Our consciousness mind exist in state of sleep. It does not receive any stimulus from subconscious mind and external world since our conscious brain is in state of sleep. Our conscious and subconscious minds are always awake.
All information that we see, hear, know, etc does exist in subconsciousness. These information could be retrieve to consciousness when it is needed for further analysis (logical thinking and wisdom), so in fact it is not strange to leave decision to subconsciousness mind once consciousness mind cannot offer anything more. Moreover instinct and intuition are aspect of subconscious mind that we could depend on them too.
So far this just sounds like memory to me.
Okay now that - for me at least - sounds extremely problematic.
Alright that sounds like a rather sweeping statement to me. My decision to use the words I have in communicating with you - why does that involve a reduction? I mean, why does that mean I am ‘just an agent that digitizes information’?
I don’t think that follows. I know many of the important decisions that George Washington freely made - some decisions were good, some bad depending on the situation - but that hardly means America’s first President didn’t have free will simply because I know the decisions he would ultimately freely make; I mean, even if I time-warped into the past and was his contemporary and an observer/spectator, my knowing what General or President Washington will actually do or say does not negate his free will or change the fact that he was freely making them.
Here is how the Catechism would answer you: " V. GOD CARRIES OUT HIS PLAN: DIVINE PROVIDENCEYou sure got this right!
More relevant to the original topic:
I too have a beef with the concept of final causality. If it is posited as having actual causal relevance, then it seems frivolous and stupid.
Efficient causes are by definition all that is needed to explain causality. To say that anything which moves as if it had intrinsic intentionality must have it would be foolish and idiotic. Also, keep in mind (not that I expect any of you to have figured this out) that physical things don’t have inherent existence. They only exist insofar as they are perceived. And here’s to prove it:
Imagine the computer you are using to read this post.
Now imagine what your visual field would look like if it contained that computer.
The “two” images are the same, aren’t they?
Thus, to imagine a physical thing is only to imagine a perception of that thing.
Therefore, physical things only exist insofar as they are perceived. The physical world is actually a lot like the matrix (except there’s no physical reality outside of it). And if physical things don’t even inherently exist, then how could they have inherent purpose, goal, or directedness?
First, I said this about the universe, not about life.P.S. " Matrixes ? " So life is just one big matrix.
In philosophy it refers to the behavior of things, animate and inanimate, which shows that their actions are directed toward an end. Thus their behavior is by nature directed or " intended. "
You are saying then that the physical universe moves according to a pattern determined by a mathematical formula of the matrix type?
No, subconscious mind is responsible for collective mind process counting on instinct, intuition, mode, feeling and outcome of logical thinking made in your conscious mind.
This process unfortunately is not up to you. Our decisions could be largely affected by logical thinking that we are conscious about but there are several other factors that have impact on our decision and these could not be measured or be used by conscious mind to perform a decision, like our mode etc.
Your feeling, desires, emotion, and many other things affect your decision on a situation. For example if you feel lazy, you probably wouldn’t write me, and this type of decision is made by subconscious mind. Moreover I believe that the place of free will is in subconscious mind for the reason I describe, namely if all our decisions were made by consciousness mind then would turn to an agent who just digitize information.
It follows since the sate of conscious mind is the state of knowledge and facts. If we assume that our decision made solely by facts then the sole knowledge of them would lead to conclusion and we don’t need the free will.
Hogwash.
No, pretty sure it just refers to the meaning conveyed by a thing.
O.K., here is your statement:
Well perhaps in your " idealist " philosophy, but in Thomism it means that the nature of things is to tend ( tendere, infin, present tense, indictave, active, lat., to tend toward ) toward an end. You should try Thomas and stop fooling with idealism. You can’t even communicate with people meaningfully because, to them, it is like talking to a constantly moving shadow. Its like talking to someone from one of those Eastern cults that one never can make head or tail of.
Yes, it is very hard to take an Idealist seriously. I could hardly take Plato’s world seriously. I have the same trouble with atheists, they are living in a dream world, a world that couldn’t possibly exist, based on their premises.
This is your quote from post 38: " Therefore, physical things only exist insofar as they are perceived. The physical world is actually a lot like the matrix (except there’s no physical reality outside of it). And if physical things don’t even inherently exist, then how could they have inherent purpose, goal, or directedness? "
I don’t see how a serious Catholic could have your views - as you have stated them. The Catholic Church teaches that God created a real world, he did not create an illusion or a partial illusion. This is also reinforced by the Scriptures. Nothing in Scriptures supports anything like an illusory creation.
I never said that the final cause was " inherent " in anything. The final cause is the purpose for which substances were made, for the God is the final end of all creation. The final cause then is about both the substances created and about God Himself, the final cause. He creates in the natures of substances the " directions " and powers by which they apply these " directions. " What is inherent in things is not the final cause but the built in tendency toward the final cause.
I know what I am talking about. We can discuss it further if you wish.
Mind is a quality that doesn’t need sleep. It conscious part of our brain that gets tired due to electro-chemical activities so it need a rest. When our brain does not sent any stimulus to our conscious mind so we are not aware of our environment. We could however have dreams which doesn’t have anything to do with our conscious brain as what we observe in our dream is different from reality of world surrounding us. What causes the stimulus for our conscious mind when we dream is subject of discussion but if there is non stimulus then we have black sleep.
No, my definition is supported my wikipedia.
If you can’t take a bold assertion seriously, then you should just stop debating with me. This isn’t even by boldest assertion, so if you are so bothered by this one, then perhaps we should agree to ignore eachother.
First, one adjustment: I am not saying that only the self exists (solipsism), I am saying that only conscious things exist (in themselves). How does that contradict “what I have just said”?
Neither does scripture explicitly say otherwise.
I figured this out myself. Just like my other super-bold assertion.
The OP says “A basic philosophical position in the Aristetolian-Thomist tradition is the notion of immanent teleology.” Immanent means inherent, so if you don’t believe in inherent final cause, then we are actually not at odds on this point.
Wikipedia is not an authority on philoslohy and certainly not on Thomism.
Don’t flatter yourself. I’m stating the truth for the benefit of possible innocents and other witnesses to truth who expect the truth in a Catholic forum.
I see that I’m dealing with a Sophist as well. You definitely said that unless the world outside the mind was perceived it did not exist. That is not true. It exists whether we are there to perceive it or not. Your position is unacceptable.
That does not put him outside the Idealist camp.
No one was more a realist that Almighty God. He expected his people to be realists as well. The Israelites certainly were, Christ certainly was, so is the Church.
Philosophy is not like building a boat in your back yard. You must proceed by certain basic assumptions or self-evident facts. First a real universe exists outside our minds. Secondly, the principle of Non-Contradiction.
That does not mean that the " final cause " is inherent in a created substance. If you would unbend a little and read Aquinas by Edward Feser, you would see that and learn a little Thomistic philosophy as well.
Our minds are entities not qualities.
We do not know how our mind interacts with our brain but we do know that we’re not responsible for our thoughts and actions when we are asleep. This suggests that our ability to use our free will and act purposefully only exists when we are aware of our physical surroundings.Our inability to remember everything that occurs in our mind when we are not awake certainly doesn’t prove that it depends entirely on the brain. Whether it needs rest is irrelevant to the question of final causes.
I am not saying that wikipedia can be trusted as to which views are correct, but I think it can be trusted regarding what a label means.
Talk about hypocrisy. You accuse me of flattering myself and then you characterize yourself as stating the truth for the benefit of innocents?
Don’t tell me what I did and didn’t say. Also if I am correct about what Sophism is I am probably a stronger opponent of it than you.
Yes, it does. Dualism is the belief that reality consists of two fundamental kinds of substances, Idealism is the belief in only immaterial substances.
Care to provide some evidence for this?
I did proceed by such. I can support all of my philosophical views through logical argument. And the inherent existence of physicality is not self-evident. Finally, the principle of non-contradiction, while certainly true, is irrelevant.
Yeah, it pretty much says explicitly that. “Immanent” means the same thing as inherent, and “teleology” is really just “intentionality”, which is even broader than final cause. Also, if wikipedia is fallible then so is Feser.
You certainly have exposed yourself. Clear for all to see.
