The mind is the ultimate purpose behind human endeavor

Started by zarus tathra, August 28, 2013, 10:13:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

zarus tathra

My reasoning behind this is very simple, almost computer-like.

Without the mind, there is no purpose. Purpose is nothing more than a creation of the mind. Therefore, if one wishes to find a first and final purpose, the purpose behind all purposes, one must turn to the mind itself.
?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.

mykcob4

Quote from: "zarus tathra"My reasoning behind this is very simple, almost computer-like.

Without the mind, there is no purpose. Purpose is nothing more than a creation of the mind. Therefore, if one wishes to find a first and final purpose, the purpose behind all purposes, one must turn to the mind itself.

Hmmm..... Well basically yes but it's much more than the mind. Basic survival is controlled by the mind but the motivation is created by other parts of the body. The need to relieve oneself for example. So purpose certainly is controlled by the mind but it can originate in other parts of the body. Now don't get huffy about this. The thing I am trying to prove here is that you cannot seperate the body from itself. That is what theist attempt to do, and it's a false premise. Of course all that are not exclussive to primary needs and reaction are created in the mind, i.e. a god for example. It is clear that all gods are figments of peoples imaginations, just like monsters and fairies, unicorns, etc!!!!
Why we exist is determined by each individual and their mind.

zarus tathra

The mind is a product of the body as a whole, I'm not using "the mind" as a drop-in replacement for "the brain."
?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.

Colanth

So insects, having no minds, can't have purpose?  Doubtful.  Maybe not conscious purpose (it's doubtful whether insects are "conscious" in the same sense that we are), but purpose nonetheless.
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

zarus tathra

Oh, animals definitely have emotions. Eating, sleeping, defecating, the purpose of all these activities is to preserve one's consciousness.
?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.

Colanth

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Oh, animals definitely have emotions. Eating, sleeping, defecating, the purpose of all these activities is to preserve one's consciousness.
"Consciousness", as we normally mean it, requires a brain, so animals that have no brains can't have consciousness in that way.  Or emotions, in the way we normally mean that.
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

Brian37

Quote from: "zarus tathra"My reasoning behind this is very simple, almost computer-like.

Without the mind, there is no purpose. Purpose is nothing more than a creation of the mind. Therefore, if one wishes to find a first and final purpose, the purpose behind all purposes, one must turn to the mind itself.

There is no such thing as the "mind". There is the physical brain in motion which we call "I" and "me" and the input we accumulate and result in thoughts we formulate over time you call "mind".

With a brain there still is no utopia purpose to "all this". Humans were not around at the big bang, and this planet will die and so will our sun and, none of us will be remembered. Our species "purpose" is to get to the point of reproduction. But, your individual purpose is what you make with the time you have while you live.

What you should say simply put without trying to sex it up with woo philosophy langauge, "Your purpose is what you make it for yourself". Or "Life is what you make it".
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Obama
Poetry By Brian37 Like my poetry on Facebook Under BrianJames Rational Poet and also at twitter under Brianrrs37

zarus tathra

Quote from: "Colanth"
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Oh, animals definitely have emotions. Eating, sleeping, defecating, the purpose of all these activities is to preserve one's consciousness.
"Consciousness", as we normally mean it, requires a brain, so animals that have no brains can't have consciousness in that way.  Or emotions, in the way we normally mean that.

They still have nerve bundles. Brains are just gigantic, self-organizing nerve bundles.

Quote from: "Brian37"There is no such thing as the "mind". There is the physical brain in motion which we call "I" and "me" and the input we accumulate and result in thoughts we formulate over time you call "mind".

Eh, same difference. You may as well say that we have no hands, only nerves and musculature that only happen to be in close proximity.
?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.

Colanth

Quote from: "zarus tathra"
Quote from: "Colanth"
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Oh, animals definitely have emotions. Eating, sleeping, defecating, the purpose of all these activities is to preserve one's consciousness.
"Consciousness", as we normally mean it, requires a brain, so animals that have no brains can't have consciousness in that way.  Or emotions, in the way we normally mean that.

They still have nerve bundles. Brains are just gigantic, self-organizing nerve bundles.
In much the same way that iron ore and the space shuttle are similar - just piles of metal.  Nerve nexi allow stimuli to cause reactions, they don't allow  conscious thought.  Next time a doctor tests your patellar reflex, tell us what thoughts the "nerve bundle" in your spine thought as it caused your leg to jerk upwards.  That nerve bundle, and that reaction, is the same as the "thoughts", "emotions" and "purpose" most insects are capable of.  If you want to think that the purpose of your leg is to jerk upwards when a spot under your kneecap is hit, fine, but I don't.
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

Solomon Zorn

Does survival instinct qualify as purpose?

Is there a semantic problem with "purpose"? (Not saying, just asking)
If God Exists, Why Does He Pretend Not to Exist?
Poetry and Proverbs of the Uneducated Hick

http://www.solomonzorn.com

entropy

Quote from: "Solomon Zorn"Is there a semantic problem with "purpose"? (Not saying, just asking)

"Purpose" is an ambiguous word. But if you assume the following premise (from the argument in the original post to this thread) - "Purpose is nothing more than a creation of the mind." - then it becomes much less ambiguous. And even what ambiguity remains doesn't really matter that much in terms of the conclusion - "Therefore, if one wishes to find a first and final purpose, the purpose behind all purposes, one must turn to the mind itself." - because that conclusion is basically tautological if you assume the truth of the lone premise. No matter what kind of "purpose" you may wish to conceive of, if you accept that lone premise, the conclusion about the origin of that kind of purpose must be that it is a creation of a mind. In terms of any meaning to the argument beyond this tautology, that depends on what you take to be the meaning of the word "mind". Of course, different meanings for the term, "mind", are going to lead to different meanings for the conclusion.

But there is nothing inherently illogical with rejecting the premise - "Purpose is nothing more than a creation of the mind." One could assume that purpose is given by a deity, or that purpose is woven into the "fabric" of reality - intrinsic to reality independent of our minds. Or you could have a conception of "mind" that equates "mind" with a universal spiritual nature of the world and so the argument would take on a meaning quite different from the meaning it would have for someone who assumes "mind" is an emergent phenomenon of coherent neurological processes.

Solomon Zorn

In that case, accepting the premise, then it follows that "first and final purpose" is a construct of the mind, but I'm not sure I would conclude that it is the mind. And I'm not sure that's what he is asserting.
If God Exists, Why Does He Pretend Not to Exist?
Poetry and Proverbs of the Uneducated Hick

http://www.solomonzorn.com

entropy

#12
Quote from: "Solomon Zorn"In that case, accepting the premise, then it follows that "first and final purpose" is a construct of the mind, but I'm not sure I would conclude that it is the mind. And I'm not sure that's what he is asserting.

I don't understand. Did I say something that implies a conclusion that "first and final purpose" is the mind? Also, I don't think that is what he is asserting and I don't think I said anything that implies that he thinks it is.

Solomon Zorn

Quote from: "entropy"
Quote from: "Solomon Zorn"In that case, accepting the premise, then it follows that "first and final purpose" is a construct of the mind, but I'm not sure I would conclude that it is the mind. And I'm not sure that's what he is asserting.

I don't understand. Did I say something that implies a conclusion that "first and final purpose" is the mind? Also, I don't think that is what he is asserting and I don't think I said anything that implies that he thinks it is.

No, you didn't say anything that implies that. I thought that might be what he was saying from the way it's worded: "the mind itself".
If God Exists, Why Does He Pretend Not to Exist?
Poetry and Proverbs of the Uneducated Hick

http://www.solomonzorn.com

entropy

Quote from: "Solomon Zorn"
Quote from: "entropy"
Quote from: "Solomon Zorn"In that case, accepting the premise, then it follows that "first and final purpose" is a construct of the mind, but I'm not sure I would conclude that it is the mind. And I'm not sure that's what he is asserting.

I don't understand. Did I say something that implies a conclusion that "first and final purpose" is the mind? Also, I don't think that is what he is asserting and I don't think I said anything that implies that he thinks it is.

No, you didn't say anything that implies that. I thought that might be what he was saying from the way it's worded: "the mind itself".

Oh, I see. I think he was just saying that if purpose is a creation of the mind, then if you want to find the origin of purpose, you must look to the mind and not outside of the mind - the mind itself and not outside of the mind. As near as I can tell, his whole post pretty much consists of a restatement of that same basic idea three different ways.