The Axiomatic Self

[Papoon]

Of course evolution and genetics have designed the brain such that its activity creates the process which we call the mind. Of course the evolutionary process is completely within the laws of nature. So once again we are within naturalism.

Also its well known that the brain has no software. The hardware-software distinction is a peculiarity of human made machines precisely because they are designed from the outside-in so to speak. The brain develops through the actions of the genetic code from the inside (in a cooperative framework within a community of neurons) and hence the hardware and the software are fully intermingled.

"Of course evolution and genetics have designed the brain such that its activity creates the process which we call the mind"

Evolution and genetics design stuff ?
That is a theistic belief masked as materialism.
The theory of evolution does not include intention. That is more like pantheism, pandeism, or panentheism.

 

[sayak83]

"Of course evolution and genetics have designed the brain such that its activity creates the process which we call the mind"

Evolution and genetics design stuff ?
That is a theistic belief masked as materialism.
The theory of evolution does not include intention. That is more like pantheism, pandeism, or panentheism.

Design can be an automated natural process or a directed process by an agent. When one says that "Water is flowing", one does not thereby mean that water is an animated subject that is capable of intentional movement. Similar "natural design".

 

[Papoon]

Design can be an automated natural process or a directed process by an agent. When one says that "Water is flowing", one does not thereby mean that water is an animated subject that is capable of intentional movement. Similar "natural design".

No. Design implies intention, and intention implies a conscious entity. You said evolution designed the brain, and I pulled you up on that because I have seen countless examples of this attribution of intention re evolution. You may not realise it, but your choice of words reveals closet deism !

 

[sayak83]

No. Design implies intention, and intention implies a conscious entity. You said evolution designed the brain, and I pulled you up on that because I have seen countless examples of this attribution of intention re evolution. You may not realise it, but your choice of words reveals closet deism !

You are mistaken. Evolutionary mechanism is a design process that has no intention or foresight. Many words take on new meanings as our understanding about the world increases. Non-intentional design through evolution is one such process.

 

[atanu]

"I" requires a foundational basis from which the mental construct of "I" is based upon.

That foundation itself, however lacks that particular identity of "I" as it's a composite from which the mind and subsequent identity arises, and solidifies "I" as if no such composite exists.

Let us examine the bold part. If you have known this foundation that lacks so-called particularity of "I", yet, you must have been an aware witness of that 'foundation'? So, an aware self must have witnessed the so-called 'composite' foundation?

So, how does one claim an absence and a knowledge in same breath?

(Some get angry at such questions).

 

[Papoon]

You are mistaken. Evolutionary mechanism is a design process that has no intention or foresight. Many words take on new meanings as our understanding about the world increases. Non-intentional design through evolution is one such process.

Many words take on new meanings as we pretend to dispose of mystical inclinations and magical thinking.

Design implies intention.

If you don't mean intention, use another word.

 

[Papoon]

Like mindf$%kingly-miraculous-sentient-accident LOL

 

[sayak83]

Many words take on new meanings as we pretend to dispose of mystical inclinations and magical thinking.

Design implies intention.

If you don't mean intention, use another word.

You don't control how the English language evolves through usage over time. Neither can i. Sorry. It has been established within biological (and computational) sciences that evolutionary processes (or algorithms) be considered as a specific class of design processes (or algorithms) that have no intentional structure in its make up. I cannot change it, just as I cannot change the convention of using Latin words so extensively in biological nomenclature or the QWERY system in keyboards. Inconvenience is regretted.

 

[Papoon]

Bioalgorithmicplasmagenesis ha ha

My point remains - even many scientific and technical thinkers reify evolution and use language (in ordinary social conversation) which is deistic, and def indicates a worldview (possibly inadequately examined) involving 'design' in the long established sense of that word.

In other words, despite their claims to the contrary, an NLP-type analysis of the language of many atheists reveals an intractable belief in a ghost in the machine.

They just deny that to avoid looking mystical to their peer group.

 

[Papoon]

Not to mention purpose....apparently once enough chemicals are involved in a cluster****, they want to survive !

 

[Papoon]

intentions,
ultimate purpose,
desire.

creeping into materialism via crafty recasting of vocabulary

I'm not arguing for or against materialism or mysticism BTW

I'm just fascinated by the two faced dances people do

 

[sayak83]

Bioalgorithmicplasmagenesis ha ha

My point remains - even many scientific and technical thinkers reify evolution and use language (in ordinary social conversation) which is deistic, and def indicates a worldview (possibly inadequately examined) involving 'design' in the long established sense of that word.

In other words, despite their claims to the contrary, an NLP-type analysis of the language of many atheists reveals an intractable belief in a ghost in the machine.

They just deny that to avoid looking mystical to their peer group.

No. Its a lamentable limitation of the human language whose structure developed when an animistic understanding of the world prevailed. Actions without agents, Movement without movers, events without cause and design without intentions are not things easily explainable within the format of ordinary human language. Its quite easily explainable through math. So we have had to redefine significant amount of words and the way they are used in science in order to retain both truth and intelligibility. This is why math (and computer codes and data systems) are the language of science, not English.

 

[sayak83]

Not to mention purpose....apparently once enough chemicals are involved in a cluster****, they want to survive !

Correct. Here is the second level description.

Chemical network exists in nature whose products assemble by the laws of chemistry to create copies of the original network.
These copies have slight variations which adversly or favorable impact their robustness to environmental perturbations.
In an environment that has variations, those networks that survive such perturbations last longer on average and hence create greater number of copies.
Thus robustness to environmental change increases with successive generations of replicative networks.
Thus after a sufficient time, one detects features in the network that have properties so as to sustain the networks through adverse environments.
Thus a want to survive evolves in the networks.

A third level description will involve math involving PDE systems and their sensitivity metric.

 

[Papoon]

Excellent. You have made my point eloquently.

Correct. Here is the second level description.

Chemical network exists in nature whose products assemble by the laws of chemistry to create copies of the original network.
These copies have slight variations which adversly or favorable impact their robustness to environmental perturbations.
In an environment that has variations, those networks that survive such perturbations last longer on average and hence create greater number of copies.
Thus robustness to environmental change increases with successive generations of replicative networks.
Thus after a sufficient time, one detects features in the network that have properties so as to sustain the networks through adverse environments.
Thus a want to survive evolves in the networks.

A third level description will involve math involving PDE systems and their sensitivity metric.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Let us examine the bold part. If you have known this foundation that lacks so-called particularity of "I", yet, you must have been an aware witness of that 'foundation'? So, an aware self must have witnessed the so-called 'composite' foundation?

So, how does one claim an absence and a knowledge in same breath?

(Some get angry at such questions).

If you notice, "I" is temporary. Yet while it's there, for as long as it lasts, takes on a view of self identity, of substance, which it is inclusive of the body which of course is capable of retaining knowledge through the enablement of mind.

The body itself harbors no such self identity being it's a composite of cells and atoms, lacking the self identifying mind that it cumulatively brings. It harbors no knowledge respective of the mind that we associate with as being "I".

The Buddhist definition of emptiness reaffirms the reality by which this valid "I" rises and falls.

Body and mind. Its construct, solidity, duration, and subsequent falling away as with the knowledge gained and lost.

 

[atanu]

If you notice, "I" is temporary. Yet while it's there, for as long as it lasts, takes on a view of self identity, of substance, which it is inclusive of the body which of course is capable of retaining knowledge through the enablement of mind.

The body itself harbors no such self identity being it's a composite of cells and atoms, lacking the self identifying mind that it cumulatively brings. It harbors no knowledge respective of the mind that we associate with as being "I".

The Buddhist definition of emptiness reaffirms the reality by which this valid "I" rises and falls.

Body and mind. Its construct, solidity, duration, and subsequent falling away as with the knowledge gained and lost.

Thank you for the insightful explanation.

My point, however, remains. There must exist a valid mode of knowing the rise and fall of 'I', or else, this claim remains an unsubstantiated claim.

 

[arcanum]

You guys are making my head hurt

 

[Papoon]

You guys are making my head hurt

That's just the kind of guys we are

 

[Papoon]

Thank you for the insightful explanation.

My point, however, remains. There must exist a valid mode of knowing the rise and fall of 'I', or else, this claim remains an unsubstantiated claim.

I think NowhereMan is saying that the I which knows the body (or the aggregates if you prefer) arises and passes away, but is not an entity.

Is that about right NM ?

 

[atanu]

I think NowhereMan is saying that the I which knows the body (or the aggregates if you prefer) arises and passes away, but is not an entity.

Is that about right NM ?

And I am pointing to an observer of "I" (in whatever form the "I" may appear), its rise and its fall.