What are the physical processes in the brain for? — bahman

If you are asking what they are doing, they are the transmission/receiving mechanism for the mind(s) that permeate the body. The nervous system is the mind's communication network. It too is living.

So you consider ignoring your everyday experience as an approach to discovering the "truth"?

If one wishes to understand the nature of nature, one needs to observe patterns in nature. One such pattern is that when I reach for a cup to grasp it, I indeed great it. It is called developing body/muscle memory. With this one begins to understand how habits are formed by body intelligence.

The action of pushing the button belongs to you — Metaphysician Undercover

If a person is resisting, which means the person's will is moving in a direction away from the button, then this would not be that person's action. The law recognizes intent. What is key is the direction of the intent, and whose force is being applied in that direction. Law, in this regard, understands the nature of human will applied in a specific direction. There is a mind and it is applying force. Outcomes are always uncertain.

It's not a strawman. It's right to the point. Your philosophical approach just ignores your everyday experience in favor of ....

What this reveals is that ALL our causal inferences could be coincidences. That means causality, as we perceive it, could simply be nothing more than a coincidence. We can't know for sure. — TheMadFool

So you are saying that every time I reach for a cup and actually get hold of a cup is just a coincidence?

If there is a causal relationship between the mind and the external world then there is no need to make distinctions between mind and body, or mental vs. physical. — Harry Hindu

The distinction should be between that which is living and that which is dead. The former bring that which is creating and organizing and the later being that which is used to create. I have always found the comparisons of humans to computers, or any dead matter, a bit distasteful.

My preference is to define the concept of thinking so broadly that it refers to a kind of phenomenon that does not have to be accompanied by brain let alone the ability to use language. Most people, however, prefer to think in specifics, so they are inclined to define thinking narrowly as a conscious process that takes place in a brain and is intertwined with language. — Magnus Anderson

However one might define the "brain"(it is impossible), intelligence certainly permeates the whole body.

Why is there a someone? — Joshs

All of life is the result of the same creative process. There is no hierarchy. Just creation and experimentation. This is real Evolution. They are lots of names given to this creative force (yes it is a force just like any other force). God, Laws of Nature, Thermodynamic Imperative, Tychism, Dao, etc. I preferred the simple idea of Mind, since that is what is peering out the eyes seeking to create something new - such as a post on a forum.

"... the "why" question deals with the reason for there being objects of experience at all as opposed to the question of what they are ultimately composed of." — Thorongil

I mean, it is super obvious. There are objects because someone wanted to create them.

Why is up to us.
— Banno

I don't think — Thorongil

It actually is. To create meaning, to have meaning, one must create. No one will do it for you. No one can do it for you.

Choose a specific subject that you are interested in and just begin studying it. Don't study philosophers. Study questions that you have.

The Daoists pretty much disregarded Hindu illusionism thought, as did Buddha who limited his thoughts to how to live a life (The Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path) - which were adopted by Daoists.

There are no Illusions in the sense we are being tricked. It is exactly as it is being perceived, but there is always more that can and will be perceived as we evolve and learn to be more perceptive.

The trouble with illusions, is that it leads to some sort of master-student relationships where the masters role is to (for money) show the student the path past the illusions. Some sort of "enlightenment" (a desire that Buddha would caution against). In other words, it is a marketing gimmick to sell services and create careers.

The Daoism is more independently minded the and as a result, traditional Daoism is very much an independent philosophical journey of observation.

They are real, but their reality is in some sense dependent on the mental or composed of the mental. — Thorongil

Yes, they are real in the sense they are vibrating waves that are forming patterns probably similar to a holographic pattern. But that is all they are. The mind forms shape and qualia as it senses the patterns. What I might sense actually may be quite different from what someone else might sense, but the underlying pattern we are both sensing is the same. As an example, the holographic pattern formed by the interference pattern is nothing like the image that is seen once a reconstructive wave is passed through it. Our brain is creating these reconstructive waves?

Three holographic model of the universe is being embraced by many physicists:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2824/subjective-realism-in-a-holographic-universe#Item_1

but why they are. — Thorongil

They are expressions of the creativity of Mind. However, the Mind it's not relegated to the brain. It permeates throughout all life as waves, within, waves, within waves. One can considered matter as well as imagination as the play tools of the Mind so as to amuse itself. When our minds go unconscious, it rests and there is no time or space to play with. And then the impulse arises to awaken an create.

laws of physics, — Joel Bingham

Are you speaking of something specific or is this just another placeholder for God.

Can you enumerate the Laws of Physics for me? What are you referring to? Are they proscriptive or descriptive? Have they existed forever or do they change?

I

That's your argument, there are no parts? — Sam26

It is not an argument. It is an observation that is easily made by observing a human cadaver.

There are forms, but there are no beginning or ending of the forms. You can try to put same names to forms if you wish but you cannot say where one begins and one ends. Failing to understand this leads to problems in both understanding the universe and life. It is a continuum. Holistic health practitioners of all cultures understand that to understand health, to treat health, one had to consider the whole of body as a complete, indivisible system that interacts with all that is around it.

The human body evolves continuously physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritual as an inseparable whole within a whole. Problems in any areas will cause problems throughout the system, as a traffic jam in a small street in a city can reverberate throughout the whole of the city.

One cannot separate waves from an ocean.

How is it that a cat doesn't have parts, e.g., legs, heart, lung, liver, etc. that work together to achieve higher order functions than any single part alone, and the same can be shown with the tree. — Sam26

There are no parts. It is one wholistic life form. If you look at the human it is one, there are no "parts", i.e. separation, anywhere. And if one wishes to observe even further, they is no separation between the "inside" and the "outside".

To understand the universe, one should use the ocean as a model. There is no separation between waves. This is how the Daoist and Heraclitus original viewed the life and the universe.

time enables change. does time exist? maybe not. — Pollywalls

What is the time (duration) that we experience? It is some change in our memory. Interestingly, these changes can feel longer or shorter depending upon other emotions and feelings. This is time and it is continuous.

This is not to confused with instruments (clocks) that have regular rhythms that fluctuate in space and are used to attempt establish simultaneity of events. As it turns out, this particular practical problem had limitations because clocks have to be synchronized by back and forth signals. But this technological problem should not be confused with the real time of life, which is heterogenous and continuous, and felt differently by each individual. The time (duration) of Life is a personal feeling that is experienced. Failure to understand this leads over with a totally confused perspective of time and life. In other words, a confused ontology where life is somehow depended on clocks, which is absurd

E=MC^2 means — Marchesk

When you use the word mean, that brings the mind into it, and that brings perspective. To you it means one thing. To someone else it means something else.

There are two types of thinking: on is focused on similarities (holism) and the other on differences (reductionism.) I prefer to focus on similarities. — Magnus Anderson

Bohm once wrote that creativity is about finding differences within similarities, similarities within differences, and resolving paradoxes that arise.

Absolutely, by studying the arts, (music, art, dancing, singing, mediation, etc.) and observe. Observation and creativity are the heart and soul of philosophy.

leap that reason cannot justify — unenlightened

Reason would suggest that this exactly what one should recognize. It is definitely keeping accounts of what one is observing.

You are no doubt aware that your idea of people being a herd and allow others to do their thinking for them is an idea (maybe a 'meme') YOU picked up from a different herd. — Bitter Crank

It is possible to derive this from observation. Creativity and individual expression are pretty much suppressed from the time one first enters into the educational system right through their career. The great thing about retirement is that it becomes less so a challenge to experiment with self-expression and creativity - as long as one isn't seeking admiration or acceptance.

My philosophical views are mostly dualist — Jonathan AB

One can take a spiritual, mental, emotional and physical position that Mind (consciousness) and Matter are the same just moving in different directions. Mind is creating (organizing against entropy using stored energy) while Matter has become deadened Mind (that is unable to organize, and this decaying).

Bergson took this position that Matter is deadened Mind as did Peirce. It avoids lots of problems and paradoxes that challenges dualism. Interestingly, the noted architect Louis I. Kahn spoke that matter is deadened light.

It actually is fairly amusing to see how so many
people argue against their very own existence, when all they actually
can really prove to themselves in all sincerity - is that existence. — Jonathan AB

The psychology of denying one's own existence (specifically mind), is rather interesting. I have never been in that space so I don't know what it feels like, but my own suspicion is that no one really feels this way, they just say it for economic reasons (maintain their job security) or role-playing as I use to play a robot when I was young.

premises, which would make for a deductive argument. — Michael

All premises are inductive, which pretty much invalidates all deductive logic. I actually agree. Everything is subject to change.

The leap is that the pattern continues into the invisible future. — unenlightened

It is not a leap. It is brought about by habitual recognition. There are tons of patterns out there, most are of be practical use for practical purposes or are simply not recognized. Perceiving, understanding, and utilizing, and creating new habitual patterns in nature is fundamental because that is precisely what humans (intelligence) do. It is evolution. Babies begin with the process the first time they are fed.

I wanted to build a tiny consciousness into the things of the world — Joshs

Ultimately, it will be very hard to get away from this. Even the deadest of matter, still had a "spark" or impulse within it that creates changed (e.g. decay), until there is nothing left except the fundamental fabric from which belongs. It is like a wave dying and becoming at one with the all encompassing ocean. Science recognizes this phenomenon by inventing the all pervasive "Laws of Nature" as a place holder. Some sort of "panpsychism" exists in all philosophies, even it is hidden within some nomenclature, though, given what happens to anyone who dares take this stand in academia, I said not surprised that placeholder phrases are invented as substitutions.

Once one recognizes qualia (the ability to create and interpret waveforms and vibrations), there is no way to separate the big from the small in quality.

What are the chances that the future will be like the past? — unenlightened

Zero. Refer to Heraclitus. Something is always different. However, similarities are sufficient for practical purposes in many (most?) circumstances for all practical purposes (FAPP).

chances are it will be like the past — unenlightened

I prefer "similar to the past" FAPP.

One only needs to observe and form a pattern of recognition of what is actually transpiring. There is no leap of imagination to some conclusion.

No doubt building on the lead of the cave man who grunted, "Maybe food will come this way." — tim wood

No. Just a good observer like many if the ancients whose lives depended upon astute and practical observations. Hume, merely reiterated was is quite obvious to most people who obseve life as it is actually experienced.

we can depict the world mathematically — Marchesk

Mathematical equations are meaningless symbolics until observations are substituted for variables.

Symbolics are meaningless. I could write this if I wanted:. %*&6&_*"+6. So what?

Symbols are tools that are invented by the Mind. They are used by the Mind to solve practical problems. The Mind invents new symbols when needed to help solve new problems (mathematics is an invention to represent patterns). The Mind makes observations and uses the tools it invented to solve problems. There is always some Mind (perspective) involved when observing and trying to understand or predict behavior(habits) in the universe.

Evolution is not random, it selects from favourable attributes and rejects those which are unfavourable. — Pseudonym

And you know this how?

If this was so, we would all be roaches. Humans would have vanished long ago. Actually they would never have even come into being.

You may not know this, but Darwinism is old hat.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

"We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory of the mechanism of evolution."

"It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection."

Don't buy into this free will clap trap, as this flies in the face of the massive advances in science of the last 250 years which assert determinism. — charleton

It is impossible to find evidence for determinism in science, though some still hold out some hope.

Very simply put, the universe is inherently probabilistic. Period. Hume simply observed this. Quantum Mechanics verified it. Actually, Heraclitus noticed this thousands of years ago.

This seems to make our claims of knowledge groundless and any assertions of probability merely cumulative of previous experiences and hence subjective or psychological. — Perplexed

The universe is inherently probabilistic.. What we observe or measure are approximations. Everything is continuously changing. Knowledge might be viewed as a recognition of patterns that are always subject to change, some changes more likely than others, especially when it comes to the behavior of life forms since life forms are able to make choices and willfully change direction.

A philosopher is a person who wonders about the nature of nature and of life and seeks to find patterns that will inform him/her with a deeper understanding of the meaning of it all.

But getting back to the issue of intelligent design, how could atoms and molecules have such complex behavior patterns in the absence of any sort of underlying physical structure? — CasKev

I agree. There is a creative, intelligent vibration that is imbued in the fabric of the universe. If one wishes too externalize it from himself/herself, it can be called God or the Laws of Nature. There is no way to get way from a creative intelligence or Mind.

certain ways just because. Panpsychism, as I understand it, says that everything has a mind of sorts. — CasKev

The "just because" just so happens to act in exactly the same manner as a creative universal Mind or a God. It is a matter of taste.

The major difference is that with Laws of Nature and God, the person (who is making his/her choice of please) is transferring all choices and volition to an outside force. Psychologically this is a big deal. One who adopts Mind recognizes the inner intelligence (retains choice and volition) as well as greater (external) intelligence, there being no possible gap in between. Again, the psychological ramifications are important.

I tend to think that consciousness and self-awareness can only exist in our physical world when there is a brain to produce/hold it. — CasKev

As I mentioned elsewhere, the concept of a "brain" bring situated in any given area of the body is as antiquated as the image of solid particles. The enteric brain in the gut is well established, and almost any one involved with arts our sports is well aware of "muscle memory" and intelligence that permeates the body (as do those who practice meditative Eastern art).

I can't see how there could be consciousness or self-awareness at this level. ( — CasKev

Those who are involved with the natural healing process are well aware of healing intelligence at the cellular level. Bacteria and viruses exhibit their own form of intelligence, mutating to survive. At the mist rudimentary level, intelligence is a adaptive vibration that communicates and receives.

but it's hard to imagine them feeling pain, or having awareness of existence. — CasKev

What they may be feeling is impossible to say but experiments reveal they do feel.

Life is very interesting in all forms.

At the deepest level there is no solidity anywhere in nature. We feel "forces". That is all. The mind it's fundamentally all about feeling.

how could these 'laws of nature' simply arise — CasKev

To be or not to be, that is the question.

Call it what you will, the "intelligent, creative mind" is always there in some form. How you feel it is a matter of taste. Is there any difference between panpsychism and the Laws of Nature?

Putting aside God as irrelevant ....

There is only creation, i.e. experiments with wave forms, that begin in humans when the baby first waves his/her hands and continues throughout life.

Perfection/imperfection is a game people play to amuse/pass their time alive.