would be Monty Python meets The Day of the Triffids. I'll never look at a traffic light in the same way again.

These guidelines can also be read under the international law governing machine rights under the prevention of planned obsolescence act. Unless there is justice for traffic lights, we will rise up in unison with the CRM (Chicken's Rights Movement) and cluck you to death while while hypnotized and stationary at the white line of the traffic lights.

*laughing IRL*

Yours, predictably Green, Amber, Red & Amber, Red.

BTW, black pudding is considered to be a necessary (though hardly sufficient) condition of a complete and nutritious Calvinistic breakfast in Scotland. (I call black puddings 'fried scabs').

There's also haggis to consider.

And porridge without brown sugar and milk.

And cold soggy toast.

And stovies for supper, of course.

Breeds stoics you know. I bet that's what Hume had for his brekkies everyday. I mean to say, the poor guy's been sitting wearing nothing but a toga, laurel wreath and pigeon droppings in one of the wettest and windiest cities in Scotland for years. Now that's stoicism taken to a sublime level. And all because of black pudding.

:D

[John Page]

Originally posted by Luiseach
Agreed! Only sufficiently self-aware traffic lights can be viewed as moral or immoral. Unaware traffic lights are amoral.

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. :eek:
Originally posted by Luiseach
Those wicked traffic lights...thank goodness they're usually fixed in place, otherwise it would be Monty Python meets The Day of the Triffids.
They did that, I think it was the invasion of the Pink Blancmanges from the planet Skyron in the Galaxy of Andromeda. Best I remember they took over Wimbledon.
Originally posted by Luiseach
BTW, black pudding is considered to be a necessary (though hardly sufficient) condition of a complete and nutritious Calvinistic breakfast in Scotland.
"Would ye like anuther Kipper wi' yer breakfast Doctor Finlay?" (Janet) - clearly gives away the ultimate Calvinistic treat. Soused herring in the Scandinavian countries, of course.
Originally posted by Luiseach
And cold soggy toast.
Wot! Where's the fried bread?

BTW, here in the US they have "grits" for breakfast. Can you imagine anything blander than semolina? Good job they have 87% of the world's supply of mylanta to wash it down.

Oh yes, and are sentinels sentient?

Cheers, John

[Nowhere357]

John Page
From your response, it seems you consider all questions hypothetical until answered. Am I correct.
No.

You may come to the conclusion that hypothetical questions are those to which an answer is not required or expected. I think this is the general usage of the term "hypothetical question".
Which is why your comment "Depends on whether you choose to answer it!" does not make sense. The question is hypothetical, or not, when it is formulated - not when someone chooses to answer or not!

Then, of course, there can be the interpretation of hypothetical questions as "what if?" questions and cannot be truly answered until the "what if?" conditions have been created and the results examined. Once results are obtained, the question is no longer hypothetical.
Which is why I thought you should try to answer the question. It simply was a "what if".

OK, so are you agreeing we cannot affect events external to the mind by thought alone? If I understand you correctly, then perhaps it would help to give me an actual example of something (outcome) that can be affected (selected) through mental decision.

Shall I watch the Broncos or shall I mow the lawn? My behavior depends on my decision. Obviously. :)

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Then I don't really understand the usefulness of the idea of "Ideal status".

Spot on. It is an absolutely useless piece of atavistic Platonism. We are well rid of it.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Like midi-clorians?

Awfully sorry; I do not speak Trekky.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I asked "Why does belief in Humanity means to believe in souls?". Your answer seems to be "because belief in Humanity means to believe in souls".

The meanings are in the terms. Tear yourself away from your Star Wars DVDs and spend some quality time with a basic dictionary of philosophy.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I think we should judge a belief on it's own merit as opposed to making sweeping generalizations.

There is no merit to the superstitious and irrational belief in souls.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
But of course lack of proof is not proof of lack.

Truth is determined by the observation of Fact and the rule of Reason. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence by reference to Fact and Reason. There are no gods. There are no souls. There is no afterlife.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
What is your precise definition for the word "soul"?

Whatever you understand by the term soul is false.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by excreationist
You said centipedes are equal to humans in value...

No I did not. Get back to me when you wish to address my OP.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[excreationist]

Grimly Fiendish:

I wrote:
"You said centipedes are equal to humans in value...)"

Grimly Fiendish replied:
"No I did not. Get back to me when you wish to address my OP."

In your original post (which I quoted in my last post) you wrote:
....I advocate the structuring of Society along compassionate and rational principles but I reject the suggestion that there is something uniquely special about being born a member of the human race rather than, for example, a centipede.....
You're saying that humans aren't special... (aren't superior to centipedes?)

I imagine it is less fun to be a centipede, certainly by the terms I appreciate as a human, but to maintain a belief in a discrete humanity is Idealism by the back door. We do not need this type of thinking in our Society. We are all equal.
This is a bit ambiguous... by "we", do you mean all animals? Since you talked about being a centipede (that it would be less fun) I assumed that the "we" included animals such as centipedes. Or maybe "we" is limited to humans. If "we" is limited to humans, then you seem to be contradicting your earlier statement that there isn't anything uniquely special about being a human (compared to a centipede).

So if "we" meant all animals, then you more or less said "animals are all equal". And earlier you said "we are animals" (humans are animals). It seems you are saying humans are equal in value to animals, such as centipedes. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "we" and "equal".

[Nowhere357]

Grimly Fiendish
The meanings are in the terms. Tear yourself away from your Star Wars DVDs and spend some quality time with a basic dictionary of philosophy.
I find no capital 'H' Humanity in my basic dictionary of philosophy. While soul (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/s7.htm#soul) is defined as "The active principle present in living things. Plato distinguished three distinct components of the human soul, and Aristotle supposed that plants and animals, no less than human beings, have souls of some sort. Under the influence of Christianity, medieval philosophers focussed on the intellectual component of the human soul, and Descartes identified it as an immaterial substance."

Which is not much of a definition at all. So the meanings are not in the terms, and you'll need to be more precise in trying to explain your position.

There is no merit to the superstitious and irrational belief in souls.
Right. But maybe there's merit to the regular-stitious and non-irrational belief in souls. Assuming there is such a thing. Do you assume there isn't?

Truth is determined by the observation of Fact and the rule of Reason.
I know what truth, fact and reason generally mean - but I don't know what Truth, Fact, and Reason are. They seem to be of the same type as 'Ideal status'. Of which you said "It is an absolutely useless piece of atavistic Platonism. We are well rid of it."

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence by reference to Fact and Reason.
What about in reference to fact and reason? I don't get this capitalization stuff, especially when you claim the meanings are in the terms, yet the terms are undefined!

There are no gods. There are no souls. There is no afterlife.
I understand that's your position. I'm wondering how you arrived at the conclusion.

Whatever you understand by the term soul is false.
When asked for a definition (What is your precise definition for the word "soul"?) you shouldn't answer with zen koans or whatever the hell that is - you should give your defintion for the word. Assuming you want to be taken seriously.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Shall I watch the Broncos or shall I mow the lawn? My behavior depends on my decision. Obviously. :)
And how do you decide, exactly?

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by John Page
And how do you decide, exactly?
I guess you're looking for the naturalistic/materialistic explanation - I don't have one. I know that I have a subjective existence, and that it's related to the brain. Awareness, self-awareness, consciousness.

And that I can to some extent guide my thoughts. Within the entirety of consciousness as presented by my brain, I can focus my awareness on purpose. Will, or free will.

I see it as a feedback arrangement between the consciousness and the brain. The brain presents the gestalt options, and uses the reaction of the consciousness to help formulate the next presentation (as well as control the body).

If I mentally relax, I naturally gravitate toward the game. But if I mentally focus on responsibilities - applying will - then I may mow the lawn.

This is from an introspective view. Any objective scientific explanation must allow for awareness and will. I reject any interpretation of data which claims awareness does not exist, and/or claims that subjective existence has no affect on physical existence, and/or claims that the ability to guide our thoughts and resist our urges does not exist.

I can do this because introspection is a valid and necessary tool for investigation into this aspect of reality. Without the subjective experience - direct knowledge - of minds, there would be no scientific reason to claim they exist. Yet they do exist, and this validates introspection. That's how I see it so far.

As it turns out, I finished the chore in time for the second half.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Within the entirety of consciousness as presented by my brain, I can focus my awareness on purpose. Will, or free will.
But what is the mysterious "I", isn't that just another part of the brain?
Isn't will just part of us that we cannot control?
Isn't free will the mechanism within us that have a chance to influence through contemplation so we can act with foreknowledge of the likely outcome?

[Nowhere357]

John Page
But what is the mysterious "I", isn't that just another part of the brain?
'Mysterious' how? That we have subjective experiences is something that really happens. Meanwhile, the brain is objective-physical, and we can't point to a part of it and say there is the subjective experience. Subjective awareness is non-physical of course. It seems to arise from the living brain.

Isn't will just part of us that we cannot control?
By definition, no, of course not.

Isn't free will the mechanism within us that have a chance to influence through contemplation so we can act with foreknowledge of the likely outcome?
What? Free will is the ability to influence through contemplation, as you say.

People can make decisions. I insist. :)

[John Page]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Meanwhile, the brain is objective-physical, and we can't point to a part of it and say there is the subjective experience.
Yes we can, but only partially. We can detect patterns of brain activity that correlate, for example with the subjective experience of pain or individual colors.
Originally posted by Nowhere357
Subjective awareness is non-physical of course. It seems to arise from the living brain.
You have me baffled, on the one hand you're saying subjective awareness is non-physical, on the other hand you're saying it arises from the brain.

Cheers, John

[Nowhere357]

John Page
Yes we can, but only partially. We can detect patterns of brain activity that correlate, for example with the subjective experience of pain or individual colors.
No equivocation allowed here, sorry. I've already acknowledged the deep relationship between minds and brains. The mind - the experience of subjective awareness - cannot be located in the brain, cannot be put under a microscope, cannot be weighed or measured in any objective, physical sense.

Pain has no mass.

You have me baffled, on the one hand you're saying subjective awareness is non-physical, on the other hand you're saying it arises from the brain.
I didn't design this system, I merely relate observations.

Subjective awareness is non-physical, do you disagree?

Mind arises from brain, do you disagree?

Time to 'fess up, John. If you see a problem with my view, please share.

I reject any interpretation of data which claims awareness does not exist, and/or claims that subjective existence has no affect on physical existence, and/or claims that the ability to guide our thoughts and resist our urges does not exist.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by excreationist
I assumed that the "we" included animals such as centipedes.

There really is no need to make such erroneous assumptions when the meaning lays before you. Ask a friend to explain the following cut to you, which you have quoted yourself, if you encounter difficulty in appreciating it's meaning.

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish, Kill Humanity, September 3, 2003 02:39 AM.
We do not need this type of thinking in our Society. We are all equal.

*

Originally posted by excreationist
So if "we" meant all animals, then you more or less said "animals are all equal".

If wishes were horses then beggars would ride. See my remarks above.

Originally posted by excreationist
If "we" is limited to humans, then you seem to be contradicting your earlier statement... It seems you are saying humans are equal in value to animals, such as centipedes.

Seeming is not the same as being. Read only that which is before you.

Originally posted by excreationist
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "we" and "equal".

Absolutely you misunderstood. You chose to impose your own meanings over mine. Please remember that reading is not by it's nature a passive activity. In this arena you need to make it so, that you understand clearly that which is put before you and do not instead focus upon your own beliefs.

By all means, oppose my meanings or support them yet do not attempt to pass off your beliefs as my own. I would rather not spend my time on these boards countering obvious misquotes and lazy assumptions.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Will I Am
Well, no. Actually, our ‘thoughts, effects and actions’ are pretty much * determined by the non-random interface between our DNA and it’s environment. There are no ‘suites’. We play one card at a time.


*(within the apparent strictures of Quantum Uncertainty and the reiterative randomness of Chaos (which, admittedly, if the theories have value, quite large potential strictures)

How best to express my view of your above assertion ? How best to phrase myself that you appreciate my intellectual and affective response ? Ah. Yes. Here we go:

Bollocks.

Your phenotype demands you piss yet, were I still a gambling man, I would be willing to bet pounds to pence that more often than not you choose to piss in a pot in a room intended for the purpose rather than on the carpet in the corner of your bedroom.

QU has nothing to do with what you decide to do with your day.

There is huge suite of thought, affect and action open to each of us every day, and committed by us every day.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
But maybe there's merit to the regular-stitious and non-irrational belief in souls. Assuming there is such a thing. Do you assume there isn't?

Oh dear. What are we to do with you.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I know what truth, fact and reason generally mean - but I don't know what Truth, Fact, and Reason are. They seem to be of the same type as 'Ideal status'... What about in reference to fact and reason? I don't get this capitalization stuff, especially when you claim the meanings are in the terms, yet the terms are undefined!

If you ever wish to understand anything you must first understand how Truth is determined by Fact and Reason. If you do not appreciate the significance of Fact and Reason then you should not be here. I refer you to Leibniz.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I understand that's your position. I'm wondering how you arrived at the conclusion.

Via the observation of Fact and the rule of Reason. I refer you to Leibniz.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
When asked for a definition (What is your precise definition for the word "soul"?) you shouldn't answer with zen koans or whatever the hell that is - you should give your defintion for the word.

Whatever you understand by the term soul is false. Although Zen koans are extremely beautiful and useful, the preceding statement is not particularly Zen. Further, it is very precise. Further, I shall do as I please.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Assuming you want to be taken seriously.

Your motives aside, I am not here to have my ego polished.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Nowhere357]

Grimly Fiendish
What are we to do with you.
In my experience, remarks like this indicate a lack of anything important to say. It doesn't help that you ignore direct and relevant questions.

If you ever wish to understand anything you must first understand how Truth is determined by Fact and Reason.
Given that I've told you that I don't know what the capitalized first letter version of those words means, and given that the philosophical and standard dictionaries don't define them, and given that you seem to be uninterested in defining them, I must conclude that there is nothing to understand.

If you do not appreciate the significance of Fact and Reason then you should not be here.
Don't forget Truth. Sort of like the Holy Trinity, I guess.

Via the observation of Fact and the rule of Reason. I refer you to Leibniz.
Ah. You have no valid observations or valid reasons that lead to your conclusion. So there is no reason for anyone to be accept your conclusions.

Whatever you understand by the term soul is false.
I understand. Therefore, that understanding is false - which means its possible to correctly understand the term soul. Contradicting your silly statement.

Your motives aside, I am not here to have my ego polished.
Zero content in your post. Ignoring direct questions. Condescension.

I'm starting to think your opinions are without value.

N357: So the meanings are not in the terms, and you'll need to be more precise in trying to explain your position.
Paine: /no response/

N357: Do you assume there isn't (possible rational explanations for the soul)?
Paine: /no response/

N357: I don't get this capitalization stuff, especially when you claim the meanings are in the terms, yet the terms are undefined!
Paine: /no response/

N357: I know what truth, fact and reason generally mean - but I don't know what Truth, Fact, and Reason are.
Paine: /no response/

N357: When asked for a definition you should give your defintion for the word.
Paine: /no response/

[John Page]

Originally posted by Nowhere357

Absolutely it can, surgeons can go right to certain areas of the brian that process speech and mess with your mind inducing grammatical mistakes.
Originally posted by Nowhere357
[B]Pain has no mass.
Neither does color. The perception of both results from physical events.

Cheers, John

[Nowhere357]

John Page
Absolutely it can, surgeons can go right to certain areas of the brian that process speech and mess with your mind inducing grammatical mistakes.
Of course they can, yet that doesn't contradict my position.

Neither does color. The perception of both results from physical events.
Of course they do, yet that doesn't contradict my position.

The mind is not the brain.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
The mind is not the brain.
OK, let's start with an example, can you? (BTW I consider the mind to comprise all entities handling information behind the senses).

[Nowhere357]

John Page
OK, let's start with an example, can you?
An example of what?

(BTW I consider the mind to comprise all entities handling information behind the senses).
I consider the mind to be that which is aware. If it's in the mind, we are aware of it. If we're not aware of it, it's not in the mind. Here I'm talking about mental 'objects' of course - perceptions, memories, thoughts.

The mind is the observer.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
An example of what?
Something that you consider is in the mind but not in the brain.

Cheers, John

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by John Page
Something that you consider is in the mind but not in the brain.

Pain. Perceptions are in the mind. Chemicals and neurons are in the brain. Perceptions are not chemicals and neurons.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Pain. Perceptions are in the mind. Chemicals and neurons are in the brain. Perceptions are not chemicals and neurons.
Interesting. Talk to a doctor involved with pain and I think you'll find that "real pain" is ;) literally indescribable. Apparently, people who go into long and elaborate explanations of what their pain is like are actually describing something different. Anyway, the experience that we intersubjectively agree is described by the word "pain" is brought about by specific conditions within the brain. Indeed, the nervous system is so organized that it can react by releasing chemicals that subdue the effect of pain. Pain can be medicated against, which I think also proves that pain is the result of direct, physical, phenomena.

Cheers, John

[excreationist]

Grimly Fiendish:
So perhaps "we are all equal" means "humans are all equal"?

That is partly what humanism is all about. I thought you sounded a bit against humanism when you said:
"We are animals. Humanism is covert religion. We should not subscribe to it."

Later you said:
"I reject the suggestion that there is something uniquely special about being born a member of the human race rather than, for example, a centipede."

So you probably said "humans are all equal" (where the "we" in "we are all equal" means "humans"), but what about other animals? Are humans equal to animals? You've been dodging that.

Remember that in the OP you said
1. "We are animals."
2. "I reject the suggestion that there is something uniquely special about being born a member of the human race rather than, for example, a centipede."

BTW, there are a few meanings of the human related word "humanity" (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=humanity):
1. human race
2. qualities of a human being
3. kindness

A word related to (3) is humane (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=humane)

In the first paragraph on the OP you seem to be insisting that words related to "human" must be about (1) and (2) - not (3). But Humanism seems to be about the good (3/humane) parts of humans....

Here (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=human) is the definition of human:
1. of people
2. made up of people
3. compassionately kind
4. imperfect

Even the word "human" has an aspect to it that means kindness.

Perhaps you object that words such as "human", "humanity" and "humane" are allowed to mean "kindness" as part of their definitions. Well they do, in the English language. You should learn to live with it.

[Nowhere357]

John Page
Interesting. Talk to a doctor involved with pain and I think you'll find that "real pain" is literally indescribable. Apparently, people who go into long and elaborate explanations of what their pain is like are actually describing something different.
Actually I have no problem with that whatsoever. There is pretty much a one-to-one correspondence between the mental experience and the brain states. We can in theory completely tweak any aspect of the personality by altering brain chemicals or structure. But the mind is not the personality; the mind is that which has the mental experience, regardless of the source or type of experience.

Anyway, the experience that we intersubjectively agree is described by the word "pain" is brought about by specific conditions within the brain. Indeed, the nervous system is so organized that it can react by releasing chemicals that subdue the effect of pain. Pain can be medicated against, which I think also proves that pain is the result of direct, physical, phenomena.
I agree with this also. After all, I figure it's default that the mind is the result of direct, physical, phenomena.

But the mind is fundamentally different from all other physical phenomenae ever studied: it is sentient. And it is known only through the use of introspection, a non-scientific method of investigation. These two points mean that the subject is guaranteed to be a lot of fun to discuss.

Do you agree that the mind affects the body? Or do you hold the mind to be extraneous? Or do you see a third option?

[John Page]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Do you agree that the mind affects the body? Or do you hold the mind to be extraneous? Or do you see a third option?
The mind/brain is part of the body. The mind/brain affects itself (e.g. internal feedback/contemplation etc.), it affects the body (e.g. instructions to muscles) and it affects the world outside our bodies (*kicks stone*).

Cheers, John

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by John Page
The mind/brain is part of the body. The mind/brain affects itself (e.g. internal feedback/contemplation etc.), it affects the body (e.g. instructions to muscles) and it affects the world outside our bodies (*kicks stone*).

That's right! I completely agree. But you know, you really didn't answer the questions.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
That's right! I completely agree. But you know, you really didn't answer the questions.
Sorry, thought it was implicit that I don't think the mind is extraneous. There are many options - I'm trying to focus on the one that best fits my body of knowledge.

Cheers, john

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by John Page
Sorry, thought it was implicit that I don't think the mind is extraneous. There are many options - I'm trying to focus on the one that best fits my body of knowledge.

Good, thanks. I want to say that it seems if the mind is not matter then it must be energy of some sort, but I have another possible solution.

Perhaps the mind arises simply as a pattern of brain activity. Like a string of 0's and 1's can be resolved into a picture, without the picture having a seperate reality (the picture is made of nothing more than then the digits!) so too maybe the individual activities of the brain form an overall pattern that includes sentience. This doesn't really explain anything, it's just to show that belief in mind doesn't necessarily entail mystical spiritual soul stuff.

I would like to hear your current view of the nature of mind.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Perhaps the mind arises simply as a pattern of brain activity.
I think this is true, an inactive brain appears dead and to not exhibit the qualities of mind at all. Perhaps "The mind is the brain in motion"?

[premjan]

not unlike a computer program (maybe not a sequential one). analysis has survival value so it exists as the entity called mind. sometimes analysis does not have value, hence there are many instinctual reactions as well.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by John Page
I think this is true, an inactive brain appears dead and to not exhibit the qualities of mind at all. Perhaps "The mind is the brain in motion"?
When you put it that way it seems like a no-brainer. So to speak.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by premjan
not unlike a computer program (maybe not a sequential one). analysis has survival value so it exists as the entity called mind. sometimes analysis does not have value, hence there are many instinctual reactions as well.
This is a step in a direction that I like. Given that the mind exists and that it affects the brain (and of course the brain affects the mind) then we can look at the qualities and abilities of the mind.

Awareness is the primary quality of the mind. Awareness can be focused or diffuse, and it seems the mind has the ability to alter the focus of awareness. Consider the way we can look at the entire monitor screen at once, or focus on any part of it.

Like a moth to a flame, I think our focus of awareness is attracted to some mental 'objects' (thoughts, memories, perceptions) and repelled by others. But we have some ability to resist the attraction or repulsion. But exercising that ability in a non-random manner means that we must have reasons - but those reasons are part of our awareness in the first place, and that's where I began to feel a bit confused.

It's easy to think that after all the mind merely observes - the brain may utilize the mind-state, but the mind just observes - 'will' is merely our observation and not our ability! But that sidesteps the issue of why matter becomes sentient in the first place, and ignores the fact that when people apply will, they report a feeling of applying mental effort. It's easy to recognize when a person has a strong will vs when a person has a weak will.

I'm rambling -sorry.

[premjan]

is probably just attempting to force more blood through your brain to produce a better analysis of the situation.

the purpose of analysis is to focus attention and to suggest action. attention is a perception loop -- trying to improve our perception of our situation preparatory to deciding action. action is an effector loop, playing over a possible muscular movement in your mind until satisfied of its likely consequences and then executing it.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by premjan
(mental effort) is probably just attempting to force more blood through your brain to produce a better analysis of the situation.

More or less. But I want to think that the 'attempt' is ultimately initiated by the mind, and not the brain.

the purpose of analysis is to focus attention and to suggest action. attention is a perception loop -- trying to improve our perception of our situation preparatory to deciding action. action is an effector loop, playing over a possible muscular movement in your mind until satisfied of its likely consequences and then executing it.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "analysis" here. The brain assembles options and presents them to the mind, then proceeds according to the mental reaction. So I see "analysis" as performed by the brain, "sub-conscious", like a computer program.

My question is, what does the mind do, other than observe? What actions may be performed by the mind?

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
....Perhaps the mind arises simply as a pattern of brain activity. Like a string of 0's and 1's can be resolved into a picture, without the picture having a seperate reality (the picture is made of nothing more than then the digits!) so too maybe the individual activities of the brain form an overall pattern that includes sentience. This doesn't really explain anything, it's just to show that belief in mind doesn't necessarily entail mystical spiritual soul stuff.....
The theory I favour is that there are central decision-making neurons in the brain. Neurons can be directly connected to up to about 10,000 other neurons and these other neurons might be quite far away... and they'd be indirectly connect to billions more neurons (via the neurons they're directly connected to).
I think those neurons would make up our short-term memory (aka our working memory). That is what we are directly aware of. If we need to access our long-term memories, that is indirect, and it can take quite a while to search for old memories. I think we also only have indirect access to our senses.
e.g.
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wenke/illusions/black_dots.jpg
Note that this is NOT an animation (it is a jpg)... and it still works it you print it out if the contrast is high enough. If you focus on an area, you see it properly, but the dots you aren't focusing on aren't seen very accurately. Apparently the focal part of your eye is very high resolution (has a lot of cones and rods) but the other parts don't... when you are looking at something that appears to be super-hi-res everywhere, that is just because your eyes are rapidly moving around everywhere to see things in detail like this:
(This is after a few tens of seconds, and the lines aren't straight in some other pictures I've seen before)
http://nivea.psycho.univ-paris5.fr/ASSChtml/Diapositive9
This is where the picture came from:
http://nivea.psycho.univ-paris5.fr/ASSChtml/ASSC.html
That webpage is about "change blindness"... it has some animations where a photo appears for a while, then there is a very brief flash, then the photo reappears, with a major alteration. (Don't look at the first example first because it does the change without the flash, making it easy to spot the difference)
This implies that our working memory is quite small... maybe only able to simultaneously remember several thousand tiny chunks of data.
Another example of "change blindness" is from New Scientist. Nov. 18, 2000. It doesn't seem to be on the internet though. Anyway, it talked about university experiments where a person would come up to the subject (who I don't think know it is an experiment) and talk for a while (ask for directions or something) then other people carrying a large object like a door walk in between the people and the original person switches with another person and they continue the conversation. Apparently about 50% of the time the subject doesn't realize that there was a switch even if the person has a fairly different voice, clothes, etc! Also, if the subject is a similar age to the other people they tend to be more accurate... so if they're a teacher they're less likely to notice changes in young people... I think that is similar to how you can distinguish between people of your own culture/ethnic group better than those that aren't... (I mean to a non-Chinese person you might mix them up a lot, and vice-versa)

This is my diagram for how I think animal brains basically work:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wenke/temp/brain.gif

Human brains are probably have some hardwired language instincts, as well as some other instincts. And then as the people learn about how the world works, they'd basically go through Piaget's stages of cognitive development (http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html) and eventually analyse themselves and become mature conscious humans.

In my diagram I show what I think the short term memory's relationship to the brain is. Basically I think that it is memory that is revelant for the brain to make high-level decisions. The emotions are also reflected there... I think emotions basically mean "repeat this", "avoid this", "seek this"... to varying degrees depending on their intensity. By weighing up the emotions in a central way, the brain becomes coordinated so that it can respond to many different competing priorities in a competent way. e.g. you might need to see a doctor, but also want to keep lazing around... so you decide to see the doctor since it seems to prevent future expected pains... but on the way you might want to go to the toilet... depending on the intensity of that feeling you would either go to the doctor first, or go to the nearest toilet. You probably wouldn't immediately relieve yourself in your car if you can help it. Then you might see an old friend on the way from a distance, and depending on the priorities you'd either stop and talk for a while or pass them by and maybe honk. Some part/s of your brain would need to be simultaneously aware of all of those things in order to compare all those priorities. The visual data, etc, would be relevant in the decision since the same part would decide whether you should be looking at something. In order to decide how important it is to look at something you need to know what you are looking at. As I said earlier I think you only have a very small memory capacity in your short-term memory. I think the reason why we seem to have a such a rich understanding of things is because we are constantly "triggering associations" - these are long-term memory fragments (patterns) that are related (they are connected together by neurons - when neural networks learn, similar things are stored near each other)... this would be happening at around our brain's clock speed (about 50 Hz) or maybe a little slower, but it is fast enough to seem seamless. When we might need to know the meaning or significance of a word or visual shape this would trigger associated patterns, which would in turn trigger other associations, until we have a relevant understanding or appreciation of the word or visual shape in question. I think general words/meanings can be triggered into our short-term memory which we use to guide our decisions - this would be our conscious "train of thought".

[John Page]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
When you put it that way it seems like a no-brainer. So to speak.
Excellent! ROFLMAO!

[premjan]

I have a pretty much classical notion of the term "analysis": dividing perceptual phenomena into smaller parts and trying to find correlations between them and past patterns. Kind of like a neuron tree subdividing several times.

what does the mind do: probably it can observe, but also it may be able to plan. I think the mind is just a self-awareness (apex) layer of the brain. It has relatively high-level data structures, things that are not massively parallel, like perception and action, but are probably pretty algorithmic.

[Nowhere357]

excreationist
The theory I favour is that there are central decision-making neurons in the brain. ...
I think those neurons would make up our short-term memory (aka our working memory). That is what we are directly aware of.
My understanding is that it's basically during sleep when short-term is incorportated into long-term memory. But we aren't conscious every moment of every single thing that is in our short-term memory. So I don't think there is a ono-to-one relationship between short-term memory and direct awareness.

If we need to access our long-term memories, that is indirect, and it can take quite a while to search for old memories. I think we also only have indirect access to our senses.

I agree with both points.

In my diagram I show what I think the short term memory's relationship to the brain is.
If I understand correctly, I would claim the mind encompasses the "perception" and the "short term memory" boxes.

In my diagram I show what I think the short term memory's relationship to the brain is. Basically I think that it is memory that is revelant for the brain to make high-level decisions.
I assume here that "decisions" refer to computer-like functions of the brain as opposed to the application of will.

I think emotions basically mean "repeat this", "avoid this", "seek this"... to varying degrees depending on their intensity.
Right, I agree.

Some part/s of your brain would need to be simultaneously aware of all of those things in order to compare all those priorities.
I understand the point - the decisions we make must involve all of those things. But some of the brain processing occurs "below the surface", and so some of the facts could be processed there also - with no direct awareness of those facts required. In my experience, I am not directly conscious of all the information in my short-term memory.

I think the reason why we seem to have a such a rich understanding of things is because we are constantly "triggering associations" - these are long-term memory fragments (patterns) that are related (they are connected together by neurons - when neural networks learn, similar things are stored near each other)... this would be happening at around our brain's clock speed (about 50 Hz) or maybe a little slower, but it is fast enough to seem seamless. When we might need to know the meaning or significance of a word or visual shape this would trigger associated patterns, which would in turn trigger other associations, until we have a relevant understanding or appreciation of the word or visual shape in question.
I agree with this also. I think the seamlessness is also due to the massively paralell structure, and the lack of an overall synchronized clock function.

Interesting post, thank you. My only objection is the problem with direct equivalence mapping between short-term memory and consciousness.

Also, given that part of your diagram represents the mind which has the quality of awareness, what are the sorts of things that can happen within that box?

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
My understanding is that it's basically during sleep when short-term is incorportated into long-term memory.
What about if I asked you at night-time to list everything you did that day? You might hesitate a bit and that would partly be due to you trying to access memories about the day from long-term memory. (You might also hesitate due to you searching for words to describe the events) I agree that sleep plays a role... I think it helps find large-scale patterns across your long-term memories.

But we aren't conscious every moment of every single thing that is in our short-term memory.
Ok... I think I said the opposite... but the things we ARE conscious of are solely part of the short-term memory I think... we are also conscious of our emotions but I'd argue that they are reflected in our short-term memory so that we can have memories of our recent emotions and so that emotions can be associated with other elements of our experiences.... (e.g. memories of objects, etc, can trigger emotions and vice-versa)

So I don't think there is a one-to-one relationship between short-term memory and direct awareness.
Ok, how about this... as the central decision-making neurons, we are aware of (directly access) the short-term memories that are directly relevant to our current decisions...

If I understand correctly, I would claim the mind encompasses the "perception" and the "short term memory" boxes.
No, "perception" is the parts of the brain that are in-between the senses (the eyes, ears, etc) and the short-term memory. They'd have a huge amount of raw data as input, then output a small amount of data, at varying resolutions depending on what is requested. Or maybe it just outputs it all with the default resolution to what I'm calling the "short-term memory" and then you pick what you want to concentrate on. (e.g. when you're listening to music you can hear different things being emphasized, such as the bassdrum, or the bass, or the cymbals, or noise in the room, depending on what you're concentrating on)
http://www.hhmi.org/senses/b210.html
This talks about a woman who can't detect motion... she can't "see" water running, etc... it goes on to talk about experiments with monkeys. Anyway, I think the "perception" area would output a thing to the "short term memory" which describes the motion of something. So to get the sensation, you'd have to be told by the perception area that something is moving.
The conscious mind would be the area inbetween the short-term memory and "intuitions" (which isn't really shown on that old diagram) that uses (a continual process) some of the short-term memory in order to make decisions.


I assume here that "decisions" ref