Purposeful from purposeless?

[tonyrey]

“brain” and “mind” are different models. “mind” possibly had more value before we knew where it was located, although technically I think it isn’t mind=brain, it’s mind=entire nervous system.

That doesn’t alter the fact that in your scheme of things all mental activities are caused by physical events and therefore entirely beyond our control. In fact “we” don’t exist if mind=entire nervous system

But in Spanish for example, mind=mente, it’s all in the mind=es pura suggestión, open mind=una mentalidad abieta, mind over matter=voluntad. Even if you don’t understand the lingo…

I happen to have an M.Litt. in the subject

you can see different words replacing the loose English “mind”. So “mind” could be a language based abstraction rather than objective.

In which case it is a highly misleading term because it conceals the fact that we are no more than insignificant, valueless, biological machines…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Here is Mortimer J. Adler’s take on Mind over Matter. Interview by William F. Buckley

youtube.com/watch?v=wW-PeayslSA&feature=related

 

[inocente]

That doesn’t alter the fact that in your scheme of things all mental activities are caused by physical events and therefore entirely beyond our control. In fact “we” don’t exist if mind=entire nervous system

Not possible - we are our mental activities.

In which case it is a highly misleading term because it conceals the fact that we are no more than insignificant, valueless, biological machines.

Not with you - the whole is more than the sum of its parts, we are more than conquerors, etc.

Fancy having a go answering the question in post #47 (third para)?

 

[inocente]

Here is Mortimer J. Adler’s take on Mind over Matter. Interview by William F. Buckley

youtube.com/watch?v=wW-PeayslSA&feature=related

He’s honest enough in allowing that he may be wrong but doesn’t appear to know about chaos or emergence theory so there’s a certain failure of imagination about imagination, an ignoring of Aristole’s the whole is more than the sum of its parts. On God though, excellent – His ways are not our ways, and Adler could have gone on to say therefore god-of-the-gaps explanations may be comforting but are not overly useful.

 

[lemondiesel]

Reason alone does not give us the power to control our instincts. We could be helpless spectators…

Reason lets us fight the urges of our instincts, we become rational beings, finding alternatives. It makes us human.

I think it isn’t mind=brain, it’s mind=entire nervous system.

I was having similar views. I wanted to ask, do you think the nervous system creates the feeling of a soul? I mean the nervous system, when healthy, covers the entire body, it literally connects us with reality. Sorry, I was just wondering if you could expand on this, perhaps in a PM?

 

[tonyrey]

Reason lets us fight the urges of our instincts, we become rational beings, finding alternatives. It makes us human.

I entirely agree but reason implies free will because if we can’t choose what to think our conclusions are not ours !

 

[inocente]

I was having similar views. I wanted to ask, do you think the nervous system creates the feeling of a soul? I mean the nervous system, when healthy, covers the entire body, it literally connects us with reality. Sorry, I was just wondering if you could expand on this, perhaps in a PM?

That’s deep , a lot of people ponder the soul but I’ve never pondered your point about the feeling of soul. As a Baptist, “soul” isn’t a word that’s used much, normally it’s just another word for body, or refers to conscience or to spiritual identity (as in body and soul).

Anecdote: I was watching satellite yesterday, a program about pain. A really nice young women had had a minor stroke and completely recovered except for constant pain on her left side. A neuroscientist is conducting trials and she had no great hopes but would try anything. He believes that her pain center had expanded abnormally after the stroke, and fired magnetic pulses into it to try to “reprogram” the neurons. Every so often he stopped to ask her how she felt, and she reported tingling, or her upper arm felt warm and so on. He said that’s great let’s go on. After six hundred he stopped again and she broke down and cried, really cried, because for the first time in years the pain had left her. She probably needs follow ups, maybe it will never completely go away, but she was ecstatic. Life changing for her, and I’d also say life changing for her soul.

So I think who we are emerges from what we are, and we are flesh and blood. Whether we believe we continue on without the flesh and blood is part of how we see ourselves, because how could we really know? You’re free to say that’s circular, a cop-out.

 

[Tonitz]

A very holy man I knew said that after deep prayer and meditation for many years he awoke to the experience that “Soul is the feeling of being I AM.” Usually when we think ourselves, we think. We add some qualifier to a thought about our self. We don’t clearly and simply experience the simple fact that we “are.” We are always looking at our simple fact of being through qualifying thoughts and relative to something else. It says to be still and know. maybe there is something to the whole idea of stopping the incessant internal conversation and just feeling being without any qualifications added on to it.

 

[lemondiesel]

I entirely agree but reason implies free will because if we can’t choose what to think our conclusions are not ours !

Our free will is limited by our physical bodies. I guess we could limit the term to only humans, but that is never fun for someone like me.

That’s deep , a lot of people ponder the soul but I’ve never pondered your point about the feeling of soul. As a Baptist, “soul” isn’t a word that’s used much, normally it’s just another word for body, or refers to conscience or to spiritual identity (as in body and soul).

Hypothetically, if you took away the nervous system, what would the brain picture our bodies as? Say if we were blind with no nervous system, would our brain still recognize its limits and how it is bound to the body? If that makes any sense haha.

So I think who we are emerges from what we are, and we are flesh and blood. Whether we believe we continue on without the flesh and blood is part of how we see ourselves, because how could we really know? You’re free to say that’s circular, a cop-out.

Life is a circular argument, imo.

 

[tonyrey]

Our free will is limited by our physical bodies. I guess we could limit the term to only humans, but that is never fun for someone like me.

To be more precise, the expression of our free will is limited by our bodies but would you prefer not to have a body? Surely physical existence is valuable because of all the opportunities for creativity and enjoyment it offers. The novelist D.H.Lawrence thought a spiritual existence can be only a pale reflection of carnal experience but he had no time for religion or philosophy!

 

[lemondiesel]

To be more precise, the expression of our free will is limited by our bodies but would you prefer not to have a body? Surely physical existence is valuable because of all the opportunities for creativity and enjoyment it offers.

What do you think the answer would be from someone who lives in Colombia, terrorized by fear and poverty, and the lack of personal liberty?

Life is only valuable where Liberty is established. Other than that, what is the purpose? To suffer for a reward? That is not equal opportunity, at all.

Only a materialist equates the mind with the brain. Why distinguish them if they are one and the same thing?

We understand certain parts of the brain to the point where we are able to create functioning replicas without the use of any divine or supernatural means. We are also able to stimulate thoughts, erase memories, and affect morality by manipulating the physical brain, which would imply that the mind is a product of the brain.

They are similar, yet different, but still one.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Life is only valuable where Liberty is established. Other than that, what is the purpose? To suffer for a reward? That is not equal opportunity, at all.

That is a major claim that is contrary to humanity. Life is clearly valuable even where Liberty is NOT established. Ask Martin Luther King, Jr. about that. He saw a purpose. He suffered for a greater reward.

You cannot just posit things without thinking about reality.

 

[lemondiesel]

That is a major claim that is contrary to humanity. Life is clearly valuable even where Liberty is NOT established. Ask Martin Luther King, Jr. about that. He saw a purpose. He suffered for a greater reward.

You cannot just posit things without thinking about reality.

There was already Liberty for white men, which MLK jr (R.I.P) understood and used it towards equality for the African race. Like I said, Life is only valuable where Liberty is already established, which applies to MLK.

 

[inocente]

Hypothetically, if you took away the nervous system, what would the brain picture our bodies as? Say if we were blind with no nervous system, would our brain still recognize its limits and how it is bound to the body? If that makes any sense haha.

That would totally isolate the brain. Living hell – no stimuli, no interaction, no purpose, nothing new, just a memory of what it was like before, assuming of course it would still work. Good point, we can’t be reduced.

But the real case would be the mind would never evolve in the first place and so we’d be plants.

Life is a circular argument, imo.

You’re profound dude. Seriously.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

There was already Liberty for white men, which MLK jr (R.I.P) understood and used it towards equality for the African race. Like I said, Life is only valuable where Liberty is already established, which applies to MLK.

That is a very arrogant claim you are making still. “Life is only valuable where Liberty is established” is to say that life is not valuable anywhere else. Are you saying Life in China is not valuable because they do not have the complete Liberty of family members? You sure are. And in other cases where Liberty is virtually non-existent… You saying their lives are not valuable? If you lived in one of those places, would your life be valuable? According to your arrogance, nope…

If you substantiate my argument by saying there “was Liberty for white men,” you are saying there was no Liberty for others. Liberty clearly was not fully established. African Americans could not even go to the nearest restrooms. THAT is not Liberty. You are saying that these lives were not valuable until Liberty was available to them also. The fact that he “used it towards equality” says that Liberty was not yet fully established. It was not even existent for some people. Just ask those who went through that.

Your claim is still wrong because it is contrary to reality and human experience.

 

[lemondiesel]

Agree to disagree, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. I am withdrawing, as this is not the thread for such discussion.

 

[tonyrey]

Life is only valuable where Liberty is established.

That is a preposterous statement which is not worth answering.

We understand certain parts of the brain to the point where we are able to create functioning replicas without the use of any divine or supernatural means. We are also able to stimulate thoughts, erase memories, and affect morality by manipulating the physical brain, which would imply that the mind is a product of the brain.

They are similar, yet different, but still one.

It would be interesting to know how the morality of a person been changed, bearing in mind that genuine morality is chosen not programmed. Or do you believe all your moral decisions are beyond your control?

 

[lemondiesel]

That is a preposterous statement which is not worth answering.

Its the internet, where all opinions can be expressed. Sorry if yours disagree with mine.

It would be interesting to know how the morality of a person been changed, bearing in mind that genuine morality is chosen not programmed. Or do you believe all your moral decisions are beyond your control?

Let me answer with a quote from another thread

Davidv said, (talking about dogs)

Any apparent moral choice is rooted in the morality of its trainer.

While I replied,

How is that any different from today’s society?

Hopefully that answers your question.

However, I will add that I believe education can influence (and in cases change) one’s morality.

 

[lemondiesel]

That is a major claim that is contrary to humanity. Life is clearly valuable even where Liberty is NOT established. Ask Martin Luther King, Jr. about that. He saw a purpose. He suffered for a greater reward.

You cannot just posit things without thinking about reality.

That is a preposterous statement which is not worth answering.

Well, if you do feel like it is worth answering,

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7523021#post7523021