Sapius wrote:You see, I’m not an academically trained philosopher, nor am I highly educated, but I believe conclusions belong to the concluder, irrelevant of external influences, which I don’t deny.
It is external influences interacting with internal influences that will determine whether or not you even want to come to a conclusion. They might have no bearing on the current outcome, but that is because a series of emotions/memories/values has lead you directly to conclude that right now this precise situation requires the effort to arrive at a mathematically consistent and logically outcome to the best of your ability.
Conclusions belong to the concluder, no doubt, there is no doubt that that specific interworkings of biology, memory, emotion and thought are completely unique and wholly belong to the one individual, but that does not mean they do not follow specific rules, that does not mean they are free from the interaction the brain has evolved to allow, and it especially does not mean that one is necessarilly "free" at any point at any time to come to any conclusion.
The complexities of the brain allow us to be aware of ourselves, but ourselves is a biological machine. Our awareness itself influences the brain, plays a primary role in manipulating information, but that manipulation is governed by "how we feel", "what we think", "our values" etc. which are all influences manipulated by biology and mind. The body is a source of input of sensory information and biological impulses, the brain a mechanism of observation and information interaction. We might be aware and individual but it does not follow that we are necessarily free.
Sapius wrote:Sure, the system is causality, but there is a factor of “I†in between; there is a particular thing thinking/reasoning, and such capabilities produce comparable individualities, that logically asses the need and desires of a Self. I might not put the kettle on; there might be number of reasons not directly dependent on some inherent "causality", but my particular Self in between, although in a causal manner pertaining to a particular self.
There absolutely does exist the factor of "I" inbetween. It is so absolutely fine tuned into the workings of the human mind that even those that claim to ignore it or to have removed it still behave exactly as they would should it exist completely at the forefront of their minds.
But we must understand this "Self" in its proper context and not merely become obsessively fascinated by its presence in our own minds. The "Self" is an inherent feature in human brains, fundamental to human brains, therefore it is a product of evolution. A heightened sense of "Self" combined to a powerful intellect capable of understanding, and exploiting, the world and combined to a physiology capable of fine manipulation has essentially become the most powerful tool for surviving and thriving the natural environment, indeed for operating within this Universe, that we know of. It may prove to be "self" defeating in the long run, who knows. The "Self" is essential for forming and understanding relationships between things. At the fundamental level awareness of being able to observe and awareness of what you appear to be observing is the first and primary distinction, giving rise to the first and primary conceptions of order and understanding.
When viewed from this perspective what you have then is a "Self" that is governed from inception not only by rules but immediatly by the influences created upon the "Self" by those rules. Without observation of "Self the perceiver" as distinct from "object of perception" there is nothing for the awareness to conceptualise, to think upon. Without having both "Self the perceiver" and "object of perception" one cannot formulate the first sense of understanding, and one cannot draw distinction. Indeed one cannot be other than a conduit of unfiltered, unprocessed noise.
Once the system of filtration and process begins, it becomes a primary source of further input, always governed by the awareness that the system allowing observation is fundamental to the entire process, and it is this system allowing observation that the infantile "Self" most readilly identifies with, because it is the system that allowed the first conception of "Self".
In evolutionary terms, a human being that does not formulate a sense of "Self" from the outset is one least capable of surviving in a natural environment. The brain is inherantly formed to produce this sense of "Self" the moment the first data arrives within it, for this allows distinction and conception, produces understanding and relationship, and creates a human pyschology that is of extreme capability within the natural world. Those born lacking in this fundamental relationship are for us now objects of deep fascination, but at the same time they are individuals wholly unsuited to operation within the world as we both know it, and have now formed it.
Any choice you appear to make is akin to an aspect of a maelstrom reaching crescendo within your mind. Which you observe and act upon. Any idea you appear to formulate is like a pattern formed by multicoloured inks in motion, which you observe, and recognise. These same mechanisms which you are capable of observing, are also capable of determining how you observe, why you observe, what you are looking for, and how focused you wish to be. The results of your observations, ideas and decisions are released into the mind like another ink.
Think on this, if the intensities, quantities, and variations of "ink dyes" are equated to molecular compounds, electrical signals, and all the machinery of the brain, then the brain is an utterly vast set of interacting patterns. The deepest recesses of the brains biology could hold the slowly metabolising remains of decades old memories, that are themselves still slighty in some small way interacting with their surroundings in a subtle fashion, untill both a particular thought environment is recreated by the brain that produces an awareness of recognition, and that metabolising memory suddenly becomes a chemical to which vast realisations and implications are suddenly recognised to have a profound relevance. A new, interpretated memory will be created, the original may never actually reappear in its true whole form, but the mind itself is aware not of the specifics of the memory, but of the importance of the implications its presence had.
Sapius wrote:I am not in absolute control, but consciousness provides me with certain degrees of control. To say the least, as a thing, am I not the CAUSE of something else at the same time? I am like a dog on a leash and can move around as far as my leash allows, but am bound however.
You are absolutely a cause, but you cannot choose to cause. You simply are what you are. "Self" is almost completely identified with "Free Will" but the idea of "Free Will" itself is fallacious, for if it is free it is without influence but if it is will then it is the combined desire of all influence. Will is not choice, Will is the relationship between desire, focus, resolve, intent. Will is the combined unity of every cognition, emotion and perception that reveals your entire relationship to an object of desire. Where there is Will, there can never be a choice.
Every choice is the result of influences in the mind achieving an equilibrium in relationship to the strength, frequency and implication of the underlying influences of those influences. Your bladder gets that bit more full, the signal travels up your body to your brain, and you immediatly formulate a conclusion: I will attempt to ignore this discomfort untill I finish this post as I do not want my train of thought interrupted, or I will go quickly and remove this distracting nuisance. What matters and determines the outcome is the intensity of the distraction + all other things that contribute to make up the content of your mind.
Sapius wrote:Well, I gave you a glimpse of my interpretation above. Average can enjoy his own of course, as do I. I don’t/can’t deny a self, however non-inherent that that may be. Generally it is from an absolutely different perspective, but people seem to enjoy confusing others just to look smart. Why don't they structure sentences so there is no ambiguity?
The denial of self is psychologically motivated (ironically) not factually true. The existence of "Self" is not negated by the fact it is an illusion within the mind, but explained by it. Anyone can claim the self is irrelevant or an illusion, and in some contexts be accurate, although these are subjective contexts of subjective relevance. Anyone that speaks on the "Self" but does not elaborate on its biopsychological origin, importance and implication is speaking only about their "Self".
My sense of individuality, whether my individuality or anothers, is impacted or inconsistent in no way by Average's statements. I just reject his anlysis as incomplete.
