philosophy of mind

Peter F fell_spamtrap_in at dingoblue.net.au
Thu Dec 27 04:04:13 EST 2001

"Mike Dubbeld" <miike at erols.com> wrote in message
news:a0bav9$rrc$1 at bob.news.rcn.net...
> I have no
> idea what an 'Evolutionary Angel' is but I am well versed in the theory of
> evolution and
> have no problem whatsoever with it.

Perhaps I should have written "evolutionary perspective" instead of

> As I said earlier the discoveries made
> fairly recently
> by neruoscientists on things like how mood affects our behavior
> and how our personality
> is a function of neurotransmitter chemicals and hormones and so forth I
> definitely
> believe. But these are the physical outcomes/results/manifestations of
> things that
> transcend physical matter and spacetime in general.

It seems your resoning implies the expression "Laws of
Nature" and what it means.

Whether these are "Laws of" Fundamental Physics and Cosmology or (very
broadly) Biology - i.e., recognized and confirmed within the fields of
respectively referrable to as such - they are well and justifiably
describable/classifiable as "Nothing"#. [#Ref.: Physics-oriented
philosophical statements/proposals identical or closely akin to "Everything
from nothing".]

This "Nothing" is tolerably understood and interpreted (by me) in relation
to how I understand and define "What Is", as: "The 'no thingness' (or,
alernatively put, 'non thingy')
aspect", as opposed to "The forms of energy and matter aspect", of "What
Is". (IOW, "What Is 'in_ self-patterned _formation'", as
opposed to,
"What Is as an ultimate process - or potential - of endless extent that
spawns *any kind* of Universe.)

The expression "Laws of Nature" is the collective label we put on the
reguliarites that we
can consistently and more or less directly detect in respect of _how_ What
Is" (or "What Is going on") is an **evolved/evolving** (and obviously
'self'-patterning) process. In addition, the meaning might be loosely held
to include the as yet or
for ever to be unknown self-patterning tendencies of Nature that we
nevertheless by
extrapolation vaguely _expect_ to be part of how Nature is.

"What Is going on" can be _tenuously_ thought (if only by a "Tolerance
Principled" attitude)
to be thus IF the word "evolving" is meant (as it is by me) in an
unconventionally general (even in an ultimately general) sense.

This "sense" (or concept meaning) is given and explained by how I define
what I like to call a
(or The) "Evolutionary Pressure Totality" - a concept that I define and
understand especially (but not only) in
respect of "this (our) Universe" and the phylogeny of us humans.

> I view them as the
> physical causes.
> As Saint Thomas Aquinas basically says 'You come to know the maker by His
> works.'

You are being up-front! :-)

> "Matter is the permanent possibility of sensations." John Stuart Mill.

As I see things, that sentence of yours would be altogether more true and
relevant and
meaningful if the words "matter" and "sensations" swopped places.

> Do you believe believing in God is self-deceiving?

Yes, I sort of do. But I also know it to be true because of what can be
losely described as "Science (the process of science and philosophy as a
whole) -Established (i.e., by Science produced and proven to be true, or be
so far 'best' - i.e. practically and/or intellectually most workable)
Principles, Theories, Interpretations and Concepts"; and because I
thoroughly and tightly merged these "SEPTIC" informational matters into a
few conceptual "tools for thought" of my own making.

[By the way: In the end of this only partly 'self-set' task -- of pursuing a
rational philosophical overview, one optimized for omniscientific scope and
a potent and revealing *philanthropically oriented* outlook -- my search
suddenly got much more fun and rewarding when I saw that mankind's
collectively contributed-to reservoir of serious informational matter (both
factual and philosophical as per above) could be sampled (or as if
'selectively siphoned-off') and summed-up with the aid of "septic" humor.
But of course, puerile "septic" humor happens to suit someone with my degree
of tolerance and taste in humour, whereas to many or most other seriously
philosophical individuals "septic humor" tends to be distracting by being
perceived onerously, or as offensive penetration of their olfactories.]

Returning to answering your question:

I understand religiousness (amongst any other what I call AEVASIVE/addictive
preoccupations or pursuits) to be a kind and consequence of an, in every
case 'quite naturally' environmentally
necessitated, "selective self-regulatory
unconsciousness", (so to speak).

> If it can be said that
> science studies
> cause/effect relationships - What was the First Cause?

As you might surmise, any *religiously conceived* such cause is, to me,
thoroughly explainable as being 'real' primarily (and alonst only) as far as
it is a neuropsychophysiologically workable "cause for *comfort*" and for
our species' relatively recent phylogenetic survival.

> I am sorry to hear you lack of experience with
> real angels.

 Don't know what an IMO is.
An abbreviation of "in my opinion", often used in posts to News Groups

Like you, I believe we should never never take "What Is going on" TOO

> Have a nice Christmas.
> Mike Dubbeld

Mike - have a nice one you too!!!


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net