Origin of the Mind/Mental States

[Sparko]

Do you think about nothing often?

Apparently you do. Or not think at all.

[lee_merrill]

Well what sort of "choices" would you call them seeing as you have acknowledged that our decisions are influenced by our subconscious memories of past events?

Somewhat-free-choices, I guess...

Best wishes,
Lee

[Tassman]

Somewhat-free-choices, I guess...

So you are talking about 'compatibilism' not 'free-will' per se. Compatibilism recognises that our actions have causes, but allows for actions caused by our own choices rather than external forces.

[Tassman]

How can you not understand that you have to reason out the idea that observation is a way to find out facts before you can observe things to find out facts? You have to be able to think before you can come up with any sort of "scientific method"

.

You cannot reason about the facts of say, the moon's existence unless you are aware that the moon exists. By definition "science is knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.” Merriam Webster.

Thinking/reasoning always comes first. And you can't reduce it any further

No, "awareness" based upon the observation of the world around us always comes first.

[Sparko]

You cannot reason about the facts of say, the moon's existence unless you are aware that the moon exists. By definition "science is knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.” Merriam Webster.



No, "awareness" based upon the observation of the world around us always comes first.

You have to use reason to be AWARE. What is the difference between say a camera that is observing things and a person who is observing things? Both are using observation. Only one is AWARE. Why? Because we can reason.

Reason is thinking, Tassman. You think before you can make any conclusions about anything. Thinking for sentient beings like humans is our primary function. We can't conclude or observe anything without reasoning first. Although with your constant denial of this basic fact I am starting to wonder about you.

[JimL]

You have to use reason to be AWARE.

No, you do not, you use your eyes to be aware.

What is the difference between say a camera that is observing things and a person who is observing things? Both are using observation. Only one is AWARE. Why? Because we can reason.

A camera isn't observing things, the user of the camera is.

Reason is thinking, Tassman. You think before you can make any conclusions about anything.

Being aware of the moon is not making conclusions about anything.

Thinking for sentient beings like humans is our primary function. We can't conclude or observe anything without reasoning first. Although with your constant denial of this basic fact I am starting to wonder about you.

No it isn't. If you are blind and have never seen the moon, know nothing about a moon, then you can't think about the moon, but observing the moon, being aware of the moon, is not thinking/reasoning about the moon, it's just observing the moon.

[Sparko]

No, you do not, you use your eyes to be aware.



A camera isn't observing things, the user of the camera is.

Being aware of the moon is not making conclusions about anything.


No it isn't. If you are blind and have never seen the moon, know nothing about a moon, then you can't think about the moon, but observing the moon, being aware of the moon, is not thinking/reasoning about the moon, it's just observing the moon.

Define what "observe" and "aware" mean, please.

Are you saying blind people can't reason?

[JimL]

Define what "observe" and "aware" mean, please.

It means to experience the object of awareness with the senses.

Are you saying blind people can't reason?

Of course not. If a blind person is told about the moon then he can think about it, but if he suddenly gained sight and looked up and saw the moon doesn't mean he is reasoning over it. He has simply become visually aware of it.

[Tassman]

You have to use reason to be AWARE. What is the difference between say a camera that is observing things and a person who is observing things? Both are using observation. Only one is AWARE. Why? Because we can reason.

No. You are confusing brain function and sensory perception with “reason”. Any sentient creature can be aware of its surroundings, not all can “reason” about them.

Reason is thinking, Tassman. You think before you can make any conclusions about anything. Thinking for sentient beings like humans is our primary function. We can't conclude or observe anything without reasoning first. Although with your constant denial of this basic fact I am starting to wonder about you.

Yes, “Reason is thinking”. It is not the same as the passive awareness of one’s surroundings, which is common to many creatures.

[Sparko]

It means to experience the object of awareness with the senses.

So awareness means awareness? Great definition JimL. Try again. What does "experience" mean? What does "observe" mean? What does "aware" mean?

Of course not. If a blind person is told about the moon then he can think about it, but if he suddenly gained sight and looked up and saw the moon doesn't mean he is reasoning over it. He has simply become visually aware of it.

And when someone tells him about it, didn't that person have to think about it first? How can he speak without thinking? And that other person had to have reasoning capabilities to even know that he was "observing" something. Thinking always comes first. That is why we are different from a camera or a frog looking at the moon. Looking at the moon doesn't suddenly generate reasoning capability in someone's head. It has to exist before he can know he is observing the moon.

[JimL]

So awareness means awareness? Great definition JimL. Try again. What does "experience" mean? What does "observe" mean? What does "aware" mean?


And when someone tells him about it, didn't that person have to think about it first? How can he speak without thinking? And that other person had to have reasoning capabilities to even know that he was "observing" something. Thinking always comes first. That is why we are different from a camera or a frog looking at the moon. Looking at the moon doesn't suddenly generate reasoning capability in someone's head. It has to exist before he can know he is observing the moon.

So what your saying then is that a frog looking at the moon is not aware of what he is seeing?

[Sparko]

So what your saying then is that a frog looking at the moon is not aware of what he is seeing?

correct. He can't reason. He is not self-aware. Neither is a camera.

[JimL]

correct. He can't reason. He is not self-aware. Neither is a camera.

so the frog doesn't see the moon when he looks at it?

[Sparko]

so the frog doesn't see the moon when he looks at it?

He doesn't know it is the moon. He doesn't think at all. So the moon is meaningless to a frog. It takes REASON to even observe the moon and be aware of it. Reason comes first. Without reason you are no more than the frog.

[JimL]

He doesn't know it is the moon. He doesn't think at all.

Well, an infant doesn't know what the moon is either, so what? If they see it they are aware that it is there, they are aware of its existence even if they don't know what it is.

So the moon is meaningless to a frog. It takes REASON to even observe the moon and be aware of it. Reason comes first. Without reason you are no more than the frog.

So what, an object doesn't have to have meaning to one in order for them to be aware of its existence. You apparently don't know what "to reason" means.