That it’s a meaningless concatenation of words that doesn’t amount to anything?
What about bird flu is rational? It’s starting to appear in Australia (where I live) and there are dire warnings about what it could do if it really becomes an epidemic. But then, there have been periodic epidemics, mass extinction events, periods in Earth’s history when the vast majority of species have been wiped out.
Please tell me the sense in which this is ‘rational’.
First you’d have to explain to me what’s unrational about it.
That it isn’t nice to us and other creatures. Is that your criterial for rational?
It’s a biological concatenation of the process of living, and our physiological processes.
That doesn’t make sense to you??
But this does:
The Hard Problem: This asks why those physical reactions are accompanied by an inner, conscious “movie”—the actual felt quality of experience (qualia). Why doesn’t the brain just process data in the dark without any inner feeling?
With the counter that consciousness is a requirement for surviving on Earth’s competitive unforgiving environment. So that if it hadn’t developed, we won’t be here to daydream about it.
Being written off as simply more meaningless concatenation?
What is rational about nature? 'The word rational means based on or in agreement with reason, logic, and clear thinking rather than emotion. It describes a sensible choice, a sound argument, or a person who is of sound mind. ’
The case can be made that the universe is rational, but an assertion doesn’t amount to making a case.
Likewise doesn’t amount to a philosophical argument. Anyone can see that we are the products of biology, that we evolved. But so what?
I explained already, the sense hub you experience while conscious, is the brain, more specifically, brain-space.
In just about every sense. Connections can be literal, physical, figurative, and anything else you can think of. So, all of what you listed, and much more too.
Is gravity more or less comprehensible if you/we knew if it has a “purpose”, and if so, what it is? No, I don’t think so. Sometimes, maybe many times, things just are. And if they should have a purpose, it often isn’t stated, because it often isn’t useful or relevant.
Would changing that to “absolutely consistent”, as opposed to fickled, like we humans, make it better?
Ah, you want a philosophical argument, not a simple diagram of what’s going down. That’s uninteresting. Got it.
Okay, so guess I’m not doing philosophy.
All I’ve been trying to do is get a realistic grasp on who I am.
Still I found that was impossible without the help taking a deep dive into Evolution and biology provided. Now that I got myself figured out, I’m trying to figure out how philosophy fits into that project.
Guess it doesn’t.
I find that rather curious and disappointing. But it does help me better understand how we humans got ourselves into this self-cannibalizing trap we are in.
We have no emotional connection to the important stuff, like this physical evolved Earth, and biosphere with its countless creatures we are part of - and also dependent on.
Really?
How often have I heard people acknowledge or discuss how our Gods are created from within our own hearts and minds? Now, where do we go from here?
(very rarely)
Why would that be difficult if we has an appreciation for the biological reality unfolding within our bodies.
Why do so people abuse their bodies so hideously?
Why are so many wrapped up in existential terrors?
Why the inability to appreciate what the “Self” is in a simple straightforward manner that tracks with our biological reality.
There’s no way to convey the intellectual and emotional grounding that taking on that biological/evolutionary baggage has provided me.
It’s sort of like “evolution,” there is a world of difference between knowing it happened - and knowing what it is that happened.
Ah, and what is that, beyond a concept?
While I’m wondering: what about the biology of thought?
What about the fact your body doing most all the actual interaction with the world and living? Are you saying that does not have a role in thoughts and our sense of mind?
I’m not disputing the central role of our brain. I’m pointing out that the brain is in constant communication with the body that is actually doing most all of our living experience. There are even some bodily communication channels that bypass the brain because the body can’t afford the extra time that takes.
What I’m insisting is it makes no sense to me, not to include the constant linkage and feedback loops between brain and body and the senses picking up the outside physical signals of light, sound, touch, smell/taste.
@Garon how does “brain-space” account for that stuff?
I’m not denying the crucial nature of body, which as opposed to brain-space, in this realm, I call body-matter.
The experience of body, a perfect match, anchoring brain-space.
You experience body in a specific way, it is not as is, it’s quite the abstraction(motion, intent, blood, etc). I call this body-matter.
Brain-space and body-matter are together, they create the self.
I agree with what you imply; body/body-matter is important.
This doesn’t change the fact that the sense-hub is brain-space.
My point here is, mind, is something else.
Okay, thanks for the clarification, I think I’m following you.
Metaphorically, the Body/Brain interaction produces (perhaps “transmits” might be better term) Mind.
[brain-space & body-matter)
How’s that work for you?
No. Body/Brain creates Brain-Space and Body-Matter. Mind, is something else.
It’s better to route the experienced sense hub directly to brain. It’s not what the brain does, it’s what the brain is.
Subtle distinction, gonna have to chew on it.
How would you define Mind?
Mind is what brain-space can do through body-matter, a synergy of them both.
I’m not sure how to explain it, I just know how to distinguish brain-space/body-matter.
That is, indeed, my thinking. I can understand the division between natural and human-made. If we want to call anything unnatural, I can understand putting laptops, space shuttles, and firearms in that category.
I think that this is a shadow of dualism. Why think anything created from human imagination and brought into existence through the human form should be considered unnatural?
Following the natural chain - Human forms are natural and human forms create things from natural resources. They resource.
I think the problem of dualism persists because the definition of natural is far too narrow.
What purpose is this being born connection?
Is gravity more or less comprehensible if you/we knew if it has a “purpose”, and if so, what it is?
Could we discover a possible answer by finding out what the universe might be like if there were no gravity?
No, I don’t think so. Sometimes, maybe many times, things just are. And if they should have a purpose, it often isn’t stated, because it often isn’t useful or relevant.
Isn’t this one of the main reasons philosophy exists?
No, I don’t think so. Sometimes, maybe many times, things just are. And if they should have a purpose, it often isn’t stated, because it often isn’t useful or relevant.
Yes, on the first hand, I think there should be a different way of referring to these things. Humans make things that will never come into existence without human (or a similar intelligence) intention. But that doesn’t make it unnatural, because it is still part of the universe, subject to the universe’s natural laws.
On the other hand, what does “natural” mean? Why do we have the word? If it has any meaning, surely it is to distinguish between things made by humans and things not made by humans. Or, perhaps more broadly, things made by living entities.
This is a jumble of ideas.
What is a ‘biological reality’? Yours and mine is, I suspect, that we’re both into our seventies, and the ‘biological reality’ is looming senescence. What does it mean to ‘appreciate’ that’? How is ‘appreciating biology’ edifying? What solace does that provide us? And why are ‘so many wrapped up in existential terrors’? Do you think that is a question that impinges on or is informed by biology? If so, how?
OK, then does ‘my’ mind have a connection to my physical body? If so, what is it?
On the other hand, what does “natural” mean? Why do we have the word? If it has any meaning, surely it is to distinguish between things made by humans and things not made by humans. Or, perhaps more broadly, things made by living entities.
I think that the word “natural” is part of dualistic training. You are right that it is to distinguish.
If we look at the definitions of unnatural we have:
1.Not found in the wild or breaking physical laws.
2. Strange, unusual, or different from what is expected.
3. Looking or acting staged, stiff, or not real.
4. Behavior that lacks normal human kindness or feels deeply wrong. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
If we were to take these definitions seriously, then most of what humans do would be considered unnatural.
It’s evolution and what actually physically produces and maintains your body and the rest of the life we find around us.
Looming? 
How’s that song go: “It takes me all night to do what I used to do all night long.”
That within my “mindscape” I have keen awareness of the inside of my body and its various functions. This is thanks to modern science and imagining, which offers our mind wonderful feedback on what “biological reality” is all about. I have a visceral sense of my body’s internal milieu. Which helps me treat it better, as its moods offer guidance, since I’ve become more attentive to them.
Also, I’ve have a long standing conviction that my body knows more than I do. I’ve come to appreciate that my body has taken better care of me than I have of it. Via, reflexes that have amazed me and literally saved my life on occasion - inner moods and nudges I’ve learned to take heed of.
Because among other things, it translates into a visceral connection and sense of kinship. Sort of like extended family, for whom you make time, commitments, share your treasure with.
I suspect it starts with not being able to see past one self.
Heck, also in not being able to answer, Who are you?, in a self satisfactory manner. (
Over at Media.com there’s a writer who never ceases to pound the idea that nature is nothing but a horror show. I’m dumbfounded by his perspective, but there it is.
We are damaging our planet’s life support system beyond what anyone cares to think about. You think that isn’t a problem, or are you convinced “progress” will save us?
Have you watched what went down in America’s democratic society since Nixon > Reaganomics > Trumpian attack on the US of America’s Constitution and the principles of a civil pluralistic society that used to guide us - and where that is taking us?
Now that they’ve managed to get the “voters” and non-voters to rip up our US Constitution and hand over all the power to self-serving and somewhat unbalanced disconnected from physical reality billionaires. How many other global nations are tracking the same political meltdown. I find that stuff quite threatening, because it is.
Being one with the flow of life and death and the rhythms of this planet - rather than obsessing about living forever and having everything and never finding enough.
Living the life examined, and arriving at home and knowing it. Deep down in my blood stream feeling exaltation in being a filament in the tapestry of
Evolution and knowing it.
Also I must correct your misdirection, I myself am not wrapped up in “existential terrors” I dare say I’m beyond that. Not that I don’t feel terror at what we humans are doing all around, but that isn’t an “existential” terror, I’m very solid in my existential awareness, and don’t see my coming death as a horror, it will simply end my existential existence. Though I will live in memory and deeds, that’s plenty for me. I’m sure it really helped me to have the love of those useless baby’s, kids and grownups.
I feel great sadness and the tears flow readily when I’m present to what we are doing, have done, and the consequences that’ll bring with it. But, then I can realize, it is what it is, I’m simply an animal, what more was I expecting/hoping for, than a life to life well and then I die.
Now at 71 I have the great fortune of finding out the path I chose for myself, was spot on, and I’ve lived my life, struggling with and untangling my suite of craziness and baggage, and it was good.
Did some stupid things, and own them, but did way more good and happily own those as well.
Because I’ve experienced it for myself, how learning more about our biological reality and evolution hold the keys to a constructive inner exploration.
I got very lucky in many ways, perhaps it was being a nerdy, insecure, introspective, pushed around, withdrawn kid - then puberty came, and the swim team and the wrestling team and my body had other plans. I never lost the soul and mind of that nerdy kid (the mindscape), but physical reality changed everything in how the world reacted to me. While I was on the inside trying to make sense of all of it.
I feel blessed to have been given the time to see my journey through.
So here we are back at the conundrum that I can’t make my personal self, the public self, to share my thoughts in context with my life’s happenings (or how ever it goes).
Bottomline for me is that we are physical bodies working on auto pilot more often than not.
Our thoughts are untether by any guideline or constraints - whereas biology is exacting beyond comprehension.
Ergo, the only realistic way to truly understanding ourselves is to get to know what biology can teach us about not just our origins, but our collective human formation into who each of us is, and how we operate.
And I still haven’t receive an explanation to the Hard Problem which to me totally sounds like - An expectation to experience the experience of another’s experience of experiencing
I’m told I just don’t get it.
Is there anyone who can explain what I don’t get about the query?
Yes. I can see wanting to differentiate between spontaneously occurring things, and things that don’t spontaneously occur. Seeing non-spontaneous things is a sign of life.
Some of those things are a sign of intelligence.
Does it make sense to call any of these things “unnatural”? Many object to that, because life and intelligence are both natural things; parts of nature. So how can anything produced by them be unnatural? I just used “spontaneous” and “non-spontaneous”. Does that work?
But if we go that route, how would we define “natural”?
We may still have a problem with using that word too.
Some of those things are a sign of intelligence.
Does it make sense to call any of these things “unnatural”? Many object to that, because life and intelligence are both natural things; parts of nature. So how can anything produced by them be unnatural? I just used “spontaneous” and “non-spontaneous”. Does that work?
But if we go that route, how would we define “natural”?
The only answer is to consider all things as natural. These would also include anything which happens, even if these are alternate experiences…we would therefore require the mind to be regarded as natural.