In the end, all i mean by imagined is that it is something in one's head that is not in the world. — unenlightened

I figured this was probably what you meant, but I like to distinguish between the act of imagining (imagination), and the image, or other imaginary thing (thing in one's head). So as things in one's head, we have all sorts images, memories, words, beliefs, ideas, and of course goals and intentions. But as well as this, we have the act of imagination, and this act may establish relationships, associations between different images, memories, words, goals etc.. This act, as a creative act, will create new memories, goals, etc.. But in this description I assume that there is already content, images memories etc., from which new things in one's head are produced.

Isn't that description inaccurate then? The act of imagination is said to be what produces things in one's head, but it is presumed that there are already things within one's head for the act of imagination to work with. This is a vicious circle. The imagination can only create something if something already exists, but that something could have only been created by the imagination.

Wouldn't it be more precise to say that the act of imagination creates things from nothing? This is not nothing in an absolute sense, but it is the potential for things. So the act of imagination creates things within one's head, not by working with things which are already there, existing content, establishing associations and relationships with these existing things, it creates things from nothing, where there was just the potential for things.

On the small scale, my goal is the cup of tea that I do not have, that does not exist because it hasn't been made, and the logic is that if it had been made I wouldn't possibly have it as a goal, I'd already have it, just as my goal was to write some kind of reply to you, but now it is written, it is a goal no longer.

In more traditional language, perhaps, my desire is always for something that is not, something lacking. What can we call something that is not? An image, a fiction, a notion? The source of such is the past, one's experience - it can only be the past since it is not present, and it is projected onto the future as a goal. — unenlightened

Let's say that you mind creates the goal of a cup of tea. For the sake of argument, let's assume that it creates that from nothing. There is the potential for a seemingly infinite number of different goals, but your mind produces the goal of a cup of tea without consulting past memories, ideas, or any such thing, the goal just pops into your head, from the vast potential. Now your mind must validate, or justify this goal. Is it reasonable, is it obtainable, should it be sought etc.? At this point your mind consults already existing things in your head, drawing associations and relationships, to determine whether it is a good goal or not.

In the end, I think one can only intend something to the extent that it is known, so a creative act is necessarily the interplay of the intentional and the accidental, and that is what I alluded to above when I mentioned doodles. One can act without motive. — unenlightened

So in the end, I do agree that we can act without motive, if you allow that the act of imagination is such an act. The act of imagination will produce goals without any motivation, if we allow that these goals just pop into your head. But before we proceed to act on the goal, we will assess it, judge it, and I think that it is only following this judgement that one becomes motivated. This produces the distinction between two types of acts, the unmotivated "act of imagination", and the motivate act to fulfill a goal, with the medium of judging what is produced by the imagination, lying between these two. Therefore motivation must be related to judgement.

Is a goal or imagination a phenomenon in one's mind or head which can be experienced and perceived? If so, by what is it experienced and perceived? What and where is one's mind (it's intuitively obvious that heads can be perceived, but can minds be perceived)? — Galuchat

I believe you have met a logical roadblock here. I don't think that a mind can be perceived, this is logically impossible, unless one mind could directly perceive another mind. The mind is active in the act of perception, so the mind is the thing which is perceiving. It cannot be the thing perceived or else there would be a nonsensical circle of time, because an act requires the passage of time. By the time the act of perception occurs, the thing perceived no longer exists, so it is impossible that the act of perception is what is being perceived or else time would be circular. It is logically possible that one mind could directly perceive another, but since the mind is not sensed, and things external to a person are sensed, the nature of the sense world renders this physically impossible.

Is a goal or imagination something concrete which can be located in one's mind or head (i.e., either as a part of brain anatomy or neurophysiology)? — Galuchat

I believe that a goal, as an object is just as real as any physical object. So depending on what you mean by "concrete", a goal may be concrete (real). A goal may be identified, it may be analyzed, properties may be attributed to it, etc., just like any physical object. The difference is that the goal is an object understood to exist only in the mind, while a physical object is understood to exist outside the mind.

Dopamine peaks at a much higher level to get you to make tea than when you're actually drinking it.

OK is this like the difference between a wink and a blink? It is difficult to tell them apart at times. Winks are intentional (I imagine having a nice cup of Jasmine tea, can almost see its golden strands and smell its elegant fragrance), isn't this the thick explanation, and the thin explanation (thin, because it is simply true or false) the physiological explanation about dopamine levels.

Isn't that description inaccurate then? The act of imagination is said to be what produces things in one's head, but it is presumed that there are already things within one's head for the act of imagination to work with. This is a vicious circle. The imagination can only create something if something already exists, but that something could have only been created by the imagination. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think so. Imagine that terrible time before there was trade with China. The unenlightened of those days would never imagine liking tea in those days because 'tea' was a disgusting concoction of chamomile or blackcurrant leaves that was forced on you whenever you complained of quinsy or the King's evil. That poor unenlightened would have suffered, but never known what it was that was lacking in hie life, to even desire it. So there is no vicious circle that I can see. Like Tigger, one bounces through life bumping into hay-corns and thistles and not liking them much until one bumps into Roo's strengthening medicine, which is A A Milne's metaphor for tea. One learns from experience what one can desire, and the bouncing and bumping is the spontaneous movement of life.

What this view counters, or undoes, is the tyranny of desire. It stops being this slave driver, forcing you out of bed every morning, and take its rightful place as a mere thought that can refine one's bouncing so as to avoid some of the thistles.

Is a goal or imagination a phenomenon in one's mind or head which can be experienced and perceived? If so, by what is it experienced and perceived? What and where is one's mind (it's intuitively obvious that heads can be perceived, but can minds be perceived)? — Galuchat

I believe you have met a logical roadblock here. I don't think that a mind can be perceived... — Metaphysician Undercover

Maybe you presuppose that I am looking for answers to these questions, when my actual intent is to elicit your opinions. I agree that a mind cannot be perceived, but because: like psychological functions, mind is not an entity which can be observed. It is a convenient term (schopenhauer1's "nominal label") for the set of psychological functions which a being is capable of exercising (a socially learned verbal construct). Therefore, attributing psychological predicates to a mind is nonsense, and attributing them to a brain (or anything "in one's head") is mereological confusion.

A goal may be identified, it may be analyzed, properties may be attributed to it, etc., just like any physical object. The difference is that the goal is an object understood to exist only in the mind, while a physical object is understood to exist outside the mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree that a particular goal (intention) may be identified, analysed, assigned attributes, etc., but only: by others when it is expressed to them (as in the first sentence of my previous paragraph), and by one's self when it is conceived of, or thought about. Inasmuch as it may exist in physical form when it is expressed, it does not "exist only in the mind". In fact, it never exists in a mind, because mind only exists as a verbal construct.

How would "natural" be included in the explanation when "socially learned verbal constructs" usually falls under social and not instinctual, unless "natural" is used in a different way than a synonym for strict biologically determined behavior. — schopenhauer1

In my current conception:
1) The domain of Cognitive Psychology explains natural behaviour.
2) The domain of Social Psychology explains acculturated behaviour.
Both domains are socially learned verbal constructs (i.e., models).

If goals then are social constructs, is essentially everything we hold dear as humans in terms of our "supposed" desires, wants, hopes, motivations, etc. just a socially taught mechanism that has simply been one useful way for our species to survive?...
In other words, is the social construct just an exaptation- something that just so happened to arise but was not the reason for our unique evolution, or was it actually an adaptation- something that was specifically selected for? — schopenhauer1

Thanks for pointing out how ridiculous my revised answer to your first question is (obviously, I am testing developing concepts). Let me try a third time:

Psychological functions and conditions produce natural and acculturated behaviour which is described in terms of socially learned verbal constructs. In other words, I suspect that these functions are adaptations rather than exaptations.

don't think so. Imagine that terrible time before there was trade with China. The unenlightened of those days would never imagine liking tea in those days because 'tea' was a disgusting concoction of chamomile or blackcurrant leaves that was forced on you whenever you complained of quinsy or the King's evil. That poor unenlightened would have suffered, but never known what it was that was lacking in hie life, to even desire it. So there is no vicious circle that I can see. Like Tigger, one bounces through life bumping into hay-corns and thistles and not liking them much until one bumps into Roo's strengthening medicine, which is A A Milne's metaphor for tea. One learns from experience what one can desire, and the bouncing and bumping is the spontaneous movement of life. — unenlightened

OK, I admit that it is possible, that all goals are produced from prior experience like this. But how do we account for innovation and creativity then? With creativity It must be the case that the act of imagination creates something new and that new thing created must be something in the mind. Suppose we assume that the imagination always uses old parts when creating something new, then there is necessarily some things within the mind which were not created by the imagination.

What are these things, and where do they come from? We cannot class these things as imaginary now, because we've denied that they are created by the imagination. We've defeated your definition which states that all things in the mind are imaginary because we've found some fundamental things within the mind which cannot be imaginary.

Furthermore, for me this casts doubt on the assumption that there are unmotivated actions. I appealed to the idea of the imagination creating something out of nothing, as an example of an unmotivated action. But if the imagination always draws from something already existing when it creates, then aren't those things, which cause it to create what it does, motivating things? How can we get beyond the idea that these things are causes, in the creative act, to assume an unmotivated action?

OK, I admit that it is possible, that all goals are produced from prior experience like this. But how do we account for innovation and creativity then? With creativity It must be the case that the act of imagination creates something new and that new thing created must be something in the mind. Suppose we assume that the imagination always uses old parts when creating something new, then there is necessarily some things within the mind which were not created by the imagination. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you spend some time with very small persons, you'll notice that everything goes in their mouth; chocolate, lego bricks, electric cable, carpet fluff, thumbs, clothes pegs, guitars, everything. Presumably, there is no 'desire for carpet fluff' required or even 'imagining carpet fluff', this is just exploration of whatever is around.

I learned about carpet fluff a long time ago, and I don't even like smoking it. Indeed there is no possible motive for eating carpet fluff, and in the same way, there is no possible motive for drinking concoction X, which might be delicious, revolting or poisonous. 'Suck it and see' is not really a motive so much as an attitude to the unknown, that infants necessarily adopt by instinct, and adults learn by bitter experience to renounce in favour of 'sticking with what works'.

So I would say that imagination can suggest trying some sugar (I know I like sugar) in the tea (I know I like tea), but cannot go beyond experience and rearrangements of experience. "How about baked beans in tea - I know I like baked beans?" but not, "How about concoction X in tea - What the fuck is concoction X ?"

But if you are young at heart, and there happens to be concoction X, you might try it, and you might like it, and then you have had a new experience, and a motive to use concoction X in all your old recipes.

So creativity can be exploring new arrangements of the same old paints and brushes, or exploring new materials, but the aspect that is intended is always the known aspect, and to be creative there must also be an aspect of 'suck it and see', which I previously called 'spontaneous action'.

I think it is necessary to distinguish between intentions, or goals, and motivation which is the ambition that aids in successfully achieving ones goals. — Metaphysician Undercover

Think of intentions/goals as the predicted outcome of some action. Our goals are like simulations of how we'd like it to be. The difference between how we'd like it to be and how it is is what motivates us. We aren't motivated when things are how we'd like it to be. We are content.

We aren't motivated when things are how we'd like it to be. We are content. — Harry Hindu

I agree. Generally, the cause of motivation is dissatisfaction. Specifically, dissatisfaction due to:
1) Negative affect produced by unpleasant sensations and/or feelings.
2) Unfulfilled human needs (i.e., requisites for good mental and corporeal health which facilitate human well-being).
3) Unfulfilled propositional attitudes (i.e., desires, hopes, opinions, beliefs, convictions).

Generally, the cause of motivation is dissatisfaction. Specifically, dissatisfaction due to:
1) Negative affect produced by unpleasant sensations and/or feelings.
2) Unfulfilled human needs (i.e., requisites for good mental and corporeal health which facilitate human well-being).
3) Unfulfilled propositional attitudes (i.e., desires, hopes, opinions, beliefs, convictions). — Galuchat

This is the core of Schopenhauer's theory of Will.

Inasmuch as it may exist in physical form when it is expressed, it does not "exist only in the mind". In fact, it never exists in a mind, because mind only exists as a verbal construct. — Galuchat

I don't understand what you mean when you say mind is only a verbal construct. Isn't the opposite of this what is really the case, minds create words? A goal can't really exist in a physical form, the words are a representation of the goal. The actual goal always exists in the mind.

'Suck it and see' is not really a motive so much as an attitude to the unknown, that infants necessarily adopt by instinct, and adults learn by bitter experience to renounce in favour of 'sticking with what works'. — unenlightened

This attitude toward the unknown is the philosophical mindset, wonder, the desire to know. Wouldn't you consider that wonder is a motive?

there is no possible motive for drinking concoction X, — unenlightened

So I can't say that I agree with this statement. Do you not think that there is motive behind trial and error? The thing tried in the process of trial and error, must be tried for some reason or purpose, or else there could be no determination of "error". Concoction X is tried for some reason, so there must be motive, but the reason is not evident, and maybe not even to the one who is trying it. Youngsters try all kinds of drugs and their motives aren't clear, but that doesn't mean there aren't motives.

Suppose the child is popping things into its mouth completely randomly, without any determination of "error", and therefore with no motive. Isn't this just the same things as saying that the idea, the goal to put the thing in its mouth, just pops into the child's head from nowhere? So now we're back to the same position I stated earlier. The act of imagination produces this idea from nothing, it just pops into the child's head, what you call "spontaneous action". And this is what creativity is. The difference between what you're saying and what I said, appears to be that you do not want to call this spontaneous action an act of imagination.

The difference between how we'd like it to be and how it is is what motivates us. We aren't motivated when things are how we'd like it to be. We are content. — Harry Hindu

I don't think so. Even when we feel content, we are still motivated to act. Moving is a physiological thing, and we are naturally inclined to move. You might argue that we move because we are not content to sit still, but then there are no goals, or "how we'd like it to be" which is motivating us, we are just motivated to move because we are discontent with being how we are.

This is the core of Schopenhauer's theory of Will. — schopenhauer1

This is the motivation of discontent. If one is inclined to move due to dissatisfaction, we can't really say that it is a goal or intention which motivates that person, it is just a general inclination toward change.

To answer your questions, I will first break it down into three parts:
1. why do we do what we do?
2. what is inspiration?
3. what is motivation?

1. Humans base their decisions and actions to fulfill their highest values or what is most important to them. Our biggest "perceived" voids create our biggest "perceived" values. For example, like @Bitter Crank mentioned, if a car becomes too hot or cold, you have a perceived void of a more pleasant temperature. This also works on a larger scale. For example, a lot of people that become wealthy have relatively poorer upbringings which can create a void/ value on building wealth. On the other hand, if you have an upper-middle class upbringing, you may not have as high of a value on money and may simply follow in your parents footsteps to a similar upper-middle class life.
2. Inspiration arises when we are fulfilling what is truly meaningful to us. Think of the Statue of David, The Mona Lisa, The Geodesic Dome, Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Water etc. These great masterpieces came from people that were doing what was truly meaningful to them. On the other hand, if an architect like Frank Lloyd Wright was instructed to become a make up artist, he would have very low inspiration and wouldn't perform nearly as well and be considered a "failure". In this case, a boss may try to "motivate" the employee.
3. Motivation is an external force required to do something that is not really that important to you. A boss may try to motivate you with money. You may try and motivate yourself to workout with a motivational video or motivate yourself to study for a degree your parents told you to do etc. Sometimes motivation can be helpful, but if you are not mainly doing what is important to you, you will live an unfulfilling life.

Ultimately, the goal is to live an inspired life, fulfilling what is most meaningful to you. If you need motivation to do something, it is not that important to you or you haven't chunked down what you are trying to achieve into manageable bites.

This is the motivation of discontent. If one is inclined to move due to dissatisfaction, we can't really say that it is a goal or intention which motivates that person, it is just a general inclination toward change. — Metaphysician Undercover

How so? The underlying condition is discontent. This wells up in our linguistic brains as some sort of goal to move away from discontent in goal-directed action (get the date, get the ice cream, get the better job, build that career, etc. etc.) which according to Schopenhauer, never ceases to get rid of the underlying dissatisfaction which will always well up into more goals to be directed towards in our linguistic brains.

Suppose the child is popping things into its mouth completely randomly, without any determination of "error", and therefore with no motive. Isn't this just the same things as saying that the idea, the goal to put the thing in its mouth, just pops into the child's head from nowhere? So now we're back to the same position I stated earlier. The act of imagination produces this idea from nothing, it just pops into the child's head, what you call "spontaneous action". And this is what creativity is. The difference between what you're saying and what I said, appears to be that you do not want to call this spontaneous action an act of imagination. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, that is the difference. But I think it is a real and crucial difference. I say that we do things, without motive, without idea and without a goal. I could call it 'play'. It has the effect of trial and error, but is not motivated by that idea, which the child is not yet capable of forming. What this formulation does, which I think makes it more true, is it establishes the primacy of being over thought. One is in the world, one experiences, one moves; and ideas, judgements, plans, understandings, come from that, and not - emphatically not - the other way round.

And this is the escape from the prison of discontented will - that it is merely an idea one has formed about oneself, and it is a mistaken idea. Why go on living? Why have children? No reason, no motive, no plan! Motives are thought excrescences on life that divert it from its course, which is just fine a lot of the time, but thought is the servant of life, not the master.

Is it not clear that before motive can get off the ground, life must have already been busy forming itself into the being that can be motivated?

The difference between how we'd like it to be and how it is is what motivates us. We aren't motivated when things are how we'd like it to be. We are content. — Harry Hindu


I don't think so. Even when we feel content, we are still motivated to act. Moving is a physiological thing, and we are naturally inclined to move. You might argue that we move because we are not content to sit still, but then there are no goals, or "how we'd like it to be" which is motivating us, we are just motivated to move because we are discontent with being how we are. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see where you're disagreeing with what I said. The goal would be to move. The difference between wanting to move and currently sitting still motivates us to move. The question we should ask is what comes first - the motivation or the goal? It seems that the motivation comes first as we notice the difference between our current state and the state we want. We then establish the goal and act. But then it also seems that both the motivation and goal are established together and may actually be one and the same. Can you have a goal without motivation, or vice versa?

I don't understand what you mean when you say mind is only a verbal construct. — Metaphysician Undercover

"Mind" is the name of a verbal concept which can be described as: the set of faculties exercised by a psychophysical being which produce natural and acculturated behaviour. When considered in relation to other verbal concepts (e.g., particular faculties), it becomes a verbal construct (i.e., mental model).

The set of faculties described in this conception of mind are real (i.e., they exist). However, "mind" (conceived of as an entity having these faculties) does not exist. So, use of the word "mind" only makes sense as a convenient way of referring to these faculties collectively, rather than by enumeration.

Inductive evidence in the form of physiological correlates, and criterial evidence in the form of observed behaviour, establish the existence of psychological functions and conditions.

If an experiment can be devised which resolves the question: "does the mind (as an entity) exist?", it is an empirical question, and the fact of its existence or non-existence can be established. For example, once it has been decided what constitutes the entity "mind", an experiment using PET, fMRI, MEG, or NIRS technology can determine whether or not it has neural correlates.

If there is no way to experimentally test the hypothesis, "the mind (as an entity) exists", then whether or not it exists is a conceptual question requiring logical investigation. For example, does it make sense to conceive of beings as composed of two parts (body and mind) or as an integrated whole?

If beings are composed of a body and mind, questions of interaction and mind location need to be resolved. Modern neuroscientists (and some philosophers) think this dualist problem is resolved by replacing mind with brain. But, this only transfers the attribution of psychological functions and conditions from mind to brain, when logically they are attributes of a being (a psychophysical unity).

Also, coherent concepts of psychological functions and conditions do not only take into consideration brain anatomy and physiology, but the anatomy and physiology of all the organic systems of a living being.

N.B. The foregoing is distilled from "Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience" by M.R. Bennett and P.M.S. Hacker (2003).

How so? The underlying condition is discontent. This wells up in our linguistic brains as some sort of goal to move away from discontent in goal-directed action (get the date, get the ice cream, get the better job, build that career, etc. etc.) which according to Schopenhauer, never ceases to get rid of the underlying dissatisfaction which will always well up into more goals to be directed towards in our linguistic brains. — schopenhauer1

What I'm saying is that the discontent motivates the brain to produce goals and consequently goal-directed action. So I place motivation between discontent and goals, as a cause of goals. The brain in action needs not focus on goals, it may focus on intelligible ideas, logic, or other problems. This is contemplation, but an individual needs to be motivated to focus on these logical problems rather than focusing on goal-directed action as a means of release from dissatisfaction.

Contemplation is an activity, which requires motivation to carry it out. This is the perspective which allows Aristotle to say that contemplation is of the highest virtue. To be virtuous, it must be an activity, and as an activity it requires motivation. So the act of contemplation, which brings about good ideas, and good goals, is only brought about by the motivated individual, just like any other virtuous act.

Yes, that is the difference. But I think it is a real and crucial difference. I say that we do things, without motive, without idea and without a goal. — unenlightened

You are associating "motive" with "idea" and "goal", as if they are equivalent, or as if motive doesn't exist without a determinate goal. But "motive" refers solely to the source, or cause of motion, and there need not be a particular goal in mind which leads to the activity. So I think we have to assign motivation to lower animals, and even plants, which move without having any particular goal in mind.

I think you are misrepresenting what "motive" actually means. You are providing an understanding of the term which limits its use to a particular type of motive, how "motive" would be used in a law court or something like that, "the person's motive", meaning the person's intent. When in common usage, "motivate" has a much more general meaning, more closely associated with "impetus". In this way you seek to restrict the use of "motive", so that an idea or goal provides motivation, but it cannot be motivation which is responsible for the creation of ideas, they are spontaneous or random occurrences. In actuality though, "motive" refers to the factors which induce one to act. And thinking, which creates ideas and goals, is an act.

And this is the escape from the prison of discontented will - that it is merely an idea one has formed about oneself, and it is a mistaken idea. Why go on living? Why have children? No reason, no motive, no plan! Motives are thought excrescences on life that divert it from its course, which is just fine a lot of the time, but thought is the servant of life, not the master. — unenlightened

I agree that we can escape discontent through acting in the world, having a family, becoming socially active, etc.. But this is not necessary, as we can also escape discontent just through thinking, contemplation and imagination. To escape discontent, we do not need to form specific goals, and act in the world to bring these goals to fruition, we need only to think, theorize, and bring about ideas. You might call this living in a fantasy world, but that's what a theorist does and it's effective for escaping discontent. Sure the theory needs to be tested empirically to be proven, but this is not necessarily important to the theorist.



Let me see if I can interpret what you are saying.

Mind" is the name of a verbal concept which can be described as: the set of faculties exercised by a psychophysical being which produce natural and acculturated behaviour. When considered in relation to other verbal concepts (e.g., particular faculties), it becomes a verbal construct (i.e., mental model). — Galuchat

"Mind" refers to a bunch of faculties of a being, each of which produces a particular type of behaviour.

The set of faculties described in this conception of mind are real (i.e., they exist). However, "mind" (conceived of as an entity having these faculties) does not exist. So use of the word "mind" is only intelligible as a convenient way of referring to these faculties collectively, rather than by enumeration. — Galuchat

Now you lose me. Why do you say that the faculties exist, but "mind" does not exist? Let's say "human being" refers to a set of physical parts which perform certain activities. Why would you say that the parts performing the activities exist, but the whole, the human being does not exist? This appears to be what you are doing with "mind". You are assigning existence to each individual faculty, but denying existence from the whole. Just because we can break a thing into parts, this does not mean that the parts exist but the whole does not. How many of these faculties could exist on their own, without being a part of the mind?

If an experiment can be devised which resolves the question: "does the mind exist?", it is an empirical question, and the fact of its existence or non-existence can be established. For example, once it has been decided what constitutes the entity "mind", an experiment using PET, fMRI, MEG, or NIRS technology can determine whether or not it has neural correlates. — Galuchat

If we extend my analogy, you'd be asking what constitutes the entity called "human being", and looking at the parts of the human being, to see which of these parts could be the "human being". Do you see the flaw in this technique, examining the different parts to determine which of the parts "constitutes" the whole. You have defined "mind" as the whole "set" of these faculties, so that's what mind is, just like "human being" is the whole of the living being. So it is pointless to examine the parts to see which of them constitutes the whole, because the determination that the mind is "the whole" has already excluded this.

One might ask, "does the human being exist?", but if you've already decided that the human being is just a collection of different parts engaged in different functions, and that the collection as a whole has no special significance over any individual part, then what point is such a question?

I don't see where you're disagreeing with what I said. The goal would be to move. The difference between wanting to move and currently sitting still motivates us to move. The question we should ask is what comes first - the motivation or the goal? It seems that the motivation comes first as we notice the difference between our current state and the state we want. We then establish the goal and act. — Harry Hindu

My point is that we often move without having the goal to move. We need motivation to move but we do not need a goal to move. But I think we agree by and large anyway, because we both say that motivation is prior to the goal. I believe that a goal comes about from thinking, and thinking is an activity which requires motivation.

The brain in action needs not focus on goals, it may focus on intelligible ideas, logic, or other problems. This is contemplation, but an individual needs to be motivated to focus on these logical problems rather than focusing on goal-directed action as a means of release from dissatisfaction. — Metaphysician Undercover

I never understood what the big deal with the intelligible ideas, logic, and "other problems" were. I mean, sometimes I get a sort of buzz when I think of the world in a certain way, but what makes studying logic and math and intelligible ideas (whatever this really means) so special? If you ask a Buddhist, it is Nirvana/Enlightenment, if you ask a Hindu it's Moksha, if you asked one of the Abrahamic faiths, it's probably some sort of communion with the divine. In other words, there are a lot of variations on this concept of special states of experience. How is one to prove that these are "real" experiences, or just reified concepts with a ton of secondary literature built on a sandcastle of nonsense?

It's just a matter of studying, and learning different things. Some people like to take numbers and logical principles and apply them to the physical world. Some people just want to direct their attention toward these logical principles directly, and study their existence. It's a different interest, we are motivated in different ways.

If you're genuinely interested, read the referenced book carefully. I don't have time to explain the same thing 10 different ways. Good luck!

I don't see where you're disagreeing with what I said. The goal would be to move. The difference between wanting to move and currently sitting still motivates us to move. The question we should ask is what comes first - the motivation or the goal? It seems that the motivation comes first as we notice the difference between our current state and the state we want. We then establish the goal and act. — Harry Hindu


My point is that we often move without having the goal to move. We need motivation to move but we do not need a goal to move. But I think we agree by and large anyway, because we both say that motivation is prior to the goal. I believe that a goal comes about from thinking, and thinking is an activity which requires motivation. — Metaphysician Undercover

How and when do we often move without having the goal to move - when we have a nervous twitch or something? When I move, I often have the goal to move. How can you be motivated without a goal?

You also cherry-picked my post. The last part you left out began to question the distinction between motivations and goals. It seems that both the goal and the motivation are the same thing. The goal is what motivates you to act. I asked, can you be motivated without a goal and vice versa? Was the question to difficult or something?

When in common usage, "motivate" has a much more general meaning, more closely associated with "impetus". In this way you seek to restrict the use of "motive", so that an idea or goal provides motivation, but it cannot be motivation which is responsible for the creation of ideas, they are spontaneous or random occurrences. In actuality though, "motive" refers to the factors which induce one to act. And thinking, which creates ideas and goals, is an act. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's right. And if we are just arguing about the meaning of words, there is no real problem or disagreement.

You might call this living in a fantasy world, but that's what a theorist does and it's effective for escaping discontent. Sure the theory needs to be tested empirically to be proven, but this is not necessarily important to the theorist. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, that is what a theorist does, and that is what I call the world of ideas or fantasy to distinguish it from the empirical world, which is what you have done there also.

So the question I need to ask, I suppose, is what are these 'factors that induce one to act', that are not ideas projected as goals and that you think of as motives and I do not? And since you include plants, you seem to be saying that plants have motives in this sense, which I find rather a misleading locution. But never mind, as long as we are clear that it is not ideas, or indeed any thought based factor, but something in the physical nature of a plant that it grows towards the light, or makes seeds or responds to the environment in all sorts of ways that we can make sense of in terms of evolutionary function, but the plant itself cannot consider at all.

A plant's genes encode a repertoire of automatic responses to environmental stresses, that have the effect of making it adaptive to the environment in ways that aid survival. If you want to call these responses motivated, well I sort of understand. And humans have similarly 'built in' responses, that in my language, I tend to use terms such as 'instinct' and 'reflex' for. Propensities to act that one can be aware of and think about, but which originate in the body without thought. Thus hunger is a physical condition that provokes suckling, or crying; curiosity provokes exploration and learning. Drought provokes spinach to run to seed. I call these responses spontaneous because they are unthought.

So per my earlier example, but in your language, thirst motivates drinking, but thought motivates the modification of behaviour from drinking some water to making tea, based on remembered previous experience. And one might say that biology, or evolution is motivated to provoke thought as a means to increase the diversity of responses through just such modification by learning. But in humans, thought reaches such a level that it can become wholly antagonistic to the motives of life that give rise to it, and this is the sad condition in which we find ourselves; that the thought that modifies the instinct to run to seed, to delay it rather than accelerate it perhaps, becomes anti-natalism, and wholly opposed to life.

So per my earlier example, but in your language, thirst motivates drinking, but thought motivates the modification of behaviour from drinking some water to making tea, based on remembered previous experience. And one might say that biology, or evolution is motivated to provoke thought as a means to increase the diversity of responses through just such modification by learning. But in humans, thought reaches such a level that it can become wholly antagonistic to the motives of life that give rise to it, and this is the sad condition in which we find ourselves; that the thought that modifies the instinct to run to seed, to delay it rather than accelerate it perhaps, becomes anti-natalism, and wholly opposed to life. — unenlightened

The concept of antinatalism is a logical response to the self-reflection on the repetitious (instrumental) nature of existence, the unrelenting desires that motivate us (that you just described), the polar boundaries of survival and angst, and the myriad of contingent/circumstantial harms that befall us. It is simply a self-reflecting creature making the logical conclusion from such circumstances that we face when coming into existence. Perhaps Peter Zapffe was correct, our own self-awareness, makes us too aware of our situation- an exaptation from the simple evolutionary trajectory for better learning. However, what you cannot do is put the cat back in the bag. We have this ability, we can come to this conclusion. We can use techniques to ignore it, but the logic is there and apparent. X leads to Y, so prevent X. X = birth and Y= all the contingent and structural harms for a new person. What is the collateral damage? People sad that they don't have kids and that they cannot project some future person that does this or that. Is there a pre-existing person that is deprived? No.

You put it very clearly. Logos against Eros; it's all very Freudian. You speak for logos, and I speak for Eros. This gives you the advantage, as I have to fight with your weapons in the virtual world, but if we met in the empirical world I would destroy you with a caress.

So the question I need to ask, I suppose, is what are these 'factors that induce one to act', that are not ideas projected as goals and that you think of as motives and I do not? — unenlightened

This is not a question which is easily answered. The reason I suggested differentiating between the goals and the motivation, near the beginning of the thread, is because I see motivation as that which inspires one to achieve one's goals. And this is different from the goal itself. Motivation is associated with things like "ambition", "spirit", and "passion". You may be correct in saying that when we speak of "motives", as particular things, we refer to the particular goals which appear to motivate us, but when we speak of motivation we refer to the courage or ambition required in overcoming obstacles in the effort to achieve the goals. So I don't think it's really the goals which motivate us, but the passion which we feel for the goals. This is conviction, or determination, the strength with which we adhere to our principles. That I believe is the true motivator, rather than what we refer to as "the motive", or goal itself.

But never mind, as long as we are clear that it is not ideas, or indeed any thought based factor, but something in the physical nature of a plant that it grows towards the light, or makes seeds or responds to the environment in all sorts of ways that we can make sense of in terms of evolutionary function, but the plant itself cannot consider at all. — unenlightened

Is it correct to refer to this spirit as something in the physical nature of the living being? If we reference the Platonic tripartite person, spirit or passion takes an intermediate position between the material body, and the immaterial mind.

A plant's genes encode a repertoire of automatic responses to environmental stresses, that have the effect of making it adaptive to the environment in ways that aid survival. If you want to call these responses motivated, well I sort of understand. And humans have similarly 'built in' responses, that in my language, I tend to use terms such as 'instinct' and 'reflex' for. Propensities to act that one can be aware of and think about, but which originate in the body without thought. Thus hunger is a physical condition that provokes suckling, or crying; curiosity provokes exploration and learning. Drought provokes spinach to run to seed. I call these responses spontaneous because they are unthought. — unenlightened

Yes, I think this is where we get our ambition from, we are born with it, it is instinctual. We do not learn how to be ambitious or passionate about things, either we have that spirit, or we do not. And I think we see this in other animals and plants as well, some are more spirited (motivated) than others. Would you really believe that this ambition is an automatic response encoded by the genes? What if one identical twin is more motivated than the other?

So per my earlier example, but in your language, thirst motivates drinking, but thought motivates the modification of behaviour from drinking some water to making tea, based on remembered previous experience. And one might say that biology, or evolution is motivated to provoke thought as a means to increase the diversity of responses through just such modification by learning. But in humans, thought reaches such a level that it can become wholly antagonistic to the motives of life that give rise to it, and this is the sad condition in which we find ourselves; that the thought that modifies the instinct to run to seed, to delay it rather than accelerate it perhaps, becomes anti-natalism, and wholly opposed to life. — unenlightened

I quite agree with this passage. Could we say that thought mitigates ambition and motivation? So instead of running to get some water as soon as you are thirsty, because you are a highly motivated person, you take the time to make tea instead. But if we follow Plato, he'll let us know that ambition works the other way as well. If you have an idea which you strongly believe in, this will strengthen your ambition and determination. If you believe you are dehydrated you probably wouldn't take the time to make tea. So thought will sometimes soften your motivation, but other times strengthen it. If a person cannot decide when to mitigate, or when to strengthen, one's ambition, or makes the wrong decisions concerning this, it is a sad condition.

How and when do we often move without having the goal to move - when we have a nervous twitch or something? — Harry Hindu

Any time we do something habitual we move without having the goal to make that movement. When I'm walking I'm moving my legs without having the goal to move the legs. My goal might be to get somewhere, or just to wander, but each time I take a step when I'm walking, I do not form the goal of taking that step.

I asked, can you be motivated without a goal and vice versa? — Harry Hindu

I thought the answer to this question is obvious from what I've been arguing. I've been arguing that you need to be motivated to create a goal, but motivation may produce things other than goals.

What is motivation? Where does it come from? Why do we do what we do? — Gotterdammerung

I think these are two separate questions. 'Motivation' is a word we use for reasons we ascribe for our behaviour. 'Why we do what we do' is best answered scientifically, or with a shrug, but a well-informed shrug - one, say, by shoulders whose resident person has read plenty of good novels.

How and when do we often move without having the goal to move - when we have a nervous twitch or something? — Harry Hindu


Any time we do something habitual we move without having the goal to make that movement. When I'm walking I'm moving my legs without having the goal to move the legs. My goal might be to get somewhere, or just to wander, but each time I take a step when I'm walking, I do not form the goal of taking that step. — Metaphysician Undercover

But walking is one of those things that, as adults that have been walking since we can remember, we take for granted. As infants we did have to make deliberate motions to move our legs in specific ways to accomplish walking. This is what happens when we learn new things - it takes practice and concentration. Once we master it, we don't really need to focus on it. We do seem to have that goal of taking the first step. In order to get somewhere, you do initially have the goal of moving your feet from a resting position, just like having the goal to throw a ball, you need to send the signal to the arm to move in a particular way. It seems to me that you can't walk or throw a ball without that initial goal of moving your body to accomplish the primary goal.

I asked, can you be motivated without a goal and vice versa? — Harry Hindu

I thought the answer to this question is obvious from what I've been arguing. I've been arguing that you need to be motivated to create a goal, but motivation may produce things other than goals. — Metaphysician Undercover

How is one motivated to create a goal? Is it your discontent about the way things are currently that motivates one to create a goal? Once you create the goal, it is the goal driving you forward and no longer the discontent because the actions you take are directed towards that specific goal that you wouldn't take if the goal were different. There are many ways to alleviate discontent (different goals one could work towards in alleviating discontent) and each one needs a different order of actions to accomplish it.

Any time we do something habitual we move without having the goal to make that movement. When I'm walking I'm moving my legs without having the goal to move the legs. My goal might be to get somewhere, or just to wander, but each time I take a step when I'm walking, I do not form the goal of taking that step. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is interesting; we haven't talked much about habit. Making tea has become a habit for me, to the extent that it bypasses both the motive of thirst and the goal of drinking tea; it's as automatic as walking. And it illustrates again the inadequacy of the 'every action is the result of desire' thesis. Habits are learned, and once learned become 'autonomous' - that's not quite the right word - unintentional?

One doesn't generally intend to fall over, but when walking one does not intentionally not fall over either. Most of the time it just happens without thought, but if the ground is very rough, one has to become aware of each step and take care. I don't know what we should say - that the motive of not falling is always there, but not conscious, or that it is only there when it is needed. Perhaps it doesn't matter much.

We do seem to have that goal of taking the first step. In order to get somewhere, you do initially have the goal of moving your feet from a resting position, just like having the goal to throw a ball, you need to send the signal to the arm to move in a particular way. — Harry Hindu

Imagine that I am out of milk, and I need milk for my tea, so I decide to walk to the corner store. Off I go. I never develop the goal of moving my feet. The goal is what I want, to get milk. I have choices of how to achieve that goal, so I decide to walk to the store. Walking to the store is the means to the end. Once I've made up my mind, the habit kicks in, but the movements required for walking never enter my mind as part of the goal.

So let's take your example of throwing the ball. Suppose you're a quarterback, and the throw must be precisely timed. You hold the goal, to throw, and you hold the ball, to throw. At the exact right moment, you must pull back and release the ball. The motivating factor for the release is not the goal, because despite having the goal of throwing you continue to hold the ball, perhaps even to the point of getting sacked. The motivating factor appears to be the judgement "now", at which time the habit takes over and the throw is made.

I wouldn't say that it is the "initial goal of moving your body" which is the motivating factor, because you can hold that goal of moving your body, without ever moving. These people who have goals without acting on them, we call unmotivated. It is the impetus of "act now!", which we refer to as motivation. And this is separate from the goal, because it may be applied to any goal. That is why ambitious, motivated people may be motivated toward all sorts of different goals. What makes the person motivated is not the goal itself, it's the person's attitude toward the goal.

How is one motivated to create a goal? Is it your discontent about the way things are currently that motivates one to create a goal? Once you create the goal, it is the goal driving you forward and no longer the discontent because the actions you take are directed towards that specific goal that you wouldn't take if the goal were different. There are many ways to alleviate discontent (different goals one could work towards in alleviating discontent) and each one needs a different order of actions to accomplish it. — Harry Hindu

A goal is a mental object, like any conception or idea. It must be conceived. To produce a goal requires thought, and thinking is an activity which requires motivation. I think it is a mistake to represent the goal as driving you forward, because the goal does not drive you forward, it may just sit there in your mind. It is your dedication to achieving the goal, and the will to act, which drives you forward, not the goal itself. The goal itself is a passive thing with no causal power.