fwh

DRFseven

you said:
With the stipulation that I wouldn't say we should never refer to ourselves as individuals, my opinion, it seems, is similar to yours.

me:
I need a bit to think through what you are implying. Btw, I didn't mean to say we should never think of ourselves as individuals. In the meantime, let me clarify my thoughts to give you a better indication of where I am coming from.

In epistemology, if we begin with thinking, we find that thinking precedes even the elementary distinction between subject and object. We do so, because thinking produces these two concepts just as at it produces all others.

So, when I, as a thinking subject, refer a concept to an object, we must not regard this reference as something purely subjective. It is NOT the subject, but THINKING which makes the reference. The subject does not think because it is a subject, rather it conceives itself to be a subject because it can think. The activity performed by man as a thinking being is thus not merely subjective. It is neither subjective nor objective; it transcends both these concepts. Thinking is thus an element which leads me beyond myself and relates me to objects.

When this process of thinking is combined with the percepts(what is taken in by the senses)then real subjectivity is achieved: my separate existence apart from nature and apart from my fellow human beings.

LinuxPup

Essentially what I'm getting at is this:

If we are merely the product matter/energy and the environment around us, then we don't cause our thoughts to exist, nor our desires or beliefs, rather they are given to us by the environment around us, and other physical stimuli. Therefore if we don't even cause what we consider to be 'us'... our thoughts, beliefs, and desires, and they are only a product from the world around us, and our own cells interacting with this world, then we *must* think what we think, believe what we believe, and desire what we desire... if this is the case, then we cannot believe, think, or desire anything for ourselves anymore than a rock can.

The generation of the thought is within me? But did I get to choose what thought I generated? No... it was given to me by my unique interaction with my environment. So I have no choice what I think, and therefore I cannot think for myself. But we as people always state what we think, believe, or desire.... do you believe that this is all wrong? That we are actually stating what effects our unique interaction in the environment have on us?

That's not what I'm arguing specifically... I'm stating that if materialism is true, then we have no ability to think for ourselves... so essentially we cannot think... we are 'given' predetermined thoughts through our interaction with our environment. From the response of my first post, it seems as though most people here agree with me on that.


Agreed, but would you agree that our brain can only think based on the environment around us?

So you seem to agree with me then that we are the product of our environment? Or do you think that maybe we are identical to our experiences?

Interesting...

Is it true then that you believe that thinking is neither subjective nor objective? Can you ellaborate on this more?

madmax2976

<strong> There's no question that we are very much a product of our environment and culture. If you or I lived in the Outback of Australia as Aborigines, its very likely we would have different desires and opinions of things. This makes sense since our experiences and our knowledge would be considerably different.

If anything "causes" thoughts it would be our brains in action. What those thoughts will consist of is a complex interaction of our knowledge, fears, hopes, dreams, experiences, wants, etc. .

<strong> As our brains are part of "we" and our brains allow thoughts to occur in the first place, this makes no sense.

<strong> You are very confused. The "world around us" does not cause thoughts. Our brains do. The world arounds us influences what the content of those thoughts will be.

<strong> No. The subject of your thoughts will be a culmination of your knowledge, experiences and emotions, coupled with physical circumstances you are in and inputs your senses receive etc..

<strong> As I have shown, this is crap. Your not clearly defining your terms or the subject matter of each statment your making which is causing you considerable confusion.

<strong> Using old adages to make a point is misguided. Again, clearly define your terms and then try this all again. What is a thought? What do you mean by "we"? What can you reduce "we" to and still make sense and not fall into fallacies?

<strong> Yes, but you think this because in your reasoning you have, not clearly defined your terms, not used concepts consistently, ignored the fact of emergent properties and fallen into logical fallacies.

<strong> I don't.

<strong> More confusion. Either you agree that the biochemical reactions and neurons in your brain provide for the property of consciousness or you don't. Its obvious to me that it does. If your going to argue that it doesn't, then you need to support such a claim. But it will have to be support that doesn't lapse into fallacies like your arguments have so far.

<strong> How could it be otherwise? Again, I think your greatly confusing issues. What our brain "thinks about" is not the same subject as "what causes a thought" is not the same subject as "how does consciousness occur", is not the same subject as "biochemical reactions", is not the same subject as "activities", is not the same subject as "physical universe", is not the same subject as "predetermined thoughts", is not the same subject as "cells interacting with the world".

You can't mish mash issues like this and expect to solve any puzzles.

<strong> What does it mean to say we are the "product of our environement"? If you refer to how we come to exist, then that is obviously so. If you refer to culture and environment having an impact on the content of our thoughts, that is obviously so. If you are attempting to say we are unconscious automatons, completely controlled by the forces of nature, this is obviously false.

Tackling philosphical issues like this takes effort. Words and concepts must consistent from one statement to the next and they must be clearly defined. You haven't been doing any of these things.

seebs

And what does that matter? You have the primary experience of considering, making decisions, and acting. I don't recommend denying this just because the mechanism is abstract, confusing, or complicated.

In the end, I have no idea *how* I exist, but it seems clear to me that I do. I don't know how this works; I don't need to, any more than it was impossible for people to have children until we understood about zygotes.

It doesn't strike me as implausible for a complicated system to have qualities which cannot be isolated as parts of the system.

John Page

Even if "you and I" do not exist, the illusion of "you and I" certainly does and we can discuss it. For an idealist this point would seem to be irrelevant.

It ocurred to me last week that one of the problems with anthropomorphism is that we apply it to ourselves. (Damn! I just did it again... )

Cheers, John

excreationist

LinuxPup:
...I'm stating that if materialism is true, then we have no ability to think for ourselves... so essentially we cannot think...
Our brains ("ourselves") think! We make decisions, etc. Our decisions depend on our previous and current experiences and desires but they also require the existence of our brain!

we are 'given' predetermined thoughts through our interaction with our environment. From the response of my first post, it seems as though most people here agree with me on that.
Most of what makes up our thoughts would come from our instinctual desires and learnt habits - which are inside our brains. Our brain determines what those thoughts would be (based on many factors) - so our brain does a lot of work... it isn't just "given" the results of the processing.

If we are merely the product matter/energy and the environment around us, then we don't cause our thoughts to exist, nor our desires or beliefs, rather they are given to us by the environment around us, and other physical stimuli.

would you agree that our brain can only think based on the environment around us?
It depends what you mean by "environment". If you mean it in the normal way, referring to things other than the body, then I would disagree. We react in different ways to identical external environments - because we have different internal habits, desires, etc. By internal I mean within the brain. By external I mean outside of the brain. You seem to talk about the physical brain as if it is part of the "environment" sometimes, but I think that is a confusing thing to say.

"Your brain does those things. You are your brain."
So you seem to agree with me then that we are the product of our environment?
Here I think you're saying that your brain is part of the environment. But the normal thing is to say that the environment is what is *outside* of the brain. I'd agree that we are totally part of the *physical world* though.

Or do you think that maybe we are identical to our experiences?
Off hand I'd say that "we" are made up of our personality (desires, habits, memories).

DRFseven

I guess I need to find out what you mean by subject and object. Suppose I see a lamp and begin thinking about how electricity works. Am I the subject and is the lamp the object? Or is "How Electricity Works" the subject? Or am I totally wrong?

fwh

Linux Pup

Me:
Could you identify who you are quoting? It makes it hard for an old fart like me when quotes following one another are from different people without identification. Thanks!

Linux Pup:
Interesting...
Is it true then that you believe that thinking is neither subjective nor objective? Can you ellaborate on this more?

me:
IMHO thinking as such is neither subjective nor objective but a process which PRECEDES both classifications. And it is not thinking which makes man a subjective being but rather the combination of thinking with the subjective percepts(what is taken in by the senses).

It would seem then that we can make a neat division between the subjective human entity and the phenomenal world outside him, since, though thinking itself is not subjective at least the percepts are. But this division cannot be that sharp, since the percepts themselves are meaningless without the concepts which thinking attaches to them. Obviously, a phenomenon perceived but not thought about cannot really be said to be perceived at all. Perception without thought would only be what William James called "blooming, buzzing confusion". A percept is not something finished and self-contained, but one side only of the total reality. The other side is the concept. The act of cognition is the synthesis of percept and concept. Only the percept and concept together constitute the whole thing. Thus, if we regard the phenomenal world as the "Given"(what is really "out there") then we must suppose that if there be knowledge, everything depends on there being, somewhere within the Given, a field in which our cognitive activity does not merely presuppose the Given, but is at work in the very haeart of the Given itself. The link between phenomena and the perceiving/thinking subject supposes that the object of observation is qualitatively identical with the activity directed upon it. And that activity is thinking itself.

The implication is that thinking is not personal, not of itself subjective, but a part of a larger extrapersonal process. And that, my friend, is heretical to the greater portion of modern thinkers.

Ierrellus

LP,

I'm reading a book by Nicholas Humprey (1992) entitled A History of the Mind. Sounds presumptuous does it not?

The author suggests that, if there were no feedback to the brain from the human body, there would be no "I" or sense of self. The human brain has the job of relating "this" object {you} to "that" object {what is other than you}. When, in your brain, sensory data collates with somatic data, the mix is you! It is not subjective; it is not objective, it's just you.

If I were to meet you, we could get into a confused discussion on who is who. You would call yourself I, and so would I. I would call you you and you would call me you. All each of us would be saying is that each of us has a unique perspective on "this and that", without which neither of us would survive.

Ierrellus

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

John Page

Ierr:

I think this is true. The "feedback" is essential in letting the brain know what is under its control or attached to what is under its control and therefore part of "I".

I had an interesting (for me) discussion with a developmental psych. a while back and she told me that women have a different mental outlook on their children than men. Fathers regarded progeny more as separate entities whereas many mothers regard their children a "part of them" and this attitude was very persistent.

I guess my point is that the apprehension "I" can be a very different experience for people.

Cheers, John