4 ms·

Philosophy of mind has little to no understanding of consciousness and the will. Most people who have a considered opinion are 'physicalists' who think that the

Philosophy of mind has little to no understanding of consciousness and the will. Most people who have a considered opinion are 'physicalists' who think that the mind is reducible to the physical activity of the brain, but this belief is not based on an especially compelling neurological research programme but on the ontological expectation that all phenomena are reducible to physical processes. That is, they believe the mind must be of this quality because most everything else studied by natural science is. What the true nature of the mind is - and it may simply lie beyond human understanding - makes no difference to the phenomenological experience of being a first-person subjectivity, and the struggle to live that we all must lead. Do you confront the world without a predetermined purpose? Yes. Then for the existentialists you are radically free and, inescapably, have to choose who you want to be.

sysbin 7y ago
The mind could only be free if independent from what encompasses it. That’s simply impossible and even if our mind had some quantum physics thrown into the equation. Anyhow this all is a difficult subject unless understanding determinism and processing life with the knowledge for awhile. In either case fate decides the outcome but I wish I knew earlier in life. Maybe I’ll live the same life over but the universe will allow that to happen but that would arguably not be my own doing as well because this life made that desire. All nifty cause & effects...
- Emma_Goldman 7y ago
  >"The mind could only be free if independent from what encompasses it." No it could be an emergent property that arises from physical processes but is not reducible to them (emergentism). It could be that the mental and the physical are not independent substances but different elements of the same thing, and thus one does not need to be reducible to the other (neutral monism). Or you could be a dualist and claim that the mind really is separate from the physical world. Or, more sensibly, you could be agnostic because we lack any solid grounds for belief in any theory of the mind. And again, as I just said, this ontological problem is separate from the phenomenological problem with which the existentialists were concerned. For what the mind is, ontologically, makes no difference to our subjective experience as radically free beings without a predetermined essence.
  - sysbin 7y ago
    You're interpreting my definition of what makes the mind different than your own. I consider the mind to be free if independent from what encompasses it. Meaning the ability to choose how life plays out. That's not truly fitting of free will either because even then a person will desire whatever the first experiences force them into desiring. Everything is predetermined. Cause & effect.
    - Emma_Goldman 7y ago
      No, I am not. The three substantive positions that I described - emergentism, neutral monism, dualism - reject the idea that mental activity is reducible to antecedent physical processes. Agnosticism suspends belief about the mind. Existentialism recasts this as a phenomenological issue; about our subjective experience of radical freedom. In other words, every one of these positions rejects the idea that we are imprisoned by a physical nexus of 'cause & effect'.
      - sysbinn 7y ago
        Those three positions are substantive? How so.., I assume if you're that loose with the word.. the most widely shared definition of free will should be substantive to you. Even one could say free will rejects the idea that we are imprisoned by a physical nexus of 'cause & effect' and typically what people follow from reading the bible. Evil fairy tales that delude a person. Anyhow I wish I knew of cause & effect very young because then I wouldn't have been grossly taken advantaged of and I assume is the reason the majority of people are conditioned to stay deluded.
        Emma_Goldman 7y ago
        I am struggling to understand what you are saying. Your views are not clearly stated or elaborated, and they are not obviously related to what I said. I called them substantive because they are worked out philosophical theories, as opposed to agnosticism, which is simply the suspension of belief.

sysbin 7y ago

The mind could only be free if independent from what encompasses it. That’s simply impossible and even if our mind had some quantum physics thrown into the equation. Anyhow this all is a difficult subject unless understanding determinism and processing life with the knowledge for awhile. In either case fate decides the outcome but I wish I knew earlier in life. Maybe I’ll live the same life over but the universe will allow that to happen but that would arguably not be my own doing as well because this life made that desire. All nifty cause & effects...

Emma_Goldman 7y ago
>"The mind could only be free if independent from what encompasses it." No it could be an emergent property that arises from physical processes but is not reducible to them (emergentism). It could be that the mental and the physical are not independent substances but different elements of the same thing, and thus one does not need to be reducible to the other (neutral monism). Or you could be a dualist and claim that the mind really is separate from the physical world. Or, more sensibly, you could be agnostic because we lack any solid grounds for belief in any theory of the mind. And again, as I just said, this ontological problem is separate from the phenomenological problem with which the existentialists were concerned. For what the mind is, ontologically, makes no difference to our subjective experience as radically free beings without a predetermined essence.
- sysbin 7y ago
  You're interpreting my definition of what makes the mind different than your own. I consider the mind to be free if independent from what encompasses it. Meaning the ability to choose how life plays out. That's not truly fitting of free will either because even then a person will desire whatever the first experiences force them into desiring. Everything is predetermined. Cause & effect.
  - Emma_Goldman 7y ago
    No, I am not. The three substantive positions that I described - emergentism, neutral monism, dualism - reject the idea that mental activity is reducible to antecedent physical processes. Agnosticism suspends belief about the mind. Existentialism recasts this as a phenomenological issue; about our subjective experience of radical freedom. In other words, every one of these positions rejects the idea that we are imprisoned by a physical nexus of 'cause & effect'.
    - sysbinn 7y ago
      Those three positions are substantive? How so.., I assume if you're that loose with the word.. the most widely shared definition of free will should be substantive to you. Even one could say free will rejects the idea that we are imprisoned by a physical nexus of 'cause & effect' and typically what people follow from reading the bible. Evil fairy tales that delude a person. Anyhow I wish I knew of cause & effect very young because then I wouldn't have been grossly taken advantaged of and I assume is the reason the majority of people are conditioned to stay deluded.
      - Emma_Goldman 7y ago
        I am struggling to understand what you are saying. Your views are not clearly stated or elaborated, and they are not obviously related to what I said. I called them substantive because they are worked out philosophical theories, as opposed to agnosticism, which is simply the suspension of belief.