You seem to be hung up on this idea of volition yes?

I would say to you study the science of psychology, and as you would say focus, on the phenomenon of daydreaming. Then hopefully you will see that it has little to do with choice. Study the phenomenon relating to our stream of consciousness.

I do think however your argument would be more persuasive, if maybe you had the experience in designing a robot. Maybe only then you would see the distinctions relative to the illogical nature of the human condition, the human mind.

I think you were getting close with your analogy to being in a dream state before bedtime. But you lost me. And so if I follow your reasoning then daydreaming would not exist.

The only way I can make sense of your analysis is thus: I chose to drive my car and also chose to daydream and crash it.

And that's because you believe we have control of our minds at all times, correct?

Interesting comment about human sexuality Janus!

Perhaps Religious Fundamentalism could take a page from the Stoics book in that regard, and thus become indifferent towards those external influences!

I share your view

"Even thought they’d already so many chosen,
They just didn’t want to keep notions so frozen;
So they met to merge the postulations into one,
Thinking that this might be a whole lot of fun."

Lmao you never cease to amaze me Poetic!!!!

I don't know that it would be either all that intriguing or would provide any new Revelations of sorts. Even though I just spit those questions out at random, they represent sort of old Kantian type questions viz the nature of existence.

The nature of things in themselves is a tough one and leads to alot of existential angst lol. So where do we go from there... hey, Metaphysical theories in this case, as you say, can be fun!

After all, as Christian's, our revelatory wisdom may uncover some new probabilities!!!!

Sorry had to catch a workout.

Ok on your first point yes we agree daydreaming while driving can be associated with boredom viz. stream of consciousness. (And although we didn't talk about this, you certainly can choose, to say compute abstract concepts like math in your mind while you're driving your car; however, that would still present a logical contradiction when explaining the nature of it.)

On your second paragraph, okay then. If you believe it's the subconscious mind taking over while you're daydreaming & driving then our logical contradiction rears its ugly head henceforth: I am sort-of driving, but not really driving because I crashed daydreaming.

So if it's only a half-truth that I'm driving. How do we compute that?

One could not argue then .5+.5 =1 because that would imply I'm half a person or in two places at once. Accordingly, the only other value that might represent this is 1+1=1.

Our minds defy logic no?

1. Sure it's logical to be aware of your consciousness but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about awareness and control of your subconsciousness while you're conscious. If you are saying by choice you can manipulate your subconsciousness at anytime, then why would one choose to daydream and intentionally crash?

2. You're almost there with answering the question relative to dreaming. That is precisely your subconscious. And that subconscious is operating without your conscious awareness and associated inability/ability to choose.

Therefore, the question remains, am I consciously or subconsciously driving while I'm daydreaming (and God forbid crashing)?

It's existential, ultimately you have no control over that constant flow of ideas. There is no choice to stop your stream of consciousness. Otherwise in theory, you are no longer alive.

However, let's assume it were a choice one makes consciously, unless I'm misinterpreting you, in that case I would have to say: I chose not to drive when I was driving, therefore, I chose to crash instead.

Is that logical?

"Consciousness : The awareness of existence in a mental, physical or spiritual experience or a combination of these three realities. "

OMG problem solved LOL!!!!

Does that mean if I focus on driving I'll never daydream again!!!?

No, seriously, please provide me the specific details of how and why I can be in two different realities all at the same time... . Hence: I was driving, but not driving.

Is that logical (sorry for the rhetorical question)?

….interesting. Computer ethics is definitely an intriguing topic, particularly relative to robots and the marketing of products and services.

Accordingly, my friend has proprietary software that can predict many (not all) human purchasing habits with some success, among other things... .

I guess to that end, abstract computational abilities, as well as abstract philosophical one's (Metaphysics, Epistemology, etc..), what did Darwin say about those?

"I am the teacher. Disprove me on the battlefield (dialectic), or bend the knee x "

In good faith, I'll take the challenge!

Ready: Does God exist a priori or a posteriori? And if you choose one of those methods, what is God's nature? Is he sentient? Did the Universe always exist? What is his consciousness like? Did he give you the formula for creation of the universe? Ethically, I want to be perfect and make no mistakes; why can't I be? Why am I hardwired to have unsatiated needs? Why do human's feel the need to procreate? What is Love? Would you kill someone for Love? Why do I have self-awareness?

Sorry for all those questions, but God created us right? And since you said you're the teacher, don't ask me for the answers LOL.

PS: you may want to start a new thread in Religion... .

BTW, I am a Christian Existentialist. Are you a right-wing Fundamentalist?
Peace brother!

Hey ya'll...be easy on Phil. This could be a teaching moment for him. Just overlook the Fundy stuff/old paradigm's and help him out.

Like you say the initial topic is very useful... . Just guide him through the awareness of his leap of faith (not that that's bad of course).

Okay, I will break the ice. Phil, read Poetic's question... ? The temporary detour (or clue) here is: the nature of existence (Existentialism). (Contemplate that before answering/the nature of God's existence.)

One analogous way of thinking about consciousness is the cosmological super computer.

Think of your brain as the hard drive with some built-in operating systems (certain instincts) and self-consciousness (self-awareness/a priori). Then think of the software development over time, where one acquires knowledge about the world from childhood through infinity (in theory)... . That software represents experience input.

However, unlike a computer which is designed with a binary code, your consciousness is not designed as such. If the computer acted like the conscious and subconscious mind working together in unison, for illustration purposes, it would crash or lock-up.

How does the conscious mind and the subconscious mind work together(?). The computer operates on an 'a or b' premise (binary 0-1), and the mind on the other hand not only can operate in a binary fashion, but has the ability to break the rules of formal logic and work together in unison.

The infamous example of logical contradiction is when driving a car subconsciously while negotiating traffic or even crashing while daydreaming about something else. In logic, to try to describe it you would say something like: I'm driving, yet seemingly not driving at all. And that's because I crashed thinking about something totally different. So were you consciously driving when you crashed, or subconsciously driving? And how long can one do that?

So in my view, that's one quick example of a 'hard problem'.

Sort of a painfully obvious question occurred to me that is more of a 'houskeeping' matter: do you think Darwinian ethics included discussing all branches of Philosophy?

Ask not what philosophy can do for you, but what you can do for philosophy." John F Kennedy.

Hahahaha! that's too funny!!!!



Hey Wayfarer, just remember, before the government banned acid, scientist's were using it and making new discoveries while tripping!

....and keep woodshedding that guitar...better yet, keep jamming with friends!!!! My band's on break :(

As you may or may not know, the Stoics practiced indifference toward external influences, in Greece during the fall of Rome.

Stoicism was useful not only to the Roman empire ( and subsequent fall of same) but also during the 1930s depression era. To people, ethically, the psychological benefits were obvious.

Conversely, notwithstanding the psychological damages associated with repression or suppressed emotions, having control over one's thoughts to not worry about things one has no control over (external influences), indeed gives us the power to be free. It's a source of self-empowerment.

But once again, surely, if one dichotomizes stoicism into an all or nothing campaign, then we are in danger of denying our (as you would say God given) most valuable emotional intelligence.

As you suggested, it's a useful tool not to be overused.

Sounds like a Maslonian mantra: Life is both a discovery and uncovery of Being.

Of course, that begs another wonderful question: is wisdom inside, outside or both?

"Most of the times, you cannot do that, because Religion contain a lot of accounts that cannot be objectively verified. "

In a quick attempt to parse the objective v. subjective truth's argument. Just as a qualifier, as we know historian's use a set of criteria in publishing 'historical facts'. But unfortunately you can't remove the subjective elements: historical facts are recorded by subjects about subjects.

Sure, Jesus as a person lived as a physical object. And yes, to infer objectivity in an anthropic way, as say, in the 'concept of Love' being a universally accepted human concept, then of course a form of objectivity can be attached to Jesus' significance in recorded history. In other words, it becomes a typical gradient truth value argument viz. the human condition; along the scale of being more objective as apposed to a purely subjective thing, in that case of endorsing Love, as it were.

That's how I see 'veracity' without witness. In the absence of third party verifications of things, maybe then consider measuring history ('historical facts') based upon universally accepted valuations and/or criteria that we hold true today...that we consider universally true today.

Nice post!

Like a lot of things in life; most Philosophy is dynamic, not static. Exceptions might include Logic and Existentialism.

Knowing the right philosophical questions to ask is a process theretofore... .

Your first quote reminded me of this one. I thought this was interesting considering of course, his Atheism:

"If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we would know the mind of God."

Stephen Hawking



As it relates to the OP, if one assumes that the universe does not exist reasonlessly, 'goodness' may somehow be compelled to create a universe because it is good that it does so.
Through conscious Beings, the universe has generated self-awareness. Self-awareness creates a sense of goodness, morally and ethically.

Lower life forms may have a degree of sentient attributes from what we know about the small limbic system. But beyond that, there are no survival advantages to Ethics: 'how to live a good life'.

"I don't see any out-of-the-ordinary philosophical implications there."

Great!

Are you thinking that would simply indicate that the subconscious mind and the conscious mind are working in unison? (This is not a rhetorical question: If so, how is that explainable?)

"Obviously God didn't send any revelation, but that is not a proof that he doesn't exist, and that he doesn't care about us. No! he can still exist and be caring about us, even without sending any revelation, the relationship is very personal, and individualized, it need not be universally the same for all people, and it is God who decides what he do, not our own ideational casting about what he should do. It is how we should approach him, not how we think he would approach us. I say we approach him in the best of what we know it to be good. And leave the details about God’s plan of life, death, and existence to him, since we have full trust in him....Not to go and impose on him (GOD) our own human based expectations and figure him behaving according to our preferences."


Well said Zuhair!

This reminds me of far-right Fundamentalism where one 'projects' their own arbitrariness in support of their so-called logic (or literal interpretations thereto).

Similarly, 911 was largely a result of Religious extremism. Very dangerous indeed... .

And thanks for bringing to light the inferential logic relating to Modus Tollens and proving negatives.

There's also a lot to be said about common sense in the face of human sentience. Accordingly, 'Revelation' can occur through a type of revealed knowledge making a person feel that something is just not right/not passing the smell test... .

To answer the original concern, are you referring to the Liar's Paradox (propositions of self-reference)?

I'm not exactly sure, but I think those would break the rules...

Hello SC!

Thank you for the reply (sorry so late, been extremely busy). In summary, from your reply I think your short answer is: You/we don't really know. Which is fine I guess.

In a general sense, when we don't really know the nature of things (in themselves), in philosophy we can easily default to theories of its existence (IE: Metaphysics is: theories about theories).

So in that sense, could we say it's a metaphysical language that exists a priori, or developed from that existence or cognition that we uncovered? And is it somehow an innate property we have?

"Consciousness causes collapse: Your mind creates the river. And the boat."

Hey Andrew, just curious, would that be more in keeping with an Idealist model?

Accordingly, I was thinking about the conscious and subconscious mind creating two separate realities:

"Sometimes, you are so much into cognitive processes and imagination that your existence shrinks down to only physical presence because you are mentally somewhere else. Missing road turns while driving or adding wrong ingredients while cooking are common examples in this regard."

Does that mean we can perceive two realities at one time viz. our consciousness or conscious states of Being?

Waking up this morning made me think of another illogical phenomena of sorts. When my Boze radio alarm went off , I awoke to my familiar pre-selected radio station. That particular station does not have the greatest reception as it sometimes fades in and out but only very slightly.

What was weird, is that during one particular song, it morphed into some other radio station. The transformation was painfully slow; it was the strangest thing. The original song was initially very clear and discernable, then the other station [song] slowly became recognizable as the audible transition developed. Then it became a new station.

As it relates to the OP, my question is, what is the definition of a 'mottled' sound? In logic, how do we describe that phenomenon of sound or radio waves seemingly defying the law of excluded middle?

P and not-P = (Two stations playing two songs at the same time).

Thus, how would it be described: The radio station was playing and not playing?

The truth is, it WAS playing, so the said statement is partially false. Is this another example, analogy, metaphor, of a 'half-truth' viz. our conscious existence?

"I believe, Plato was advocating for objective view of beauty."

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty, —that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know”. -John Keats

Sameer, As far as being consistent with an Objectivism argument, you might could make a case for universal beauty and/or that most if not all human's desire ' beauty ' in some way shape or form... . Maybe explore Aesthetics and see what comes up...

Hello sophisticat! ( by the way what kind of cats do you own? I used to have a few himalayan's and I actually had a dream about baby Lions last night haha.)

Anyway I'm not sure that analogy would give us the clues that we need to parse this accurately.

If you use your reasoning there, then you would ask why is mathematics and written music notation always in Black ink? There are very few exceptions if any... .

Wouldn't you say the same for human skin color? Or what about any biological color? Are some colors random and/or indeterminate?

I think it's kind of a regressive argument yes?

It is an interesting question though because it does make me think of causation across the board... .

But here's the central concern. We have two ways to avoid falling objects. And we have two ways to enjoy music.

Thus, there is no disputing the following facts:
1. Music came first, then somebody figured it out.
2. We avoid falling objects first, then somebody figured it out.

There is no need for us to have that theoretical and abstract knowledge, no?

I'm trying to rack my brain, who quoted this:" What you are not you cannot perceive to understand, it cannot communicate itself to you".

???

Hey SC!

I know, it appears that I have fallen and I can't get up!

If someone tells me these are just extra-chance-random features of consciousness, then I ask them for what reason? In the absence of an answer, the clues point to a metaphysical language of sorts... .

[reply="Bartricks;d6624"

Bartricks just a quick question.

Were you able to dip your toes into any Freudian Psychosexual waters? Any theories there worth exploring in your view?

I haven't studied much from him lately but my sense is that he covered certain ethics and pathology...

Sure.....In the context of miracle's/logic, as well as religious beliefs, I would say more specifically the choice is made through inductive reasoning. That's an important distinction.

The other distinction you made: gravity--->computation and/or instinct--->'denial' or ignoring both leads to death.

And another point you made I think relates to the Will to believe; Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Maslow, William James and even Einstein to name a few talked about that so-called intrinsic nature or feature that we have called the Will. The connection there usually makes it way back to existential things like human instinct, sentience and intuition, or an innate sense of wonder.

So briefly, I would say in this context TMF, rather than your 'informed choice' you could replace it with logical inference. And more specifically, inference based upon unexplained phenomena from conscious existence (or from conscious human Beings ) if you prefer.

But yeah, The Will is an intriguing topic no doubt...and quite extensive to say the least. Does that interpretation clarify?

"We don't have the data nor the tools to give you a good answer."

As far as making perfect sense of it, that's basically it. However, the tenants of Darwinism and theories thereof do not account for music and math.

Accordingly, two additional questions could be added to the mix:

1. Why do we have this dual capacity to know the world; one mathematical, the other spacial. (It doesn't require computation of gravity to dodge falling objects in the jungle.)

2. What biological value does music theory hold (discussing the diatonic scale, modes, tension and release, dominant chord structure, major and minor scales, etc. etc.).

The abstract reasoning or capability in our cognition is largely part of the issue. Some say these are just 'extra' unexplained features that we have. I believe they are metaphysical languages.

Now there's a leap of faith!! LOL

Hey TMF!

Firstly, in a Kierkegaardian sense, no. The will to believe is a choice. To me, pragmatically, it's no different than any other faith I hold; faith in work, faith in science, faith in sports, faith in people, and so on.

Second, I don't know about Atheists and why they choose differently. Like I've speculated before, it has to do more with some psychological edict or an axe to grind about same. Similarly, Einstein had some concerns thus:

" Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . .. They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)"

In terms of extremism I look at it this way, Fundies are far-right; Atheists are far-left.

As an amusing anecdote, in my 'daily professional walk' I engage with a smile (part of law of attraction) , and when I tell people " Happy Monday " for instance, they look at me like I just grew a horn on my head. And then I always reply....' yeah well I lie to myself every morning'. LOL

Regarding nihilism, in the OT The Book of Ecclesiastes asks a lot of existential questions that can get a little depressing. Part of the NT on the other hand , was 'the answer' to the existential human condition.

But going back to the original question. I realized this when trying to study the various domains of Philosophy and noticed a common theme: Deity reared its head in almost every Philosophy. Each discipline seems as though it has an underlying infinite regressive series of arguments, that ultimately asks about the nature of things. For which there is no substantial 'answer' .

Perhaps one takeaway from Philosophy is knowing the right questions to ask when... . And/or uncover the real reason why humans ask those kinds of Existential questions.

Maybe George Harrison said it best: a lot of things in life can wait but the search for God cannot wait.
Or at least that's what the forum is reflecting...

Excellent!!

... Hence why philosophy should allow itself not to necessarily stay pigeonholed, and to access tools from both sides of the aisle as the case may be. To that end, in some ways your OP term "introspection" almost begged parsing those kinds of concerns viz Psychology. Or at least required one to spread the love at least partially in that direction.

I hate the drop a book title but The Psychology of Being is one of my favorites... . In it, it asks certain Existential questions so that we can 'introspect' accordingly... . And brings to light the pluses and minuses of dichotomizing things too much

Life is about relationships.

I forgot...I might add an important footnote:

Sharing subjective experiences (knowledge from introspection) with one another is not without its virtues or merit. T Clark ( and other's) you alluded to this I think. Thus we can gain knowledge through 'corroboration' or verifying similar experiences that we have, (with each other by trying to describe them).

It may not be 'Objective' knowledge in the true sense of the meaning, yet can be * inferred* as an important truth nonetheless. Nothing too revelatory or novel there lol... .

Share any thoughts if you have them... ?

I know I'm missing some other pieces, but here are some distinction's that emerged:

Introspection- an activity that draws from experience. That experience comes from both conscious and subconscious data [base]. This results in a kind of self-awareness. And that knowledge can still be thought of as completely novel/new to the subject-person nonetheless (but not a priori knowledge).

Intuition- a relatively abstract concept, an incomplete cognition, and thus not directly experienceable (Kant of course spoke to this). And is a type of a priori knowledge.

Subjectivity- knowledge that I have that technically know one else can have. Thus experience will always be unique to that individual due to many factors including space-time (getting older gaining experience and knowledge about the world). Loosely, thus the phrase 'you don't know till you walk in that person's shoes' is partly correct.

Objectivity-universally true regardless of what anyone else thinks. Almost has an independent existence in some ways.

That's just a cursory read lol....

No worries, I felt like there was another missing component to the discussion that could be helpful. Thus here was my reasoning below:

-NDE's have been experienced by people
-NDE's have been corroborated by third persons
-NDE's themselves are conscious, subconscious and unconscious phenomena, that happens to people

-people have consciousness
- the nature of consciousness is largely unexplained
-EM fields of consciousness is a concept that tries to explain some human phenomenon (and possibly NDE's)
-the NDE phenomenon involves conscious states of Being outside the body
-EM fields of consciousness partly involves theoretical storage of all consciousness states
-physical theories posit that energy [one's conscious energy] storage include vector space, black holes, or some other unexplained space of possible storage

So with that said, if the NDE individual has these out of body experiences, yet are presumed dead, how are they able to use their minds to think? Where does their stream of consciousness flow? (How or where does the conscious energy come from without blood supply?)
Is it a supercomputer that has storage capability?

These are Metaphysical questions that may not be answerable now, but biophysics/science is providing some new clues of analogous benefit.

Reading through both of our comments made me think of, how to articulate ineffable experiences:

" But perhaps we can pinpoint the nature of the thing that can’t be expressed, or find a way to describe what it consists of. I believe that there are at least four possible candidates for a non-nonsensical answer: ineffable objects, ineffable truths, ineffable content, and ineffable knowledge."

"From Kant onwards, philosophers’ interest in ineffable objects gave way to the idea that ineffability is a symptom of the insufficiency of language as a tool for capturing the ultimate truths of the world. Søren Kierkegaard suggested in 1844 that humans are trapped in the ‘ultimate paradox of thought’, wanting to discover things ‘that thought itself cannot think’. The arch-skeptic of reason and the Enlightenment, Friedrich Nietzsche, said in 1873 that truth was akin to an army of metaphors on the march – a host of powerful illusions, which we humans have forgotten are illusions."

So from the above/and you-all's comments, I think that language does have its limits too. Take for example formal logic. If I say the apple is red, but upon further observation it is a mottled color of red, we don't have a specific word from language that captures that specific color (from the color wheel). So in theory it becomes logically described as red and not red, and therefore becomes a half-truth.

Similarly, it follows that in consciousness we can impart our subjective experiences, but you could say they are too, only half-truth's because of the limitations in language.

And the more interesting analogy would be as we change and learn about the world and our perceptions thereof, our definitions of events changes also. Kind of like listening to music. You might get something completely different out of the same song a year later... .