Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Major_Pause_7866 t1_it43blg wrote

Reply to comment by Gentlerwiserfree in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | October 17, 2022 by BernardJOrtcutt

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I suppose my point is man's abilities are evolved abilities - or they're not. If you dismiss injection of self-reflection by a higher power, what else can they be? We can only jump so high. Live so long, Think so far.

1

TMax01 t1_it9imlf wrote

>man's abilities are evolved abilities - or they're not.

A false dichotomy.

>If you dismiss injection of self-reflection by a higher power, what else can they be?

The ability to dismiss false dichotomies, I suppose. Need they be more? Are you saying that because self-determination is not a magic power, it is therefore not real?

Please don't take those questions as merely dismissive rhetoric, I think they should be considered and answered. I entirely agree with you and empathize with your perspective, I sympathize with your premise. But you're ignoring the possibility that reason itself is an evolved ability, and I think I know why. There are three reasons, two of which I'll explain.

First, you rightfully believe that free will has to be a gift from God or else it doesn't exist. This is true, but it is also true that self-reflection doesn't require free will, just self-determination.

Second, you assume "reason" is logic. This is false, but it is also the assumption that modern and postmodern (and neopostmodern) philosophy (apart from theistic morality) has relied on (and been trapped by, it is a "tar pit") since the time of Socrates.

I had the same position you do, felt the same frustration, and was stuck on the same problems, years ago. Plus, I was even more desperate than you are to find answers, for personal reasons. And believe it or not, I managed to extricate myself from the tar pit by finding answers. I've been trying to help other people do the same ever since. Consider it plausible even if it isn't certain. What have you got to lose?

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

0

Major_Pause_7866 t1_itaacbh wrote

Wonderful reply. Thank you. And you're right about the false dichotomy. And clever rebuttal.

2

FillMyKraken69 t1_itdgbpz wrote

I believe self awareness is just a small part of the brain like a cog in a system and we aren’t a being or person but a small function in survival. And I believe I “die” each time I zone out. The part of the brain we exist in transfers information across the brain and we do not consciously exist until something stressful our mind cannot properly comprehend comes into play. And like a computer we can retrieve memories from our mind to help make choices and create scenarios. But ultimately it is all we can do before fading out. No matter how stressful something is, do it enough and u zone out. It is a”sad” reality but like the cat in the box, if u wait 100 years to accept the cat is dead, it won’t change the state of the cat. Feedback is appreciated, I’m just beginning my philosophical journey.

1

TMax01 t1_itdueb4 wrote

>I believe self awareness is just a small part of the brain

Self-awareness isn't a part of the brain at all. But it is the most important property of our brains, regardless of what proportion of our neural processes related directly to conscious thoughts. Survival is a minuscule consideration, in comparison; even creatures without brains survive and apparently act with volition.

>And I believe I “die” each time I zone out.

Then you are using that word very differently than everyone else does. Your outlook seems bleak and cynical, which isn't unusual these days, but isn't as necessary as your postmodern analysis suggests.

>It is a”sad” reality but like the cat in the box, if u wait 100 years to accept the cat is dead, it won’t change the state of the cat.

I presume you are referring to Schrödinger's cat. That cat remains alive no matter how long you wait to open the box. But it doesn't die until you cause it to assume that state by opening the box; half the time, anyway.

> Feedback is appreciated, I’m just beginning my philosophical journey.

Start with this.

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

1

FillMyKraken69 t1_itgr0lv wrote

Idk how to reply like that. But Part 1 I believe memory would be the most important part. And nonetheless our consciousness is just a physical part of the brain. Survival is still the foundation all philosophy comes from. We just seem to focus on the why and quality of parts.

Part 2 I’m trying to get to absolute root of why? In all actions. I suppose the necessity of my thoughts and conclusions hasn’t bin a concern of mine.

Part 3 The cat is still dead even if we do not know it is dead. The presumption of our awareness having any affect on the universe is backed by the same reason as magic

Part 4 Thank you for the recommendation and time. It is very appreciated

1

TMax01 t1_itgwrzk wrote

>Idk how to reply like that.

While creating a reply comment, select the appropriate text in the comment you're replying to. Use the pop-up menu to choose "Quote". Or, just type a 'greater than sign' (>) and then type or paste the text you want to reply to.

>And nonetheless our consciousness is just a physical part of the brain.

I'll presume you meant 'emergent property' rather than "part", and ignore the attendant question of whether an intellectual abstraction qualifies as "physical". The issue then is whether consciousness is an integral aspect of the [human] brain or is an epiphenomena (an inconsequential side effect). Survival is not the foundation of philosophy, it is merely a prerequisite for philosophizing. The substance and topic of philosophy are all those aspect of existence beyond mere "survival".

>I’m trying to get to absolute root of why?

In POR this (both the question and the answer) is identified and described as the ineffability of being. The conundrum you face is familiar to every four year old and their parents: questions of "why" can only be answered by statements that might satisfy either party, but never actually resolve the issue (teleology) because that answer in turn can simply prompt another query as to 'why?'.The approach conventional science and religion uses is referred to in POR as "turtles all the way down".

>I suppose the necessity of my thoughts and conclusions hasn’t bin a concern of mine.

It really should be. And I think it actually is, or you would not be here trying to discuss philosophy. The necessity of your consciousness is the absolute root of "why".

>The cat is still dead even if we do not know it is dead.

You are simultaneously misrepresenting the truth of the gedanken and misunderstanding the philosophical implications of that truth. The cat is not dead until the superstate of being both alive and dead collapses to a finite state of either living or dead. Your assumption (which seems reasonable in reality but is physically incorrect in terms of quantum mechanics and Schrödinger's Cat,) that it is dead even if we do not know it yet, is inaccurate. Schrödinger's cat isn't dead until you open the box to find out whether it is alive or not.

>The presumption of our awareness having any affect on the universe is backed by the same reason as magic

Up until you start talking about that damned cat, meaning you are referring to quantum physics rather than biological organisms, sure. But metaphysical uncertainty is real even outside of the spooky weirdness of QM. It's just easier to be in denial about that until the empirical experiments and math of physics makes it undeniable, forcing you to confront it's reality. You say your awareness cannot have any effect on the universe, but that assumption is backed by the same reason as a baby who thinks that things stop existing when they can no longer be seen.

The resolution to all this requires an unconventional perspective, which POR provides. The effect of your consciousness only needs to have a minuscule impact on the universe in one very particular and specific case in order to have an effect on the universe. It does not have to be a general effect or affect, as in "magic", to be real. That one real and necessary absolute root of being, where your consciousness can change what happens in the physical universe, is self-determination. Since the conventional approach you are relying on for your thinking can only explain self-determination as "free will" or an illusion, your approach fails, because it is neither.

Thanks again for your time. Hope, it helps.

1

FillMyKraken69 t1_ith2yl2 wrote

I’m still to new for this and like half of this flew over my head, I’ll return someday.

1