WJ

Excrea/John!

Thanks for your reply. I don't disagree with your explaination, however, it doesn't really speak to the 'nature' of the will in the sense that I think you are describing the manefestations of the will itself. It seems like more of a a means to an end. The 'end' is actual prevention of nihilation of the sepecies from higher levels of consciousness-emotion and reason-cognitive process.

In other words, assuming lower levels of consciousness (other animals) don't care the way we do with regard to why one should live (ie thru instinct and not cognitive processes in this case), I do not see evidence that we are hard-wired to live [the will to be] thru such instinct. Otherwise, what is the essential point of sentience?

I suppose it could be argued that we are hard-wired with sentient existence, but the border issue would ad the additional element of phenomena that exist outside the body as mediums. The most objective analogy without the thoughts of mysticism, goes back I think, to the actual existence of mathematical/universal truth. In that light, the question remains whether math (as it so very well describes physical truth) has an independent existence or was a human construct, or both.

But there again, we have a problem (which may or may not speak to John's concerns) with the actual 'nature' of a thing. In this instance, the will [to be]. Perhaps I need to ask John, does the will 'to be' exist outside the body, similar to concrete existence?

Walrus

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Mr. Sammi

John, I was not sure if you saw my reply to your question concerning how the mind can know itself?

AT first it is not a question of consciousness, but a question of realizing one has a role to perform. The brain has functions which the brain knows how to use, do you look at it? smell it? or touch it? These are the extensions of the mind knowing itself acting through the brain and body.

The ultimate extension of the mind knowing itself however is consciousness, self-consciousness, personality and character.

Perhaps there are further divisions in the head other than MIND & BODY.

Sammi Na boodie ()

Ierrellus

I agree with excreationist that the "border" (juncture) between subjective and extrinsic activity is found at sense receptors.

To further my comment about science getting off the ground once it learned to extend the spectra of senses mechanically, I feel that AI has failed to find our seemingly innate sounds and images because it has been concerned mainly with duplicating a human brain.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm still looking for the innate monitor. I'm thinking that perhaps we need a better sense-extension mechanism in order to appreciate this monitor if we did find it. Instead of trying to duplicate the brain via the machine, we need a machine that can collect brain data and translate it back into physical sight and sound.

Ierrellus

John Page

Here's an analogy from (Newtonian) Physics. WRT to a stationary observer a moving object has a calculable kinetic energy. That energy can be experimentally proven to have arisen from the effort required to initiate the object's motion.

Try and stop the object. Due to its impetus it appears to have a "will" to continue moving in the same direction. The apparent "will", however, arises purely from the mechanics of the situation - not through any thought or action of the object.

Moving to the realm of metaphysics, I believe we will discover similar situations where we question "why do we think the way we do" for example. We can lump the cause into an unknown "will" that we can unpick into causal events.

To summarize, positing "will" as cause is an expedient measure that we have learned to use. Furthermore, creating such an "expedient cause" can be seen as one of the possible benefits of belief in god or the supernatural (see first two bullet points <a href="http://www.reconciliationism.org/god.htm" target="_blank">here</a>).

Having identified the usefulness of the "expedient cause" concept we can discard the god stuff and recognise detection of "will" as the act of perceiving an effect with one or more unknown causes.

So, thats what I think will phenomenally "is". May the force be with you!

Cheers, John

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

John Page

I did see your previous post and yes.

My current theory is that to analyze the mind/brain/body we need to examine each "layer of abstraction", abstraction being a physical process that takes data from the layer below that matches an "ideal" or axiomatic concept.

I used to think that consciousness (of self) would just be a matter of a feedback loop. There does seem to be a demonstrable division within the mind between conscious and sub-conscious. I think we will discover further divisions that might align with the consciousness levels described by meditators (although some of them may prove illusory).

Curiously, I don't think the mind is actually conscious of itself. We can be aware that we are thinking (Decartes) but I find it very strange that the brain is full of nerves (processing sense data!) but doesn't detect that its physically there! The mind seems only conscious of its surroundings - another reason I wanted to focus on the mind/not-mind border.

Am I making any sense?

Cheers, John

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

WJ

John!

Just to clarify, I wasn't implying a direct need to infuse Deity. I was infusing sentience as part of the will, which as you said, comprised this "inherent" nature of a thing. In this case the 'thing' is us.

I'm only implying that there is 'interconnectivity' as perhaps you/we did in the old trees, meaning and consciousness thread. Perhaps you are thinking the laws of causation explain it away relative to the border issue. In contrast, I'm theorizing that there is (thru metaphysics yes-thanks) a determined will existing in the mind and outside the body. What that "will" consist of, is what my debate has been about. We haven't been able to ascertain the true essence or nature of the will(not that we ever will). We are, at this point, toying with some ideas.

Agreed?

Otherwise, the nature of Being is rearing its ugly head. The mind-body phenom is part of that, No?

Walrus

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

John Page

Walrus:

Sure, anyway, I feel comfortable with the idea that the concept of god can be useful even if it is a delusion/illusion. Heck, "minus three pigs" is not a real object but its a useful kind of concept to hog farmers.

Cheers, John

P.S. I've been wondering, wouldn't Nowhere Man be more appropriate?

excreationist

WJ:
...I don't disagree with your explaination, however, it doesn't really speak to the 'nature' of the will in the sense that I think you are describing the manefestations of the will itself. It seems like more of a a means to an end.
About the 'nature' of the will... I think it is just a motivational system that generates goals that are ultimately based on generalized drives.

The 'end' is actual prevention of nihilation of the sepecies from higher levels of consciousness-emotion and reason-cognitive process.
I don't understand the second half of that sentence, but otherwise I sort of agree. I'm not sure I'd say it is a "means to an end" though... it's like saying that the sun shining on snow is a means to an end where the end is to melt the snow.

...In other words, assuming lower levels of consciousness (other animals) don't care the way we do with regard to why one should live (ie thru instinct and not cognitive processes in this case), I do not see evidence that we are hard-wired to live [the will to be] thru such instinct.
I think we are still motivated by fundamental generalized desires, (seeking connectedness, the sucking/kissing desire, etc) but we develop new desires that are very indirectly based on our original inborn desires. Our brains give us the potential for learning complex patterns so we can seek our desires and avoid things with a lot more intelligence than lower animals. They act according to their inborn instincts in a much more direct way... but you can change this... e.g. you can make a bumblebee associate food with a certain colour or completing a maze and it will choose that colour or learn to go through a maze. I think they can also train bees to associate explosives with food so that they detect explosives. (That's not their inborn instinct)

Otherwise, what is the essential point of sentience?
Well obviously it must have caused us to spread our genes better. It lets people spread wisdom down using language. Our ancestors who could make stone-age weapons and tools would have an advantage over their rivals. And later ancestors who developed gestures and language would be able to do even more complex things. Apparently agriculture was only invented only 10,000 years ago. I guess it took language and "sentience" to develop that. And agriculture and domesticating animals has lots of benefit during warfare. Agriculture allows some of the people to just sit around and invent things - like better weapons. It allows thousands and thousands of people to live in one area - hunter-gatherers would only be in bands of about 50 or 100 or so. In the end, those who knew agriculture invaded practically the entire earth and forced their culture onto other people. So anyway, intelligence has its advantages, even though many animals don't have much and yet they aren't extinct yet. (But they could be extinct - we have the ability to wipe out species if we put our mind to it)

I suppose it could be argued that we are hard-wired with sentient existence,
No, I think we learn to think intelligently. If you raised a foetus in a totally dark artificial womb that was sound-proofed I doubt it would develop intelligence. I think the key thing about awareness is that we have goals that we actively seek. If a person is completely passive and incapable of doing anything, including think then they can't analyse what they are "seeing". I think the only reason why we analyse or think about something is because it matters to us. And we are compelled to seek/avoid the things that matter to us. With nothing to seek/avoid then there would be no focus for thought. That person could grow up to become an adult in that sensory deprivation tank (and their muscles could all be paralysed). I doubt they'd be "sentient" - they might be like a fish or something.
I think sentience involves being aware of things and seeking/avoiding things. Without other things, there is nothing to be aware of.

...The most objective analogy without the thoughts of mysticism, goes back I think, to the actual existence of mathematical/universal truth. In that light, the question remains whether math (as it so very well describes physical truth) has an independent existence or was a human construct, or both.
I think that maths is about physical groupings and operations. This is symbolized using arbitrary symbols. These symbols must exist on a physical medium and are initially encoded using a physical encoding system. They are decoded using a physical decoding system. And if the symbols are moved from one physical medium to another, physical decoding and encoding systems are used.
Anyway, the symbols extract certain features from the physical world - the quantity of things. And since quantities remain stable in our world, the math system works. If quantities weren't stable then stable large-scale structures and systems wouldn't be able to exist - we wouldn't be able to think logically since signals would appear and disappear. There would be a lot of noise.

In this instance, the will [to be]. Perhaps I need to ask John, does the will 'to be' exist outside the body, similar to concrete existence?
I think people just have a will - to do things. They don't usually specifically want "to be".

WJ

Well I'm not sure where to start. I think if we are going to talk about metaphysical theories one has to get past the 'explaining away' what i think to be the obvious. Perhaps Nialscorva said it best:

"One thing that I've really gotten into recently in my personal exploration of philosophy is asking why I ask the questions I ask. Are you asking for a mechanical explanation of the interaction...?

"In my rather strictly empiricist mind, I think that neurology is the most effecient means of exploring how the physical manifests the mental. As a metaphysical question, I view it as a meaningless question. There's the part of me that exists, that is a physically observable thing. I call this my body. There's the part of me that causes action, that initiates the chain of events that imposes my will on the world. I call this my mind. The connection?"

We haven't got past the nature of the will (as sentient existence) and the connection between a completely one-sided view of a soley material world of perception.

Perhaps the it is appropriate at this time to ask: What completely satisfies the will? Is it 'physicial' or 'mental' phenomenon and/or both? And what would be the essence of such phenomenon aside from 'electricity' in the brain?

Is metaphysics meaningless? I don't think Dennett would agree.

(?)

Walrus

John Page

Hi Walrus!

Count me out from your statement. I do think I have a perfectly good explanation for the apparent sentience of a theoretical force called will.

I concur the NialScorva has best distilled the core issues and, in case you hadn't seen it, my decomposition exemplifying how supposed "free will" actually happens (as opposed to might happen) is in this link to his
<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000215&p=2" target="_blank">Define "free will"</a> thread.

In fact, NialScorva also seems to think its to do with the perception of the outside observer as he says:
I think we also count as an "outside observer" when trying to analyze our own behavior.

I look forward to you picking holes in my attempt to make the Cartesian actor fully redundant! Perhaps we should decamp to Nial's thread.

Cheers, John