I speak about this issue immensely in my book https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07NRLRCRW/ref=dp_olp_1?_encoding=UTF8&colid=1DCQ50D8C66RY&coliid=I35N2QWQQLQQG9

I follow Ludwig Wittgenstein's conceptions on what eternity is, basically timelessness.

Do you want to block my post?

Give me one single example, pal. — bioazer

This may not be considered a scientific discovery but it serves the purpose, think about gravity and how this was considered an absolute basic law of physics so just imagine when the wright brothers first brought about the idea of flight? How nonsensical this appeared to be because it would alter or manipulate the laws of physics. Now this may be a crude answer but logic if followed consistently does not get us anywhere.

From direct observation, the Earth appears to be flat. So I guess the Earth is flat — bioazer

Direct observation is not just merely looking at something ofcourse, you are exaggerating. Direct observation in this case would be to create a recognized post and from then on follow the distance onwards to see/observe whether or not we would fall off at the supposed edge. Direct observation does also entail direct experience.

Without some kind of methodology, discussing philosophy becomes pretty meaningless, because there is no real way to debate or compare ideas. Some kind of structure is required.
We use logic because it is a tool that can be employed to describe the world with a fairly high degree of accuracy. Simple observations are not enough.
I refuse to argue or challenge anything outside of logic because it is pointless and silly! If you postulate anything outside the realm of logic, it is entirely subjective speculation and I could postulate something completely the opposite and neither of us have any way of proving our point to the other. If nothing you say is provably true or false, then why should I bother even engaging with you, or you with me? Both of us have to be logical if we want to have any kind of meaningful discussion. — bioazer

I am not denying the importance of having structure in ones argument and I am not denying the relevancy of logic if you actually read what I said I did not downplay logic at all. What I did say was that direct observation succumbs logic in the sense that logic deals with concepts that point towards truth direct observation deals with the actual experience.

I thought that the point of philosophy was to explain why the sun comes up, not to fry your retinas — bioazer

And I thought the point of an argument was for both parties to learn and engage not to be condescending.

I don't understand you? Please elaborate?

Interesting, you are correct in waiving the distinction between thoughts and the mind. But is thought the only trait or expression of the mind?

Socrates, Plato, and Artistole that philosophy is supposed to be based on logic. — Brian

We value logic yes but inquiry is the basis of philosophy.

Some of the greatest scientific and philosophical discoveries came from illogical premises. Logic is not an absolute its a methodology that in its conclusion points towards truth but as Rich said direct observation is another way, which can cancel out the need for any methodology.

I dont understand philosophers that refuse to argue or challenge anything outside the terrains of logic.

I agree, direct observation is more useful than logic. We can utilize logic to explain the appearance of the sun but nothing will come close to directly observing the sun with your own two eyes.

Couldn't have said it better.

Inanimate objects are debris of the mind — Rich

Yes I can agree with that, also is it not due to the fact that the mind is what conceives of existence to be? And if it is conceived within the mind then it is has the same properties of mind.

[the brain] does not account for experience. Experience is the domain of the mind because experience is immaterial and the contents of the mind are immaterial as well.

Yes I still stand by this statement, experience is immaterial the brains functionings are material, we can observe the electrical surges and see the changes in the cortexes, but can we do the same for experience? Experience by definition is qualitative, can we quantify this?

Yes. You are correct. The brain processes information and synthesizes conscious experience, in that orde — bioazer

Okay I can agree with conscious experience, what about the unconscious? We are studying how quickly we register information compared to the brains registering of set information, we are not taking into account the unconscious aspect of the mind that interprets information faster than conscious attention and potentially registers information before the brain demonstrates a change.

I would say mind is the organism appearing in different subtle form. It is continuous from the most ethereal to the most solid and extends out without a clear boundary. — Rich

Okay that makes sense, so are you implying that the mind is not solely linked to organisms? That inanimate objects are capable of possessing a mind?

I think the question you're asking might be better put as "what is consciousness without its contents?" — gurugeorge

But mind and consciousness can be studied separately, consciousness is a whole other subject. Unless your saying that the mind is just an expression of consciousness?

That may be true with conscious attention, but conscious attention is just one facet of the mind, what about the sub conscious? Have neurologists studied the speed of its operations?

I'd love to see your sources. — bioazer

Read up on the observer effect. You do know that there is a section in the brain that takes the impression that it received from electrical signals and creates the world that you see?

So if a flatworm has a mind, does an amoeba? How about a plant? Or a bacteria? Or a virus? Or bovine spongiform encephalopathy? How do you draw a line between what is and is not a "mind"? — bioazer

This is bred by the human condition to differentiate things, look can we not agree that mind is an intelligence that assists the organism to navigate its way through existence? Can we not say that every organism shares that propensity? Yes our minds maybe more complex I am not denying it however it still functions as a tool for the organism.

Or, more logically, mental states are an experience caused by those chemicals — bioazer

Why is it more logical to infer that the chemicals are causing the mental states? It seems as if your basic assumption is that matter is senior to the intangible universe. Just because the brain demonstrates physiological changes that match mental states does not mean the brain is creating those mental states. How did you calculate this? Did you measure the brains electrical speed or the speed of the mind?

And your above quote still does not answer the question: how do you "see" the effects of the mind on matter? — bioazer

Many experiments have been done that have demonstrated the effect the brain has on matter.

Another question. Do you believe that a flatworm has a mind? How about a grasshopper? Or an iguana, or a chimpanzee? Or is it only humans? — bioazer

I believe they do, the mind is not solely reserved for human beings. Our minds maybe more complex but mind is a field that is shared.

Well it can actually hold ground in quantum physics, just another rendition of physics. The observer has an effect on the substance of matter.

I think, from a physical point of view, there is no such thing as a mind if you think it as having an existence independent of the brain. — TheMadFool

From the physical point of view we cannot perceive the mind yes, but we can always see the physical effects that it has on matter.

When we see an umbrella we think ''sun/rain protection'' but that's just man-made functional attribute. There isn't anything real about ''sun/rain protection''. Similarly, the mind is just a function of the brain. It lacks any real, brain-independent existence. The brain=umbrella and ''sun/rain protection''=the mind — TheMadFool

You are making the assumption that the mind is the function of the brain. Just because mental states correlate with the brain it does not mean there is a causation. I would flip the script an say that it is the mind that is senior to the brain. Mental states determine the chemicals that the brain secretes to add resonance to that mental state.

However, there are n number of possibilities. There could be a mind and it could be independent of the brain but then it begs the question ''how can we engage in meaningful discourse with mere speculation?'' Perhaps we need mystical knowledge. Could there be such a thing? — TheMadFool

In fact we can engage this matter appropriately, we can apply the knowledge that we attain from phenomenology to this case it needn't be mystical. We can attempt at perceiving the world without interpreting the data with our minds but through directexperience

I would lean more to it being asleep however sleep implies unconsciousness. I would maybe use the word resting, because you can rest and still be conscious.

I'm just not sure we can talk intelligently about this, because we can't experience anything about our minds when the mind isn't working away full blast. So, when you say "what is the mind without its content" what do you even mean? — Bitter Crank

We as philosophers should not shy away from investigating matters such as these just because it appears to be unintelligent.

You are speaking about the brain as if it is synonymous with the mind. The brain always has activity, activity that we are mostly unconscious of. The brain itself is just a highly complex system of matter, it does not account for experience. Experience is the domain of the mind because experience is immaterial and the contents of the mind are immaterial as well.

So lets focus on the immaterial aspect of the mind, we have perceptions, we have continuous narrations and self talk, we have a large array of images and sounds but if the mind were absent of all these qualities could we still say there is a mind that is present?

Can you not feel conscious without memory? In fact I would think that we would even more conscious without memory.

This might also be the state of death. — Rich

So in essence the mind cannot perish? In some way the mind is eternal?

Yes I agree, the will is not free itself, although it appears as if it is from the perspective of an illusionary self. Tell me what are your views on consciousness? Very broad question I know but its something that I have been truly interested in.

This — Metaphysician Undercover

The other person's desire would have to get inside my body (not my mind because it's a non-conscious decision), and cause my body to make this decision. That's nonsense. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your mind is more vulnerable than you think, if it infiltrates the mind it will coarsely infiltrate the body.

As far as I can tell, my intellect and society present me with choices, they do not present me with needs. My physical body presents me with needs and desires, while my intellect and society present me with options (choices) for fulfilling those needs and desires. — Metaphysician Undercover

You've just said what I've been telling you this whole time, society gives you the choices but your still saying that free will exists? Please analyse what you have just said here and refer it to my template example.

I can't fathom what you are saying. You are suggesting that I might make an impulsive, non-consciously driven decision, and that decision is driven by someone else's desire — Metaphysician Undercover

how many decisions do you make that are actually conscious ?

God may or may not have existed but God could exist in the future — TheMadFool

Please further explain this?

The Chinese word for nature is Ziran, meaning that which happens of itself. they believe that nature is purposeless with no 'director'. Also, in English the prefix auto means self in latin translated, which echoes this chinese philosophy too. These points are actually also very similar to the scientific perspective of evolution, that it is just blind energy, just mutations with no direct goal. In my opinion, however you attempt to put down this vital energy of life in descriptions, it doesn't alter the fact that it is perpetuating itself with every resource possible. That requires what we colloquially call intelligence. the precision of every genetic coding to make you 'you' is close to impossible to be fathomed, but here we are. Nature may not have a clear purpose from our perspectives but we ourselves are descendants of that nature, so maybe through us evolution is developing a purpose.

I don't see your point here. How does the study of psychology disprove my claim that desires are rooted in physical needs? You know we are all very similar physically, so this would account for the fact that people throughout the population have similar desires. — Metaphysician Undercover

Its disproving by the fact that they are not merely rooted by your physical needs, they are rooted in your psychological needs as well, I find this to be blatantly obvious. You are not just a physical creature, you possess an intellect and higher faculties and they are heavily influenced by society.

This is completely different from what you argued before. You said that when we choose one thing, it is because the others are unappealing. Now you have changed to say that choosing one thing cuts you off from the others. This doesn't support your argument now, that we have no freedom to choose what we want, we are forced to because the other possibilities are what we do not want. And this was fundamental to your claim that there is no free will involved with such choices. Since it is now clear to you that we are not forced to choose what we do, because we apprehend the other possibilities as unappealing, do you see that we really do have free will? — Metaphysician Undercover

I really do not see how my argument has changed, I have just altered the wording that's all. Cutting off all other possibilities and focusing on one does not imply free will, the decision you made could have just be an unconscious trigger driven by a desire that you cant really say is yours. I did not say we are forced the correct word would be influenced, all your desires and behaviours have influences and that is where I argue that free will is incompatible with the way things actually are. If my desires are continuously influenced by those around me can I ever state that my desires exist in isolation, segregated from society at large? No, its just a new modulation of the collective, Negation also means and implies an absence of all other potential choices that you had, if you say yes to something your invariably saying no to something else, even if there is an absence of investigation or conscious awareness.

I agree, but despite the dynamic expression of this, in different types of societies, that desire is still there. A person may say that less is more however in having less you actually have more, more freedom of movement, more independence and more self reliance. The prospect of more seems to be imbued in the human condition now whether or not it is organic I don't know?

I agree, our higher faculties seem to be the product of evolution, but evolution itself may be proof of flourish. Every species with the progression of time becomes better suited for the environment and all the weaker species perish. Could this be the 'flourish' aspect of nature?

This is where I disagree with you. I think that my desires are rooted in my physical being, physical needs, instinct and such. not the templates which are offered to me by society. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you think that your desires are merely rooted only to your physical needs you clearly haven't
fully investigated this. Take the practise of psychology for instance, quite a fair share of experiments have enabled us to pry into the human psychology and infer that evidence to most of the human population. Now some of it may be inaccurate and not appealing to scientific procedures but we still have somewhat of a stencil in understanding human behavior. You can stand aside and say that your particular desires are distinct from the collective and it may appear that way I am not disputing that, but your preferences and desires are always modulations of the culture and society that you inhabit

All choices overtly or covertly are negations most of the time — Fumani

Now I did not say that these negations will be blatantly obvious to you I did say 'overtly' and in most cases it is overt. If you look at the root word of decision Latin it means to cut off, meaning cut you off from any other course of actions but the one you chose, even language demonstrates this. As I said the word negation may be a bit crude but my point is that when you make a choice you are eliminating all other choices that you weren't necessarily conscious of.

Yes of course I am making that assumption. It appears blatantly obvious to me, that my personal desires are completely distinct from society as a whole. Do you not agree? I would not think that society is expressing its desires through me. My desires are intrinsically selfish, stemming from my own physical needs. But I may conform, to want what I think society wants from me. — Metaphysician Undercover

on the surface level it appears that way, your personal desires may seem to be different as I stated, when I say template I dont mean that it is based on frivolous desires such as you liking the colour orange or liking a particular smell, I mean exactly what you said that we have a whole array of templates to choose from, but even when we seem to choose a template that choice was inspired by a previous template. Your personal desires are rooted within the human condition, the desire for more resources, happiness and 'love' now how these desires express themselves is where the sense of individuality comes in. But we are operating through the same stencil, we are humanity and humanity is comprised of individuals, and we as individuals perceive ourselves to be separate from others. Is that not a template? has this template not been reinforced to you by other individuals also operating on that same stencil?

Why would choosing a template require negating another? Imagine having hundreds of templates laid out on the table, each with its own principle of application. Depending on my situation, I choose the one I think is best suited for my purpose. I don't negate the others, I leave them accessible to me for when I am in a different situation and require a different template. — Metaphysician Undercover

All choices overtly or covertly are negations most of the time, you chose to join this forum because the prospect of not joining did not entice you, I chose to respond to your comment because the prospect of not responding did not alure me. Maybe negation is the wrong word to use but its our ability to oppose a desire that is the underlying truth. You chose the one best suited for you because you were able to realize what was not best for you, to determine what you like you must know what you dont like, its the inescapable polarity that exists in all choices.

I agree that templates cannot be avoided, and that if I am to be a human being I will necessarily use them. But I do not agree with your logic which concludes that because we use templates we have no free will. There may be hundreds, thousands, or even millions of existing templates. We are able to dismantle them and create new ones out of combining parts from different ones. So the number of possible templates is countless. With that amount of freedom of choice, how do you conclude that the use of templates indicates that the will is not free? — Metaphysician Undercover

It appears as if you are choosing your templates but as I stated above, you work out what you want by discovering what you dont want. There's no pure decision or pure choice because our preferences are lent by already existing templates. The amount of templates may be countless it doesn't matter your preferences will always coincide with the things you dont prefer. You cannot choose a favorite color without seeing the other colors, you cannot know you love philosophy without being exposed to shallowness. So your idea of will comes in when you decide to choose a template but if we had to truly investigate why you chose it the reason will be evident that there was no will involved. You like what you like either because somebody as liked it or the chemistry of your body signals to you that you should like it, you dont stand aside from these processes, they happen to you and there only appears to be a will involved because a thought occupies our consciousness that says I am the one who chose that, and I am the one that chooses my experiences, it's an illusion, its just a thought.

I have desires for many different things, and society tells me that to get these things, I need money, and so I transform my desire into a desire for money in order that I can get what I truly desire. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are making the assumption that your desires are separate from society at large. Look we need money to get the things we want, that is our template, I operate by it and you operate by it. Out of this template I may attain things that are different from you but the template that I worked with was money. In order to get the things you desire we have to follow the law of society which states that in order to accumulate objects or experiences you need to exchange your money for it.

Free will by its own definition is the ability to choose any course of action. Now do you honestly think you decide the course of your actions when you already contain a template for which course of action is right or which course of action is wrong?

We can spend years on in reconstructing our templates to suit our preferences and we may even succeed in altering them but whatever you replace that template with will still be interlinked with the previous template. No matter how good you try make yourself, your template will always be based on what you think is evil or what is not good for you.

So the template doesn't negate free will. It has to be chosen. And even after choosing a particular template, we can switch templates at any moment. Therefore we do not really operate on a template, as you suggested, because we are always choosing different templates right and left, as we see fit, and the templates are nothing more than tools which are at our disposal, if we so desire to use them — Metaphysician Undercover

You cannot choose a template without negating another, a choice implies that there is a selection of options that are available. Now you choose one and you make the proclamation that you chose it on your own accord but you merely chose it based on either your instinct (biochemistry in your body) or a new template that you are trying to adopt.

Basically what I am saying Meta is that templates cannot be avoided, they are constructs that you operate under. Free will from your particular perspective is just the ability to move from one template to another, but every template that you can operate from is and was created by society, whether its supported by the majority or minority. The amount of people supporting that template matters not it can be a billion or just a hundred it doesn't change the fact that it is a template created by man and you are obligated to operate by one, your will is not free in that regard.

Sure.

You as an individual, you have a bundle of experiences that are stored in your brain. These experiences are then stored as information in your neural pathways so that the next time you experience that phenomenon your brain has the appropriate responses for it. For example if you want to start your own business but you recall that society at large has given you a template that you need money, and to get money you need a job, it will create resistance within you. We can oppose this template by starting our own business negating the prospect of getting a job, but we are still operating on the template of money. There are certain things we may be able to bypass but the fundamentals remain the same, our desires are intertwined with society, because even in opposing them and forming new ideologies or habits of our own, we cannot escape seeking a template that has already been created by a collection of other individuals.

Of course our templates may differ but the basis and foundation remain the same for every individual in society. Does that make sense?

Thank you very much, I love everything to do with philosophy so I know its the right place.

Hi Mad

That was a great response to the question thank you, look I need to be honest I have not heard of eudaemonia I will have to do my research but you did mention flourish so I will work with that. I believe every organism has an embedded code to flourish but this is mainly physical which has a boundary. Animals work with their instincts, only when the environment stimulates them to flourish mentally do they evolve. We on the other hand seem to have something special as you have stated, we can desire more than what the environment gives us.

Yes that is what I mean by artificial, it is a construct, a mental formulation, in essence it holds no grounds in reality. So is the desire for more truly a natural experience or is it fabricated by and only utilized by the human condition?

Hi

I agree with everything you said Steven but let me redirect you to the question. "Is the desire to achieve more in life an organic process?". So we may have friends, we may fit in, we may attain connectivity but the desire for more of those experiences is inevitable, even if you have enough friends, connectivity and social status.

Hi

Very good points Crank. If i had to incorporate your premise then there is a potential that the universe made a mistake in the creation of human beings. Why is it that we are the only known organisms that go against instinct and desire, basically we can oppose nature.

I agree that desires and wants arise without our conscious will but your forgetting the aspect of our desire to entertain or disprove the desires and wants. Even in our opposition of the inevitable desires and wants we have, we still are going against nature, so is this quality artificial or organic?

Hi

To say we have free will to decide what we want is incorrect, we always operate on a template. We either negate the template and form a new one out of that negation or we can accept the template and move on. The free will I think comes in where we are able to change the location of our focus. I can shift my focus of attention away from a habitual desire but I cannot negate the template.

Hi

Cavacava I just want to redirect you to the question, "is the desire to achieve more in life an organic process?". Desire is fundamental yes, however the prospect of attaining more than what you have, now is that artificial or organic as well?

Interesting points Rich, I have to agree with the angle that you approached this question with, desire cannot be quantified by more or less yes but what may differ is the feeling of intensity.

In terms of the achieving, I did say achievements in the broadest context Rich. So to be more precise in my wordings let me deliver it to you like this. The desire to accumulate more resources (resources dont always need to be physical, their are internal resources too) than the equilibrium set by nature only belongs to man. If we experience an internal feeling of anxiety for example we do not desire it to perpetuate, in fact we desire the opposite. To learn something new takes discipline, which is forged by miniture achievements. You may not perceive them as achievements because you love what you are learning, but in a metaphysical sense you are evolving, because you had the desire for more resources, knowledge is a resource too. So learning something new is a form of attaining more resources the more resources the higher the quality of life.

So the word more is quite relevant, I can make the assumption that Buddha or Maharaj had more internal resources than I have. In possessing these internal resources they were able to shift themselves away from the contemporary human suffering. I can also make the assumption that the internal resources that they had did not fall on their lap, they had to desire more out of life to get more out of life.

So again is this desire to get more out of life truly an organic process or is it artificially created by what we define as 'more'?

How so? In the animal kingdom there is no clear indication that animals desire to achieve anything more than the equilibrium set by nature. No animal desires to rebel against its natural instinct nor its position in the food chain. What we deem as achievements are mental constructs based on what we consider as worthwhile. Is it not that desire itself is fundamental but the desire to achieve more could be artificially?