The causes and qualities of experience
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
The causes and qualities of experience
(In combining logic with mental phenomena, this OP is a bit longer than usual.) Up for consideration is the question of what kind of thing in the brain, causes an experience to become an experience. Philosophically, having an experience itself has at least two fundamental properties to its existence. In this instance, the succinct descriptions of quantity (Qualia) v. quantity (neurons), or in simple terms, the meta-physical v. physical respectively, is what we will parse in an attempt to find any truth value here.
Many philosophers are tempted, for whatever reason to dichotomize their theories with either/or analysis and deny both/and phenomena relative to the human experience (i.e., the conscious and subconscious minds working together). Much like a cosmological ToE, one should always try, when confronted with opposite’s, not to renounce the other but rather always find ways to see if they can be integrated, together. In this context, the existential descriptions of having an ‘experience’ is that both quantity and quality are all part of one’s feelings and thoughts; there is a convergence of these things. A convergence of one’s will and one’s intellect are part of what the mind processes.
What that might correspond with, are questions about the primacy of causation in the human experience. Meaning, existentially, what would be the causes for, beyond mere instinct, things that keep us alive? What wills us to live and not die? In other words, what quality of life stuff, or things-in-themselves, makes us want to become something?
Other questions might include: what causes us to want to experience ideas? Do we want, need or Will to have experiences? Are some experiences self-organized in nature? I hope to answer some of those questions and more, about some of the distinctions between quantity (physical) and quality (metaphysical) properties of the mind.
I will present an argument about what causes an experience from both a logical and phenomenological view. Starting with a philosophical quote:
No one hitherto has gained such an accurate knowledge of the bodily mechanism, that he can explain all its functions... no one knows how or by what means the mind moves the body, nor how many various degrees of motion it can impart to the body, nor how quickly it can move it. Thus when men say that this or that physical action has its origin in the mind, which latter has dominion over the body, they are using words without meaning, or are confessing in specious phraseology that they are ignorant of the cause of the said action, and do not wonder at it. –Spinoza.
Let’s examine at least two ways to address Spinoza’s quote, first starting with (Kantian) logic.
Logic:
Taking the last phrase first, “and do not wonder at it” is intriguing. Why should we wonder? Does wonder, and its intellectual properties have any biological survival advantages? Is wonder itself a source of enhanced quality (not quantity) of life? And what is this physical ‘object’ of (perception) and experience of ‘wonder’ anyway? Is it a meta-physical quality more than a physical quantity (neurons) in-itself?
In trying to figure out the nature of what causes us to wonder, let’s parse this logically with the infamous proposition “all events must have a cause”. As opposed to analytical propositions, that synthetic a priori proposition is what we call informative, and not purely of a logical nature, yet not completely dependent on empirical information for its truth value. And using logic, most can identify with how causation works; whether it’s in the form of the simple cosmological argument, or a cause that moves the body (dualism/phenomenology), or the cause that starts with a thought about having some goal or purposeful action or behavior, it all comes from a subjective experience perceived as a sense of feeling about wonderment, and the feelings from the Will.
To have an experience that involves the intellect, thoughts and feelings converge. But why is it important that we wonder about causes to begin with? What is its truth value? Well, the obvious answers to its cash-value (as James’ would argue in his pragmatic approach to truth value) is that it indeed has practical applications. For instance, wondering about causation (the synthetic a priori) has implications in the sciences. Most all scientific theories start with synthetic propositions which in-turn can be empirically tested. Real simple right? But what about the a priori part of the proposition?
The a priori part is that ‘thing’ which actually ‘causes’ us to wonder. A fixed, intrinsic, thing-in-itself that causes us to ask or wonder about, stuff. Whether it takes the form of critiquing new products/services and technologies to make them better, or the foregoing uses in the sciences, wonderment is, well, a wonderful thing. It’s the source or cause of things that enhance our quality of life. Does a quality of life have biological survival value when instinct is all that’s necessary to survive?
One’s sense of wonder, combined with self-awareness, intellect, feelings and volition, results in the effects of purposeful existence. There we have the dynamics of cause and effect in the mind. In other words, its corresponding features of our Will to wonder, causes one to have the abilities to enhance their quality of life, as well as much needed purposefulness of same. And that’s one overwhelming thing (thing-in-itself) that keeps us living.
1.Are those foregoing qualities of the mind (the experience of the Will to wonder) all 'quantitatively' physical?
Phenomenology (the ghost in the machine) and quality:
This is where it gets interesting. Now let’s do a quick look-see at the other part (first part) of Spinoza’s quote. The experience of having thoughts that causes one’s will to move their arm, what is all part of that phenomenon (you might wonder)? Well, let’s start with where one’s own stream of conscious thoughts come from. Aside from ‘biologically’ having a thought to scratch an itch (as Searle might argue), we might say that our stream of meta-physical thoughts and ideas flow uninterrupted into our daily lives, particularly noticeable at rest. And at rest, these are mostly thoughts and ideas that happen to us, not by us. Moreover, these self-organized thoughts are simply that; and independent existence absent of control. For instance, you cannot stop this flow, nor can you know the next thought that will arise. What it thinks, will think. You cannot know how long any thought that does arise will stay. And once attention (your Will) is engaged, there is no way to predict how long before it becomes disengaged.
In this sense, man has no control over it; it does what it pleases despite his will, or in spite of him. It will take up subject’s entirely independent of him.
And so, while we were resting, and focused in on that flow of thoughts by consciously breaking that flow with our own sense of Will, that feeling of Will in-turn becomes the cause. From Spinoza’s quote, that’s the thing-in-itself that causes us to want to move our arms. For instance, I can look at you and simultaneously pull money out of my pocket. Or, I will will myself to pick up a book to read because my stream of thoughts had me thinking about something relevant to reading (or even irrelevant to reading). In any case, while undeniably, we need neurons, chemicals, muscles to effect movement, what caused or willed it to happen in the first place, is it the Will in-itself? Yes. Is the Will all quantitatively physical? Surely not.
The mysterious nature of our conscious and unconscious Will which we experience as a human-subject who is in-turn causing it all to happen, is the phenomenal ghost in the machine. Or if you prefer, the metaphysical thing-in-itself.
You may wonder, what is so special about human’s and their self-awareness and their ability to make choices that have no biological Darwinian significance or survival value (like reading books, taking money out of my pocket, computing mathematics, composing music, etc.)?
That question leads us to a quick sojourn of quality (Qualia) phenomena or simply put, having the ability to experience sentience to effect one's own quality of life. While the argument that the primacy of Will and emotions, are the cause of action, other’s seem to think similarly. As such, sceptic/empiricist David Hume famously proclaimed:
An opponent of philosophical rationalists, Hume held that passions rather than reason govern human behavior, famously proclaiming that “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.”
It can be argued that Hume was also a sentimentalist or Voluntarist in that the Will takes primacy over the intellect or pure reason. Our will to act, move, and otherwise become some-thing is causing our minds to enjoy having experiences. Otherwise, simply put, we can easily choose to end those experiences and die if we will ourselves to do so. In that experience, our quality of life once again rears its causational head and takes primacy in our lives. Our quality of life was bad, so we felt the need to end it.
Let’s move on to feelings themselves (Qualia) for a moment, and the concepts associated with them. As a so-called phenomenal example of thoughts and feelings and how they converge, consider how plain-feeling an experience is of thinking about a number.
The thought of the number 3492 feels differently than the thought of 666, as some thoughts may be more neutral than other thoughts, but depending on their context, all thoughts, words and images can register as neutral or otherwise. Or the feeling that one experiences with a thought of my sister's unattractive girlfriend versus my sister as someone who can lend me money, is all quite different. For example, If I needed money I would have feelings of relief knowing that she has money to lend me. Same with simple words like yes or no. The experiences of yes or no can be quite different in-themselves. This is to say, all that corresponds to one having a subjective experience, which also included feelings of love/hate, hot/cold, good music/bad music, good math/bad math, so on and so forth.
As we’ve seen already, the stream of consciousness that includes thoughts and feelings (the ghost in the machine) provides for self-organized instructions that appear in our minds. And those organized instructions are thoughts and feelings that both happen to us and willfully by us.
2. Are those foregoing ‘qualities’ of the mind, which seem to have their own self-organized, independent existence, all ‘quantitatively’ physical? Are they both qualitative and quantitative things-in-themselves?
The answer to the latter is, undeniably yes.
Please feel free to share any and all thoughts, critique's, etc.!
― Albert Einstein
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 755
- Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am
Re: The causes and qualities of experience
It might be of interest to learn the opinion of Sculptor1 for a defence of determinism.
Can you please answer the questions yourself? What do you believe that is the origin of the mentioned 'qualitative' aspects such as a sense of wonder? Do you believe that those experiences are physically caused and/or originate in the brain?
I noticed the following:
However, at the bottom you wrote the following. Perhaps it is a misunderstanding.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 10:42 amIs the Will all quantitatively physical? Surely not.
The mysterious nature of our conscious and unconscious Will which we experience as a human-subject who is in-turn causing it all to happen, is the phenomenal ghost in the machine. Or if you prefer, the metaphysical thing-in-itself.
If it is not a misunderstanding, can you explain why neuroscience it cannot explain yet how the described thoughts or emotions would arise in the mentioned circumstances?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 10:42 am2. Are those foregoing ‘qualities’ of the mind, which seem to have their own self-organized, independent existence, all ‘quantitatively’ physical? Are they both qualitative and quantitative things-in-themselves?
The answer to the latter is, undeniably yes.
If there is to be a non-physical aspect involved, namely the mentioned 'Will', how can it be said that a thought would stand physically separate from that metaphysical factor? And if not, how can your argument be valid?
Philosopher William James - the "father of American psychology" - had the following perspective on free will.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 10:42 amAs we’ve seen already, the stream of consciousness that includes thoughts and feelings (the ghost in the machine) provides for self-organized instructions that appear in our minds. And those organized instructions are thoughts and feelings that both happen to us and willfully by us.
William James developed his two-stage model of free will. In his model, he tries to explain how it is people come to the making of a decision and what factors are involved in it. He firstly defines our basic ability to choose as free will. Then he specifies our two factors as chance and choice. "James's two-stage model effectively separates chance (the in-deterministic free element) from choice (an arguably determinate decision that follows causally from one's character, values, and especially feelings and desires at the moment of decision)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James#Free_will
His perspective would imply that a 'choice' can be considered pseudo-predetermined from a explanative psychology perspective, however, the potential for thought would involve a factor of which it cannot be said that it is deterministic which would add the quality free will to a choice. In my opinion, that 'factor' would be a priori meaning.
With regard my perspective on the questions asked in the OP.
In my opinion, the quest should start a bit earlier than experience, namely with an explanation for a 'subjective perspective'.
Isn't it remarkable that something of the nature as the space-time continuum provides the basis for subjective perspective based 'content' which includes conscious experience?
In my opinion, the quest for answers should start there: what is required for a subjective perspective - the core essence of anything that would reside 'within' a space-time continuum - to be possible?
A subjective experience requires sense-data. It is seen in biological cells, even the tiniest most primitive ones such as yeast, that the cell is actually sensing its environment with nanometre precision and with complex comprehension of its complex outer world.
(2017) Cells sense their environment to explore it
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 125821.htm
Comprehension is a qualitative and special act similar to a sense of wonder in humans because it concerns an unforeseeable future.
Therefore, the sensory experience potential that is required at the root of life demands the same fundamental explanation in complex life forms (i.e. 'conscious experience') and their habitual sense-organ machinery cannot have formed a posteriori.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The causes and qualities of experience
Dead people do not wonder or wander. I puzzled why you would want to look elsewhere. You just have to accept how amazing is the brain.value wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 2:14 pm Interesting topic (again)! Your topics provide interesting insights and questions!
It might be of interest to learn the opinion of Sculptor1 for a defence of determinism.
Can you please answer the questions yourself? What do you believe that is the origin of the mentioned 'qualitative' aspects such as a sense of wonder? Do you believe that those experiences are physically caused and/or originate in the brain?
I think the problem might be in the way we think in terms of x is caused by, as if "wonder" were a thing that was separate from the brain in the sense that a bakery makes a cake. The mind is not caused by the brain; it is what the brain does. The physical, chemical, electrical, materially active organ which connects every single part of the body and has special branches of neural matter in the heart and stomach where we literally feel things. The result of billions of years of evolution. This is what it does. Where it all happens.
Yes.
An active living brain is not the same as the lump of fat in a jar, just like a portrait is not a person.
- The Beast
- Posts: 1406
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: The causes and qualities of experience
1.- It is a paradox. The Universal flux in denial of the law of non- contradiction like the unexperienced experiencing words and deeds.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 10:42 am Greeting philosophers (and metaphysicians)!
(In combining logic with mental phenomena, this OP is a bit longer than usual.) Up for consideration is the question of what kind of thing in the brain, causes an experience to become an experience. Philosophically, having an experience itself has at least two fundamental properties to its existence. In this instance, the succinct descriptions of quantity (Qualia) v. quantity (neurons), or in simple terms, the meta-physical v. physical respectively, is what we will parse in an attempt to find any truth value here.
Many philosophers are tempted, for whatever reason to dichotomize their theories with either/or analysis and deny both/and phenomena relative to the human experience (i.e., the conscious and subconscious minds working together). Much like a cosmological ToE, one should always try, when confronted with opposite’s, not to renounce the other but rather always find ways to see if they can be integrated, together. In this context, the existential descriptions of having an ‘experience’ is that both quantity and quality are all part of one’s feelings and thoughts; there is a convergence of these things. A convergence of one’s will and one’s intellect are part of what the mind processes.
What that might correspond with, are questions about the primacy of causation in the human experience. Meaning, existentially, what would be the causes for, beyond mere instinct, things that keep us alive? What wills us to live and not die? In other words, what quality of life stuff, or things-in-themselves, makes us want to become something?
Other questions might include: what causes us to want to experience ideas? Do we want, need or Will to have experiences? Are some experiences self-organized in nature? I hope to answer some of those questions and more, about some of the distinctions between quantity (physical) and quality (metaphysical) properties of the mind.
I will present an argument about what causes an experience from both a logical and phenomenological view. Starting with a philosophical quote:
No one hitherto has gained such an accurate knowledge of the bodily mechanism, that he can explain all its functions... no one knows how or by what means the mind moves the body, nor how many various degrees of motion it can impart to the body, nor how quickly it can move it. Thus when men say that this or that physical action has its origin in the mind, which latter has dominion over the body, they are using words without meaning, or are confessing in specious phraseology that they are ignorant of the cause of the said action, and do not wonder at it. –Spinoza.
Let’s examine at least two ways to address Spinoza’s quote, first starting with (Kantian) logic.
Logic:
Taking the last phrase first, “and do not wonder at it” is intriguing. Why should we wonder? Does wonder, and its intellectual properties have any biological survival advantages? Is wonder itself a source of enhanced quality (not quantity) of life? And what is this physical ‘object’ of (perception) and experience of ‘wonder’ anyway? Is it a meta-physical quality more than a physical quantity (neurons) in-itself?
In trying to figure out the nature of what causes us to wonder, let’s parse this logically with the infamous proposition “all events must have a cause”. As opposed to analytical propositions, that synthetic a priori proposition is what we call informative, and not purely of a logical nature, yet not completely dependent on empirical information for its truth value. And using logic, most can identify with how causation works; whether it’s in the form of the simple cosmological argument, or a cause that moves the body (dualism/phenomenology), or the cause that starts with a thought about having some goal or purposeful action or behavior, it all comes from a subjective experience perceived as a sense of feeling about wonderment, and the feelings from the Will.
To have an experience that involves the intellect, thoughts and feelings converge. But why is it important that we wonder about causes to begin with? What is its truth value? Well, the obvious answers to its cash-value (as James’ would argue in his pragmatic approach to truth value) is that it indeed has practical applications. For instance, wondering about causation (the synthetic a priori) has implications in the sciences. Most all scientific theories start with synthetic propositions which in-turn can be empirically tested. Real simple right? But what about the a priori part of the proposition?
The a priori part is that ‘thing’ which actually ‘causes’ us to wonder. A fixed, intrinsic, thing-in-itself that causes us to ask or wonder about, stuff. Whether it takes the form of critiquing new products/services and technologies to make them better, or the foregoing uses in the sciences, wonderment is, well, a wonderful thing. It’s the source or cause of things that enhance our quality of life. Does a quality of life have biological survival value when instinct is all that’s necessary to survive?
One’s sense of wonder, combined with self-awareness, intellect, feelings and volition, results in the effects of purposeful existence. There we have the dynamics of cause and effect in the mind. In other words, its corresponding features of our Will to wonder, causes one to have the abilities to enhance their quality of life, as well as much needed purposefulness of same. And that’s one overwhelming thing (thing-in-itself) that keeps us living.
1.Are those foregoing qualities of the mind (the experience of the Will to wonder) all 'quantitatively' physical?
Phenomenology (the ghost in the machine) and quality:
This is where it gets interesting. Now let’s do a quick look-see at the other part (first part) of Spinoza’s quote. The experience of having thoughts that causes one’s will to move their arm, what is all part of that phenomenon (you might wonder)? Well, let’s start with where one’s own stream of conscious thoughts come from. Aside from ‘biologically’ having a thought to scratch an itch (as Searle might argue), we might say that our stream of meta-physical thoughts and ideas flow uninterrupted into our daily lives, particularly noticeable at rest. And at rest, these are mostly thoughts and ideas that happen to us, not by us. Moreover, these self-organized thoughts are simply that; and independent existence absent of control. For instance, you cannot stop this flow, nor can you know the next thought that will arise. What it thinks, will think. You cannot know how long any thought that does arise will stay. And once attention (your Will) is engaged, there is no way to predict how long before it becomes disengaged.
In this sense, man has no control over it; it does what it pleases despite his will, or in spite of him. It will take up subject’s entirely independent of him.
And so, while we were resting, and focused in on that flow of thoughts by consciously breaking that flow with our own sense of Will, that feeling of Will in-turn becomes the cause. From Spinoza’s quote, that’s the thing-in-itself that causes us to want to move our arms. For instance, I can look at you and simultaneously pull money out of my pocket. Or, I will will myself to pick up a book to read because my stream of thoughts had me thinking about something relevant to reading (or even irrelevant to reading). In any case, while undeniably, we need neurons, chemicals, muscles to effect movement, what caused or willed it to happen in the first place, is it the Will in-itself? Yes. Is the Will all quantitatively physical? Surely not.
The mysterious nature of our conscious and unconscious Will which we experience as a human-subject who is in-turn causing it all to happen, is the phenomenal ghost in the machine. Or if you prefer, the metaphysical thing-in-itself.
You may wonder, what is so special about human’s and their self-awareness and their ability to make choices that have no biological Darwinian significance or survival value (like reading books, taking money out of my pocket, computing mathematics, composing music, etc.)?
That question leads us to a quick sojourn of quality (Qualia) phenomena or simply put, having the ability to experience sentience to effect one's own quality of life. While the argument that the primacy of Will and emotions, are the cause of action, other’s seem to think similarly. As such, sceptic/empiricist David Hume famously proclaimed:
An opponent of philosophical rationalists, Hume held that passions rather than reason govern human behavior, famously proclaiming that “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.”
It can be argued that Hume was also a sentimentalist or Voluntarist in that the Will takes primacy over the intellect or pure reason. Our will to act, move, and otherwise become some-thing is causing our minds to enjoy having experiences. Otherwise, simply put, we can easily choose to end those experiences and die if we will ourselves to do so. In that experience, our quality of life once again rears its causational head and takes primacy in our lives. Our quality of life was bad, so we felt the need to end it.
Let’s move on to feelings themselves (Qualia) for a moment, and the concepts associated with them. As a so-called phenomenal example of thoughts and feelings and how they converge, consider how plain-feeling an experience is of thinking about a number.
The thought of the number 3492 feels differently than the thought of 666, as some thoughts may be more neutral than other thoughts, but depending on their context, all thoughts, words and images can register as neutral or otherwise. Or the feeling that one experiences with a thought of my sister's unattractive girlfriend versus my sister as someone who can lend me money, is all quite different. For example, If I needed money I would have feelings of relief knowing that she has money to lend me. Same with simple words like yes or no. The experiences of yes or no can be quite different in-themselves. This is to say, all that corresponds to one having a subjective experience, which also included feelings of love/hate, hot/cold, good music/bad music, good math/bad math, so on and so forth.
As we’ve seen already, the stream of consciousness that includes thoughts and feelings (the ghost in the machine) provides for self-organized instructions that appear in our minds. And those organized instructions are thoughts and feelings that both happen to us and willfully by us.
2. Are those foregoing ‘qualities’ of the mind, which seem to have their own self-organized, independent existence, all ‘quantitatively’ physical? Are they both qualitative and quantitative things-in-themselves?
The answer to the latter is, undeniably yes.
Please feel free to share any and all thoughts, critique's, etc.!
2.- I don’t see many philosophers.
3.- The first philosopher attested by Aristotle thought of water as the origin of all that lives. In the words of Heraclitus: “To souls it is death to become water, to water death to become earth but from earth water is born and from water soul.”
4.- “As the same thing in us is living and dead, waking and sleeping, young and old. For these things having changed around are those, and conversely those things having changed around are these.”
5.- And so a 20th century philosophical perplexity that I promptly tackle as Spinoza’s paraphraser: It is a failure to not see the unity in experience and the metaphysical foundations in the everlasting logos.
6._ A beautiful composition of Fregean forces.
7 It is philosophy as therapy.
8 Either Hume or the Ataraxia of the ancients.
10.- Oh no! Is it numerology? I looked it up. 666 is the Hebrew numerology for Nero Caesar. And so 3492 in Hebrew are the Prophets Elijah and Joel ( this one is interesting because upon a sign he issued a warning) In the crux of the investigation I came across: “ The lord whose oracle is at Delphi neither reveals not conceals but gives a sign”
11.- Thank you for the details, Extend my greetings to the girls. Is this the sign?
12.- We will make complex expressions and live forever.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: The causes and qualities of experience
Sculptor1 !Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 5:06 pmDead people do not wonder or wander. I puzzled why you would want to look elsewhere. You just have to accept how amazing is the brain.value wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 2:14 pm Interesting topic (again)! Your topics provide interesting insights and questions!
It might be of interest to learn the opinion of Sculptor1 for a defence of determinism.
Can you please answer the questions yourself? What do you believe that is the origin of the mentioned 'qualitative' aspects such as a sense of wonder? Do you believe that those experiences are physically caused and/or originate in the brain?
I think the problem might be in the way we think in terms of x is caused by, as if "wonder" were a thing that was separate from the brain in the sense that a bakery makes a cake. The mind is not caused by the brain; it is what the brain does. The physical, chemical, electrical, materially active organ which connects every single part of the body and has special branches of neural matter in the heart and stomach where we literally feel things. The result of billions of years of evolution. This is what it does. Where it all happens.
Yes.
An active living brain is not the same as the lump of fat in a jar, just like a portrait is not a person.
image_2022-08-18_220652676.png
Agreed. The mind is not caused by the brain. At best, consciousness is logically impossible; at worst, nonsensical. As such, the proposition that the brain causes consciousness is nonsensical. …just more gibberish to project exasperation.
As an example, in some friendly banter over in the Searle thread, I suggested GE might want to ask his brain if it would allow him to participate in this one.
― Albert Einstein
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The causes and qualities of experience
Did you actually read all that I said, or are you just running away with the first sentence?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 19th, 2022, 8:13 amSculptor1 !Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 5:06 pmDead people do not wonder or wander. I puzzled why you would want to look elsewhere. You just have to accept how amazing is the brain.value wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 2:14 pm Interesting topic (again)! Your topics provide interesting insights and questions!
It might be of interest to learn the opinion of Sculptor1 for a defence of determinism.
Can you please answer the questions yourself? What do you believe that is the origin of the mentioned 'qualitative' aspects such as a sense of wonder? Do you believe that those experiences are physically caused and/or originate in the brain?
I think the problem might be in the way we think in terms of x is caused by, as if "wonder" were a thing that was separate from the brain in the sense that a bakery makes a cake. The mind is not caused by the brain; it is what the brain does. The physical, chemical, electrical, materially active organ which connects every single part of the body and has special branches of neural matter in the heart and stomach where we literally feel things. The result of billions of years of evolution. This is what it does. Where it all happens.
Yes.
An active living brain is not the same as the lump of fat in a jar, just like a portrait is not a person.
image_2022-08-18_220652676.png
Agreed. The mind is not caused by the brain. At best, consciousness is logically impossible; at worst, nonsensical. As such, the proposition that the brain causes consciousness is nonsensical. …just more gibberish to project exasperation.
As an example, in some friendly banter over in the Searle thread, I suggested GE might want to ask his brain if it would allow him to participate in this one.
I do not see why you think "consciousness is logically impossible", as I do not think logic has anything to offer here.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: The causes and qualities of experience
value!value wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 2:14 pm Interesting topic (again)! Your topics provide interesting insights and questions!
It might be of interest to learn the opinion of @Sculptor1 for a defence of determinism.
Can you please answer the questions yourself? What do you believe that is the origin of the mentioned 'qualitative' aspects such as a sense of wonder? Do you believe that those experiences are physically caused and/or originate in the brain?
I noticed the following:
However, at the bottom you wrote the following. Perhaps it is a misunderstanding.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 10:42 amIs the Will all quantitatively physical? Surely not.
The mysterious nature of our conscious and unconscious Will which we experience as a human-subject who is in-turn causing it all to happen, is the phenomenal ghost in the machine. Or if you prefer, the metaphysical thing-in-itself.
If it is not a misunderstanding, can you explain why neuroscience it cannot explain yet how the described thoughts or emotions would arise in the mentioned circumstances?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 10:42 am2. Are those foregoing ‘qualities’ of the mind, which seem to have their own self-organized, independent existence, all ‘quantitatively’ physical? Are they both qualitative and quantitative things-in-themselves?
The answer to the latter is, undeniably yes.
If there is to be a non-physical aspect involved, namely the mentioned 'Will', how can it be said that a thought would stand physically separate from that metaphysical factor? And if not, how can your argument be valid?
Philosopher William James - the "father of American psychology" - had the following perspective on free will.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 10:42 amAs we’ve seen already, the stream of consciousness that includes thoughts and feelings (the ghost in the machine) provides for self-organized instructions that appear in our minds. And those organized instructions are thoughts and feelings that both happen to us and willfully by us.
William James developed his two-stage model of free will. In his model, he tries to explain how it is people come to the making of a decision and what factors are involved in it. He firstly defines our basic ability to choose as free will. Then he specifies our two factors as chance and choice. "James's two-stage model effectively separates chance (the in-deterministic free element) from choice (an arguably determinate decision that follows causally from one's character, values, and especially feelings and desires at the moment of decision)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James#Free_will
His perspective would imply that a 'choice' can be considered pseudo-predetermined from a explanative psychology perspective, however, the potential for thought would involve a factor of which it cannot be said that it is deterministic which would add the quality free will to a choice. In my opinion, that 'factor' would be a priori meaning.
With regard my perspective on the questions asked in the OP.
In my opinion, the quest should start a bit earlier than experience, namely with an explanation for a 'subjective perspective'.
Isn't it remarkable that something of the nature as the space-time continuum provides the basis for subjective perspective based 'content' which includes conscious experience?
In my opinion, the quest for answers should start there: what is required for a subjective perspective - the core essence of anything that would reside 'within' a space-time continuum - to be possible?
A subjective experience requires sense-data. It is seen in biological cells, even the tiniest most primitive ones such as yeast, that the cell is actually sensing its environment with nanometre precision and with complex comprehension of its complex outer world.
(2017) Cells sense their environment to explore it
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 125821.htm
Comprehension is a qualitative and special act similar to a sense of wonder in humans because it concerns an unforeseeable future.
Therefore, the sensory experience potential that is required at the root of life demands the same fundamental explanation in complex life forms (i.e. 'conscious experience') and their habitual sense-organ machinery cannot have formed a posteriori.
Thank you kindly for the compliment. Sure, put me on the hot seat, as it were. I'll be happy to answer some of the questions. They're very intriguing. Which one's are of interest to you?
Let's take one at a time though if you don't mind. For example, I think you had a question about 'consistency' relative to quality (Qualia) v. quantity (Physicalism) correct?
I'll just guess from the first part of your post that say, using the meta-physical phenomena of the (one's) Will, in order for many objects to be observed they need a physical medium to manifest themselves. Just like gravity needs particles to manifest itself (its 'truth'), the Will needs neuron's to manifest its truth. The issue is twofold: primacy and the thing-in-itself. Meaning, the Voluntarist would say the Will takes primacy over the intellect (per the Hume quote he's suggesting it-see OP). And the metaphysician would say that the Will, that thing in-itself that causes human action, transcends Physicalism in that it too takes primacy over brain stuff.
Our stream of consciousness bears this out when we give attention to thoughts and feelings (ideas and the Will's function) in order to stop the flow of same. On the other hand, the other phenomenon is that the 'flow' 'in-itself' that happens without control of the Will, that in-turn suggest elements of quantity or physical energy required or at work in processing those same thoughts and feelings. So in this example consciousness can be said to have both qualitative and quantitative properties of existence. Particularly since we are processing physical information into sentient information. Or, generally speaking, like gravitational forces and particles; the metaphysical and physical converge, and are inseparable.
If one were to think of brains, those things-in-themselves, as actually causing each other to talk to one another, that would mean we would have an incomplete experience (or a nonsensical one). It would be like gravity without particles. To dichotomize consciousness (just physical quantities), means it could not process information the way it does, through human anatomy. So like processing physical things into feelings from the Will which cause human beings to think, act and interact with each other (propagate), we need to 'integrate' and not dichotomize our views of Being. And that doesn't even include the processing of physical entities/information into feelings of self-awareness and so on. Human consciousness is the most complex of all biological life forms. That which breaths fire into the Hawking equations is all a bit of a (similar) mystery.
Anyway, lots to unpack and I'm sure you have more questions other than that one, so please ask away.
Thanks again for your thoughtful reply value (and compliments). I try!
― Albert Einstein
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: The causes and qualities of experience
Sculptor1!Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 19th, 2022, 8:36 amDid you actually read all that I said, or are you just running away with the first sentence?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 19th, 2022, 8:13 amSculptor1 !Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 5:06 pmDead people do not wonder or wander. I puzzled why you would want to look elsewhere. You just have to accept how amazing is the brain.value wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 2:14 pm Interesting topic (again)! Your topics provide interesting insights and questions!
It might be of interest to learn the opinion of Sculptor1 for a defence of determinism.
Can you please answer the questions yourself? What do you believe that is the origin of the mentioned 'qualitative' aspects such as a sense of wonder? Do you believe that those experiences are physically caused and/or originate in the brain?
I think the problem might be in the way we think in terms of x is caused by, as if "wonder" were a thing that was separate from the brain in the sense that a bakery makes a cake. The mind is not caused by the brain; it is what the brain does. The physical, chemical, electrical, materially active organ which connects every single part of the body and has special branches of neural matter in the heart and stomach where we literally feel things. The result of billions of years of evolution. This is what it does. Where it all happens.
Yes.
An active living brain is not the same as the lump of fat in a jar, just like a portrait is not a person.
image_2022-08-18_220652676.png
Agreed. The mind is not caused by the brain. At best, consciousness is logically impossible; at worst, nonsensical. As such, the proposition that the brain causes consciousness is nonsensical. …just more gibberish to project exasperation.
As an example, in some friendly banter over in the Searle thread, I suggested GE might want to ask his brain if it would allow him to participate in this one.
I do not see why you think "consciousness is logically impossible", as I do not think logic has anything to offer here.
Yes! Your first sentence matters!! Again, I agree with you that the 'brain cannot cause consciousness' as it's a nonsensical proposition.
And of course your remaining concerns are important. Since consciousness/cognition itself is logically impossible to describe (much less explain), most of us (the sciences included) have to acquiesce to its mystery of being a both/and phenomena, v. the formal logic of 'either/or'.
And so, one irony is that that since philosophy and science lives in the logic of words and mathematics respectively, we have to rely on things like phenomenology to experience a truth that can transcend the limitations of those things. Kind of like the Paul Davies quote about the universe:
"...an understanding of its existence lies outside the usual categories of rational human thought."
Or if you prefer, that which breaths fire into the Hawking equations. Is it the metaphysical Will that breaths fire, I wonder? An anthropic condition of some kind?
Just some more thoughts....
― Albert Einstein
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The causes and qualities of experience
Indeed.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 19th, 2022, 9:39 amSculptor1!Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 19th, 2022, 8:36 amDid you actually read all that I said, or are you just running away with the first sentence?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 19th, 2022, 8:13 amSculptor1 !Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 5:06 pm
Dead people do not wonder or wander. I puzzled why you would want to look elsewhere. You just have to accept how amazing is the brain.
I think the problem might be in the way we think in terms of x is caused by, as if "wonder" were a thing that was separate from the brain in the sense that a bakery makes a cake. The mind is not caused by the brain; it is what the brain does. The physical, chemical, electrical, materially active organ which connects every single part of the body and has special branches of neural matter in the heart and stomach where we literally feel things. The result of billions of years of evolution. This is what it does. Where it all happens.
Yes.
An active living brain is not the same as the lump of fat in a jar, just like a portrait is not a person.
image_2022-08-18_220652676.png
Agreed. The mind is not caused by the brain. At best, consciousness is logically impossible; at worst, nonsensical. As such, the proposition that the brain causes consciousness is nonsensical. …just more gibberish to project exasperation.
As an example, in some friendly banter over in the Searle thread, I suggested GE might want to ask his brain if it would allow him to participate in this one.
I do not see why you think "consciousness is logically impossible", as I do not think logic has anything to offer here.
Yes! Your first sentence matters!! Again, I agree with you that the 'brain cannot cause consciousness' as it's a nonsensical proposition.
And of course your remaining concerns are important. Since consciousness/cognition itself is logically impossible to describe (much less explain), most of us (the sciences included) have to acquiesce to its mystery of being a both/and phenomena, v. the formal logic of 'either/or'.
And so, one irony is that that since philosophy and science lives in the logic of words and mathematics respectively, we have to rely on things like phenomenology to experience a truth that can transcend the limitations of those things. Kind of like the Paul Davies quote about the universe:
"...an understanding of its existence lies outside the usual categories of rational human thought."
Or if you prefer, that which breaths fire into the Hawking equations. Is it the metaphysical Will that breaths fire, I wonder? An anthropic condition of some kind?
Just some more thoughts....
You do not appreciate what I said.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: The causes and qualities of experience
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 19th, 2022, 9:55 amIndeed.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 19th, 2022, 9:39 amSculptor1!Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 19th, 2022, 8:36 amDid you actually read all that I said, or are you just running away with the first sentence?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 19th, 2022, 8:13 am
Sculptor1 !
Agreed. The mind is not caused by the brain. At best, consciousness is logically impossible; at worst, nonsensical. As such, the proposition that the brain causes consciousness is nonsensical. …just more gibberish to project exasperation.
As an example, in some friendly banter over in the Searle thread, I suggested GE might want to ask his brain if it would allow him to participate in this one.
I do not see why you think "consciousness is logically impossible", as I do not think logic has anything to offer here.
Yes! Your first sentence matters!! Again, I agree with you that the 'brain cannot cause consciousness' as it's a nonsensical proposition.
And of course your remaining concerns are important. Since consciousness/cognition itself is logically impossible to describe (much less explain), most of us (the sciences included) have to acquiesce to its mystery of being a both/and phenomena, v. the formal logic of 'either/or'.
And so, one irony is that that since philosophy and science lives in the logic of words and mathematics respectively, we have to rely on things like phenomenology to experience a truth that can transcend the limitations of those things. Kind of like the Paul Davies quote about the universe:
"...an understanding of its existence lies outside the usual categories of rational human thought."
Or if you prefer, that which breaths fire into the Hawking equations. Is it the metaphysical Will that breaths fire, I wonder? An anthropic condition of some kind?
Just some more thoughts....
You do not appreciate what I said.
Okay??
― Albert Einstein
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: The causes and qualities of experience
There is a lot which can be said on the topic of consciousness, but, of course, we have discussed it many times. I haven't read much Spinoza, but do wish to, and there are not enough hours in a day to read all the significant ideas. So, I am just writing a very brief post. That is to say that there is an ongoing tendency for experience to almost be seen as a product of the brain. That is connected to the philosophy of materialism. It omits the ideas of soul and spirit, leaving a rather wishy washy subjectivity of the self. Of course, the concepts of soul and spirit are complicated and have been seen in different ways by different thinkers. Another concept which has been important for some thinkers is the idea of the daimon as the higher self underlying the process of awareness, and some writers have called it the oversoul.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 10:42 am Greeting philosophers (and metaphysicians)!
(In combining logic with mental phenomena, this OP is a bit longer than usual.) Up for consideration is the question of what kind of thing in the brain, causes an experience to become an experience. Philosophically, having an experience itself has at least two fundamental properties to its existence. In this instance, the succinct descriptions of quantity (Qualia) v. quantity (neurons), or in simple terms, the meta-physical v. physical respectively, is what we will parse in an attempt to find any truth value here.
Many philosophers are tempted, for whatever reason to dichotomize their theories with either/or analysis and deny both/and phenomena relative to the human experience (i.e., the conscious and subconscious minds working together). Much like a cosmological ToE, one should always try, when confronted with opposite’s, not to renounce the other but rather always find ways to see if they can be integrated, together. In this context, the existential descriptions of having an ‘experience’ is that both quantity and quality are all part of one’s feelings and thoughts; there is a convergence of these things. A convergence of one’s will and one’s intellect are part of what the mind processes.
What that might correspond with, are questions about the primacy of causation in the human experience. Meaning, existentially, what would be the causes for, beyond mere instinct, things that keep us alive? What wills us to live and not die? In other words, what quality of life stuff, or things-in-themselves, makes us want to become something?
Other questions might include: what causes us to want to experience ideas? Do we want, need or Will to have experiences? Are some experiences self-organized in nature? I hope to answer some of those questions and more, about some of the distinctions between quantity (physical) and quality (metaphysical) properties of the mind.
I will present an argument about what causes an experience from both a logical and phenomenological view. Starting with a philosophical quote:
No one hitherto has gained such an accurate knowledge of the bodily mechanism, that he can explain all its functions... no one knows how or by what means the mind moves the body, nor how many various degrees of motion it can impart to the body, nor how quickly it can move it. Thus when men say that this or that physical action has its origin in the mind, which latter has dominion over the body, they are using words without meaning, or are confessing in specious phraseology that they are ignorant of the cause of the said action, and do not wonder at it. –Spinoza.
Let’s examine at least two ways to address Spinoza’s quote, first starting with (Kantian) logic.
Logic:
Taking the last phrase first, “and do not wonder at it” is intriguing. Why should we wonder? Does wonder, and its intellectual properties have any biological survival advantages? Is wonder itself a source of enhanced quality (not quantity) of life? And what is this physical ‘object’ of (perception) and experience of ‘wonder’ anyway? Is it a meta-physical quality more than a physical quantity (neurons) in-itself?
In trying to figure out the nature of what causes us to wonder, let’s parse this logically with the infamous proposition “all events must have a cause”. As opposed to analytical propositions, that synthetic a priori proposition is what we call informative, and not purely of a logical nature, yet not completely dependent on empirical information for its truth value. And using logic, most can identify with how causation works; whether it’s in the form of the simple cosmological argument, or a cause that moves the body (dualism/phenomenology), or the cause that starts with a thought about having some goal or purposeful action or behavior, it all comes from a subjective experience perceived as a sense of feeling about wonderment, and the feelings from the Will.
To have an experience that involves the intellect, thoughts and feelings converge. But why is it important that we wonder about causes to begin with? What is its truth value? Well, the obvious answers to its cash-value (as James’ would argue in his pragmatic approach to truth value) is that it indeed has practical applications. For instance, wondering about causation (the synthetic a priori) has implications in the sciences. Most all scientific theories start with synthetic propositions which in-turn can be empirically tested. Real simple right? But what about the a priori part of the proposition?
The a priori part is that ‘thing’ which actually ‘causes’ us to wonder. A fixed, intrinsic, thing-in-itself that causes us to ask or wonder about, stuff. Whether it takes the form of critiquing new products/services and technologies to make them better, or the foregoing uses in the sciences, wonderment is, well, a wonderful thing. It’s the source or cause of things that enhance our quality of life. Does a quality of life have biological survival value when instinct is all that’s necessary to survive?
One’s sense of wonder, combined with self-awareness, intellect, feelings and volition, results in the effects of purposeful existence. There we have the dynamics of cause and effect in the mind. In other words, its corresponding features of our Will to wonder, causes one to have the abilities to enhance their quality of life, as well as much needed purposefulness of same. And that’s one overwhelming thing (thing-in-itself) that keeps us living.
1.Are those foregoing qualities of the mind (the experience of the Will to wonder) all 'quantitatively' physical?
Phenomenology (the ghost in the machine) and quality:
This is where it gets interesting. Now let’s do a quick look-see at the other part (first part) of Spinoza’s quote. The experience of having thoughts that causes one’s will to move their arm, what is all part of that phenomenon (you might wonder)? Well, let’s start with where one’s own stream of conscious thoughts come from. Aside from ‘biologically’ having a thought to scratch an itch (as Searle might argue), we might say that our stream of meta-physical thoughts and ideas flow uninterrupted into our daily lives, particularly noticeable at rest. And at rest, these are mostly thoughts and ideas that happen to us, not by us. Moreover, these self-organized thoughts are simply that; and independent existence absent of control. For instance, you cannot stop this flow, nor can you know the next thought that will arise. What it thinks, will think. You cannot know how long any thought that does arise will stay. And once attention (your Will) is engaged, there is no way to predict how long before it becomes disengaged.
In this sense, man has no control over it; it does what it pleases despite his will, or in spite of him. It will take up subject’s entirely independent of him.
And so, while we were resting, and focused in on that flow of thoughts by consciously breaking that flow with our own sense of Will, that feeling of Will in-turn becomes the cause. From Spinoza’s quote, that’s the thing-in-itself that causes us to want to move our arms. For instance, I can look at you and simultaneously pull money out of my pocket. Or, I will will myself to pick up a book to read because my stream of thoughts had me thinking about something relevant to reading (or even irrelevant to reading). In any case, while undeniably, we need neurons, chemicals, muscles to effect movement, what caused or willed it to happen in the first place, is it the Will in-itself? Yes. Is the Will all quantitatively physical? Surely not.
The mysterious nature of our conscious and unconscious Will which we experience as a human-subject who is in-turn causing it all to happen, is the phenomenal ghost in the machine. Or if you prefer, the metaphysical thing-in-itself.
You may wonder, what is so special about human’s and their self-awareness and their ability to make choices that have no biological Darwinian significance or survival value (like reading books, taking money out of my pocket, computing mathematics, composing music, etc.)?
That question leads us to a quick sojourn of quality (Qualia) phenomena or simply put, having the ability to experience sentience to effect one's own quality of life. While the argument that the primacy of Will and emotions, are the cause of action, other’s seem to think similarly. As such, sceptic/empiricist David Hume famously proclaimed:
An opponent of philosophical rationalists, Hume held that passions rather than reason govern human behavior, famously proclaiming that “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.”
It can be argued that Hume was also a sentimentalist or Voluntarist in that the Will takes primacy over the intellect or pure reason. Our will to act, move, and otherwise become some-thing is causing our minds to enjoy having experiences. Otherwise, simply put, we can easily choose to end those experiences and die if we will ourselves to do so. In that experience, our quality of life once again rears its causational head and takes primacy in our lives. Our quality of life was bad, so we felt the need to end it.
Let’s move on to feelings themselves (Qualia) for a moment, and the concepts associated with them. As a so-called phenomenal example of thoughts and feelings and how they converge, consider how plain-feeling an experience is of thinking about a number.
The thought of the number 3492 feels differently than the thought of 666, as some thoughts may be more neutral than other thoughts, but depending on their context, all thoughts, words and images can register as neutral or otherwise. Or the feeling that one experiences with a thought of my sister's unattractive girlfriend versus my sister as someone who can lend me money, is all quite different. For example, If I needed money I would have feelings of relief knowing that she has money to lend me. Same with simple words like yes or no. The experiences of yes or no can be quite different in-themselves. This is to say, all that corresponds to one having a subjective experience, which also included feelings of love/hate, hot/cold, good music/bad music, good math/bad math, so on and so forth.
As we’ve seen already, the stream of consciousness that includes thoughts and feelings (the ghost in the machine) provides for self-organized instructions that appear in our minds. And those organized instructions are thoughts and feelings that both happen to us and willfully by us.
2. Are those foregoing ‘qualities’ of the mind, which seem to have their own self-organized, independent existence, all ‘quantitatively’ physical? Are they both qualitative and quantitative things-in-themselves?
The answer to the latter is, undeniably yes.
Please feel free to share any and all thoughts, critique's, etc.!
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am
Re: The causes and qualities of experience
With a little bit of self discipline you should be able to express it with 1-3 sentences.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 10:42 am Greeting philosophers (and metaphysicians)!
(In combining logic with mental phenomena, this OP is a bit longer than usual.) Up for consideration is the question of what kind of thing in the brain, causes an experience to become an experience. Philosophically, having an experience itself has at least two fundamental properties to its existence. In this instance, the succinct descriptions of quantity (Qualia) v. quantity (neurons), or in simple terms, the meta-physical v. physical respectively, is what we will parse in an attempt to find any truth value here.
Many philosophers are tempted, for whatever reason to dichotomize their theories with either/or analysis and deny both/and phenomena relative to the human experience (i.e., the conscious and subconscious minds working together). Much like a cosmological ToE, one should always try, when confronted with opposite’s, not to renounce the other but rather always find ways to see if they can be integrated, together. In this context, the existential descriptions of having an ‘experience’ is that both quantity and quality are all part of one’s feelings and thoughts; there is a convergence of these things. A convergence of one’s will and one’s intellect are part of what the mind processes.
What that might correspond with, are questions about the primacy of causation in the human experience. Meaning, existentially, what would be the causes for, beyond mere instinct, things that keep us alive? What wills us to live and not die? In other words, what quality of life stuff, or things-in-themselves, makes us want to become something?
Other questions might include: what causes us to want to experience ideas? Do we want, need or Will to have experiences? Are some experiences self-organized in nature? I hope to answer some of those questions and more, about some of the distinctions between quantity (physical) and quality (metaphysical) properties of the mind.
I will present an argument about what causes an experience from both a logical and phenomenological view. Starting with a philosophical quote:
No one hitherto has gained such an accurate knowledge of the bodily mechanism, that he can explain all its functions... no one knows how or by what means the mind moves the body, nor how many various degrees of motion it can impart to the body, nor how quickly it can move it. Thus when men say that this or that physical action has its origin in the mind, which latter has dominion over the body, they are using words without meaning, or are confessing in specious phraseology that they are ignorant of the cause of the said action, and do not wonder at it. –Spinoza.
Let’s examine at least two ways to address Spinoza’s quote, first starting with (Kantian) logic.
Logic:
Taking the last phrase first, “and do not wonder at it” is intriguing. Why should we wonder? Does wonder, and its intellectual properties have any biological survival advantages? Is wonder itself a source of enhanced quality (not quantity) of life? And what is this physical ‘object’ of (perception) and experience of ‘wonder’ anyway? Is it a meta-physical quality more than a physical quantity (neurons) in-itself?
In trying to figure out the nature of what causes us to wonder, let’s parse this logically with the infamous proposition “all events must have a cause”. As opposed to analytical propositions, that synthetic a priori proposition is what we call informative, and not purely of a logical nature, yet not completely dependent on empirical information for its truth value. And using logic, most can identify with how causation works; whether it’s in the form of the simple cosmological argument, or a cause that moves the body (dualism/phenomenology), or the cause that starts with a thought about having some goal or purposeful action or behavior, it all comes from a subjective experience perceived as a sense of feeling about wonderment, and the feelings from the Will.
To have an experience that involves the intellect, thoughts and feelings converge. But why is it important that we wonder about causes to begin with? What is its truth value? Well, the obvious answers to its cash-value (as James’ would argue in his pragmatic approach to truth value) is that it indeed has practical applications. For instance, wondering about causation (the synthetic a priori) has implications in the sciences. Most all scientific theories start with synthetic propositions which in-turn can be empirically tested. Real simple right? But what about the a priori part of the proposition?
The a priori part is that ‘thing’ which actually ‘causes’ us to wonder. A fixed, intrinsic, thing-in-itself that causes us to ask or wonder about, stuff. Whether it takes the form of critiquing new products/services and technologies to make them better, or the foregoing uses in the sciences, wonderment is, well, a wonderful thing. It’s the source or cause of things that enhance our quality of life. Does a quality of life have biological survival value when instinct is all that’s necessary to survive?
One’s sense of wonder, combined with self-awareness, intellect, feelings and volition, results in the effects of purposeful existence. There we have the dynamics of cause and effect in the mind. In other words, its corresponding features of our Will to wonder, causes one to have the abilities to enhance their quality of life, as well as much needed purposefulness of same. And that’s one overwhelming thing (thing-in-itself) that keeps us living.
1.Are those foregoing qualities of the mind (the experience of the Will to wonder) all 'quantitatively' physical?
Phenomenology (the ghost in the machine) and quality:
This is where it gets interesting. Now let’s do a quick look-see at the other part (first part) of Spinoza’s quote. The experience of having thoughts that causes one’s will to move their arm, what is all part of that phenomenon (you might wonder)? Well, let’s start with where one’s own stream of conscious thoughts come from. Aside from ‘biologically’ having a thought to scratch an itch (as Searle might argue), we might say that our stream of meta-physical thoughts and ideas flow uninterrupted into our daily lives, particularly noticeable at rest. And at rest, these are mostly thoughts and ideas that happen to us, not by us. Moreover, these self-organized thoughts are simply that; and independent existence absent of control. For instance, you cannot stop this flow, nor can you know the next thought that will arise. What it thinks, will think. You cannot know how long any thought that does arise will stay. And once attention (your Will) is engaged, there is no way to predict how long before it becomes disengaged.
In this sense, man has no control over it; it does what it pleases despite his will, or in spite of him. It will take up subject’s entirely independent of him.
And so, while we were resting, and focused in on that flow of thoughts by consciously breaking that flow with our own sense of Will, that feeling of Will in-turn becomes the cause. From Spinoza’s quote, that’s the thing-in-itself that causes us to want to move our arms. For instance, I can look at you and simultaneously pull money out of my pocket. Or, I will will myself to pick up a book to read because my stream of thoughts had me thinking about something relevant to reading (or even irrelevant to reading). In any case, while undeniably, we need neurons, chemicals, muscles to effect movement, what caused or willed it to happen in the first place, is it the Will in-itself? Yes. Is the Will all quantitatively physical? Surely not.
The mysterious nature of our conscious and unconscious Will which we experience as a human-subject who is in-turn causing it all to happen, is the phenomenal ghost in the machine. Or if you prefer, the metaphysical thing-in-itself.
You may wonder, what is so special about human’s and their self-awareness and their ability to make choices that have no biological Darwinian significance or survival value (like reading books, taking money out of my pocket, computing mathematics, composing music, etc.)?
That question leads us to a quick sojourn of quality (Qualia) phenomena or simply put, having the ability to experience sentience to effect one's own quality of life. While the argument that the primacy of Will and emotions, are the cause of action, other’s seem to think similarly. As such, sceptic/empiricist David Hume famously proclaimed:
An opponent of philosophical rationalists, Hume held that passions rather than reason govern human behavior, famously proclaiming that “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.”
It can be argued that Hume was also a sentimentalist or Voluntarist in that the Will takes primacy over the intellect or pure reason. Our will to act, move, and otherwise become some-thing is causing our minds to enjoy having experiences. Otherwise, simply put, we can easily choose to end those experiences and die if we will ourselves to do so. In that experience, our quality of life once again rears its causational head and takes primacy in our lives. Our quality of life was bad, so we felt the need to end it.
Let’s move on to feelings themselves (Qualia) for a moment, and the concepts associated with them. As a so-called phenomenal example of thoughts and feelings and how they converge, consider how plain-feeling an experience is of thinking about a number.
The thought of the number 3492 feels differently than the thought of 666, as some thoughts may be more neutral than other thoughts, but depending on their context, all thoughts, words and images can register as neutral or otherwise. Or the feeling that one experiences with a thought of my sister's unattractive girlfriend versus my sister as someone who can lend me money, is all quite different. For example, If I needed money I would have feelings of relief knowing that she has money to lend me. Same with simple words like yes or no. The experiences of yes or no can be quite different in-themselves. This is to say, all that corresponds to one having a subjective experience, which also included feelings of love/hate, hot/cold, good music/bad music, good math/bad math, so on and so forth.
As we’ve seen already, the stream of consciousness that includes thoughts and feelings (the ghost in the machine) provides for self-organized instructions that appear in our minds. And those organized instructions are thoughts and feelings that both happen to us and willfully by us.
2. Are those foregoing ‘qualities’ of the mind, which seem to have their own self-organized, independent existence, all ‘quantitatively’ physical? Are they both qualitative and quantitative things-in-themselves?
The answer to the latter is, undeniably yes.
Please feel free to share any and all thoughts, critique's, etc.!
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: The causes and qualities of experience
Please feel free to provide a synopsis if you can!stevie wrote: ↑August 20th, 2022, 10:13 pmWith a little bit of self discipline you should be able to express it with 1-3 sentences.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 10:42 am Greeting philosophers (and metaphysicians)!
(In combining logic with mental phenomena, this OP is a bit longer than usual.) Up for consideration is the question of what kind of thing in the brain, causes an experience to become an experience. Philosophically, having an experience itself has at least two fundamental properties to its existence. In this instance, the succinct descriptions of quantity (Qualia) v. quantity (neurons), or in simple terms, the meta-physical v. physical respectively, is what we will parse in an attempt to find any truth value here.
Many philosophers are tempted, for whatever reason to dichotomize their theories with either/or analysis and deny both/and phenomena relative to the human experience (i.e., the conscious and subconscious minds working together). Much like a cosmological ToE, one should always try, when confronted with opposite’s, not to renounce the other but rather always find ways to see if they can be integrated, together. In this context, the existential descriptions of having an ‘experience’ is that both quantity and quality are all part of one’s feelings and thoughts; there is a convergence of these things. A convergence of one’s will and one’s intellect are part of what the mind processes.
What that might correspond with, are questions about the primacy of causation in the human experience. Meaning, existentially, what would be the causes for, beyond mere instinct, things that keep us alive? What wills us to live and not die? In other words, what quality of life stuff, or things-in-themselves, makes us want to become something?
Other questions might include: what causes us to want to experience ideas? Do we want, need or Will to have experiences? Are some experiences self-organized in nature? I hope to answer some of those questions and more, about some of the distinctions between quantity (physical) and quality (metaphysical) properties of the mind.
I will present an argument about what causes an experience from both a logical and phenomenological view. Starting with a philosophical quote:
No one hitherto has gained such an accurate knowledge of the bodily mechanism, that he can explain all its functions... no one knows how or by what means the mind moves the body, nor how many various degrees of motion it can impart to the body, nor how quickly it can move it. Thus when men say that this or that physical action has its origin in the mind, which latter has dominion over the body, they are using words without meaning, or are confessing in specious phraseology that they are ignorant of the cause of the said action, and do not wonder at it. –Spinoza.
Let’s examine at least two ways to address Spinoza’s quote, first starting with (Kantian) logic.
Logic:
Taking the last phrase first, “and do not wonder at it” is intriguing. Why should we wonder? Does wonder, and its intellectual properties have any biological survival advantages? Is wonder itself a source of enhanced quality (not quantity) of life? And what is this physical ‘object’ of (perception) and experience of ‘wonder’ anyway? Is it a meta-physical quality more than a physical quantity (neurons) in-itself?
In trying to figure out the nature of what causes us to wonder, let’s parse this logically with the infamous proposition “all events must have a cause”. As opposed to analytical propositions, that synthetic a priori proposition is what we call informative, and not purely of a logical nature, yet not completely dependent on empirical information for its truth value. And using logic, most can identify with how causation works; whether it’s in the form of the simple cosmological argument, or a cause that moves the body (dualism/phenomenology), or the cause that starts with a thought about having some goal or purposeful action or behavior, it all comes from a subjective experience perceived as a sense of feeling about wonderment, and the feelings from the Will.
To have an experience that involves the intellect, thoughts and feelings converge. But why is it important that we wonder about causes to begin with? What is its truth value? Well, the obvious answers to its cash-value (as James’ would argue in his pragmatic approach to truth value) is that it indeed has practical applications. For instance, wondering about causation (the synthetic a priori) has implications in the sciences. Most all scientific theories start with synthetic propositions which in-turn can be empirically tested. Real simple right? But what about the a priori part of the proposition?
The a priori part is that ‘thing’ which actually ‘causes’ us to wonder. A fixed, intrinsic, thing-in-itself that causes us to ask or wonder about, stuff. Whether it takes the form of critiquing new products/services and technologies to make them better, or the foregoing uses in the sciences, wonderment is, well, a wonderful thing. It’s the source or cause of things that enhance our quality of life. Does a quality of life have biological survival value when instinct is all that’s necessary to survive?
One’s sense of wonder, combined with self-awareness, intellect, feelings and volition, results in the effects of purposeful existence. There we have the dynamics of cause and effect in the mind. In other words, its corresponding features of our Will to wonder, causes one to have the abilities to enhance their quality of life, as well as much needed purposefulness of same. And that’s one overwhelming thing (thing-in-itself) that keeps us living.
1.Are those foregoing qualities of the mind (the experience of the Will to wonder) all 'quantitatively' physical?
Phenomenology (the ghost in the machine) and quality:
This is where it gets interesting. Now let’s do a quick look-see at the other part (first part) of Spinoza’s quote. The experience of having thoughts that causes one’s will to move their arm, what is all part of that phenomenon (you might wonder)? Well, let’s start with where one’s own stream of conscious thoughts come from. Aside from ‘biologically’ having a thought to scratch an itch (as Searle might argue), we might say that our stream of meta-physical thoughts and ideas flow uninterrupted into our daily lives, particularly noticeable at rest. And at rest, these are mostly thoughts and ideas that happen to us, not by us. Moreover, these self-organized thoughts are simply that; and independent existence absent of control. For instance, you cannot stop this flow, nor can you know the next thought that will arise. What it thinks, will think. You cannot know how long any thought that does arise will stay. And once attention (your Will) is engaged, there is no way to predict how long before it becomes disengaged.
In this sense, man has no control over it; it does what it pleases despite his will, or in spite of him. It will take up subject’s entirely independent of him.
And so, while we were resting, and focused in on that flow of thoughts by consciously breaking that flow with our own sense of Will, that feeling of Will in-turn becomes the cause. From Spinoza’s quote, that’s the thing-in-itself that causes us to want to move our arms. For instance, I can look at you and simultaneously pull money out of my pocket. Or, I will will myself to pick up a book to read because my stream of thoughts had me thinking about something relevant to reading (or even irrelevant to reading). In any case, while undeniably, we need neurons, chemicals, muscles to effect movement, what caused or willed it to happen in the first place, is it the Will in-itself? Yes. Is the Will all quantitatively physical? Surely not.
The mysterious nature of our conscious and unconscious Will which we experience as a human-subject who is in-turn causing it all to happen, is the phenomenal ghost in the machine. Or if you prefer, the metaphysical thing-in-itself.
You may wonder, what is so special about human’s and their self-awareness and their ability to make choices that have no biological Darwinian significance or survival value (like reading books, taking money out of my pocket, computing mathematics, composing music, etc.)?
That question leads us to a quick sojourn of quality (Qualia) phenomena or simply put, having the ability to experience sentience to effect one's own quality of life. While the argument that the primacy of Will and emotions, are the cause of action, other’s seem to think similarly. As such, sceptic/empiricist David Hume famously proclaimed:
An opponent of philosophical rationalists, Hume held that passions rather than reason govern human behavior, famously proclaiming that “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.”
It can be argued that Hume was also a sentimentalist or Voluntarist in that the Will takes primacy over the intellect or pure reason. Our will to act, move, and otherwise become some-thing is causing our minds to enjoy having experiences. Otherwise, simply put, we can easily choose to end those experiences and die if we will ourselves to do so. In that experience, our quality of life once again rears its causational head and takes primacy in our lives. Our quality of life was bad, so we felt the need to end it.
Let’s move on to feelings themselves (Qualia) for a moment, and the concepts associated with them. As a so-called phenomenal example of thoughts and feelings and how they converge, consider how plain-feeling an experience is of thinking about a number.
The thought of the number 3492 feels differently than the thought of 666, as some thoughts may be more neutral than other thoughts, but depending on their context, all thoughts, words and images can register as neutral or otherwise. Or the feeling that one experiences with a thought of my sister's unattractive girlfriend versus my sister as someone who can lend me money, is all quite different. For example, If I needed money I would have feelings of relief knowing that she has money to lend me. Same with simple words like yes or no. The experiences of yes or no can be quite different in-themselves. This is to say, all that corresponds to one having a subjective experience, which also included feelings of love/hate, hot/cold, good music/bad music, good math/bad math, so on and so forth.
As we’ve seen already, the stream of consciousness that includes thoughts and feelings (the ghost in the machine) provides for self-organized instructions that appear in our minds. And those organized instructions are thoughts and feelings that both happen to us and willfully by us.
2. Are those foregoing ‘qualities’ of the mind, which seem to have their own self-organized, independent existence, all ‘quantitatively’ physical? Are they both qualitative and quantitative things-in-themselves?
The answer to the latter is, undeniably yes.
Please feel free to share any and all thoughts, critique's, etc.!
― Albert Einstein
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023