Simon,
Jamesh wrote:
All words are an arbitary (dependant on one's perspective) limitation of that which is infinite.
Simon: Couldn't you say the same about numbers?
Yep, anything in the brain that is of a symbolic nature, is. So all concepts and all mental images would be.
Quote:
Me: Because everything is interconnected, there really are no absolutely objective 'Ones", but our minds can create the concept because essentially that is all [the concept is] is - a tool of causal evaluation - it determines causal values relevant to the self
Simon: I don't think a concept is capable of doing that.
Ok, sorry, the "it" was not the concept - I was referring to the brain, as in "…that is all the brain is…"
I think the factor that determines causal values, is feeling.
Well, it is not "the" only factor but it is the most directly relevant, yes.
There is no logical reason to be logical.
There is the logic that forms from empirical observation.
For some people thinking logically feels like the right thing to do.
Because for those actions taken where thinking logically was observed in the past to result in a positive outcome, values relating to proecessing things logically, have been set to positive.
Positive values will induce chemicals that give one thoughts of feelings good. These chemicals can actually temporarily turn off the pain emotions - "laughter is the best medicine".
Quote:
That is the mind at it's most basic - post that comes subsidiary evaluations of relativity, namely BOTH how one thing is different from another and similar to some other other. There is a structural build up of concepts, that instinctually commences in the womb (hunger, touch etc) - eventually a dynamic mental grid forms from which generalisations can occur.
Was there a typo in the paragraph above? I couldn't make any sense out of it.
Fair enough, but my attempt to explain further will probably just confuse you more.
The brain builds up a set of simple foundational concepts. I guess we could call these foundations "Nouns", they are observations of physical things.
In a baby or foetus, the first concept would be "the self". It is aware of the as yet unnamed thing called the self. This thing, the self, is created by subconscious thought, by what is going on in the background of the mind. It then experiences other things, the womb, sounds etc. These are stored as memories, and given "keys", mental symbols that representative certain things. The brain however is an interconnected unit. Memories are stored in a way that links one memory to another. As part of this process it links emotionally related memories (symbols of past experience) to these things. One's foundational memories are their strongest, but the strength of the emotional values linked to them may alter over time. Emotional values are replenish-able memories, a kind of habit dependant memory system.
Memories are linked in a three dimensional way. Foundational memories are more like "nucleus" memories, they link out in all directions from a centre. When sufficient foundational blocks are in place, rational thought can begin to occur. Rational thought starts when links are developed between, the foundational blocks, when the brain compares how one memory block is like or dissimilar to another, and forms new memories that identify differences and similarities. We can now conceptually differentiate, compare and generalise.
In terms of aiding survival, this differentiation and comparison will be most beneficial if it done as conscious thoughts directly associated with whatever one is experiencing at the time. The affects of evolution produced a Commander to do this comparison, and this Commander is our frontal lobes, which has massive capabilities to compare and adjust memories. Our thinking brain is not reliant on emotional instincts for valuation, but simply on the logic required for basic comparison. Although it is not reliant on emotional valuations, it will of course be constantly evaluating such feelings and emotions - they form part of the data stream of current experience.
The funny thing about instincts is that the instructions must be recorded in one's DNA. DNA would have to actually contain symbolic images of the experiences it's predecessors had. These symbols do not need to be complex, they can be very abstract, their purpose is simply to induce a certain feeling that instructs the brain that action is required.
DNA does more than just give the instructions to build certain things, but it continue to provide instructions throughout one's life.
This mental grid you speak of seems synonymous with my idea of logic. The entity becomes logical the moment it starts making distinctions. Whereas the generalizations are the result of logic thinking about the sense data, and developing a sense of probability.
Yes.
It all comes from causal effects though - differentiation only comes about by different causal flows affecting the body.
Do you mean that, when I notice that the stove is hot, I am experiencing a different causal flow?
Yes. Or when you feel or sense anything, a pain or a bird, or a desire to concentrate, for example.
There are no effects after all. Causes do not create effects in the sense of effects being a real thing
This doesnt seem to be very meaningful,
For instance, I see no reason why it is not equally true to say:
"There are no causes after all. Effects do not result from causes in the sense of causes being a real thing."
Well to me causes are the only real thing. They cause the flow of the totality.
Effects are just those configurations of causal flows that we can make into finite entities.
They [causes] create causal flows that appear as effects.
Effects result from causal flows that appear as causes.
You see - I don't understand why you are trying to make effects less real then causes. It's either they are both real, or they are both unreal.
It seems to me like you have one foot on the dock and one foot in the boat.
Well I do. One has to. Effects are real in the sense that we can isolate different causal flows, we can identify patterns and name them, but they are not real in terms of having any form of truly existent sense, they are not a separate thing to their causes. Causes do not flow from cause to effect then back to cause again. They are eternally just causes.
I view causes as infinite forces that create change.