Can They be Guides of Thinking?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Can They be Guides of Thinking?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 03:39 pm
[CENTER]Can They be Guides of Thinking?[/CENTER]


Can the below content be the general guides of thinking?
1. Meaningless of nature
2. Life has its meaning only because life is a system existing conditionally
3. If mind exists in some species, the purpose of mind, function of mind, duty of mind, is to help to satisfy the conditions of existing of life.
4. The kinds of duties of mind are to help species to survive in environment and to make happiness, and to be predominant to others of the same species.
5. It is a purpose of mind to make happiness because of the properties of the problem solving procedure of mind, and it is a purpose of mind to help the body survive because of the relationship between body and mind, and the value of mind. Mind has to coordinate both of happiness and body life.
6. For the purpose of existing, and to exist happily and predominantly, we have to solve the problems of the relationships among mind, body, different persons, and nature. Mind, body, other people and nature are related factors of the purpose. We can only solve the problems via discovering the facts and their principles of mind, body, different people, nature and their relationships. We cannot solve problems only by our will unconditionally.
7. How to solve problems? Under the facts and their principles, to adjust our needs and its related factors to reach the goal of existing and to exist happily and predominantly. We have to know the proper needs of us and all of the related factors. We have to know the natural principles of factors, and the proper or rational attitudes, or will, or direction of unnatural factors.
8. How to get the complete facts of related factors? Different scientific methods for different factors that have different properties.
9. How do the natural or unnatural properties of factors affect the proper needs? Those are principles of their relationships.
10. Why do we research things? For we are not free, we have to exist under the principles of ourselves and to exist in the relationships with other things, and things have their own principles.
 
boagie
 
Reply Mon 8 Jan, 2007 09:36 am
@Nates Mind,
Nate,

It looks like you are trying to contruct something which might prove very helpful to all concerned.Why not include the fact that we are multicellular organisms and that the mind is a secondary organ in serves to the community of the body.Just a thought perhaps you can use.
 
Nates Mind
 
Reply Thu 11 Jan, 2007 07:12 am
@boagie,
Hi Boagie,

Sorry for late reply. I saw it just a moment ago.
I agree with you that the mind is a SECONDARY part of a creature. Its function is to serve to the body. Such point can be found in this article .

Nate

boagie wrote:
Nate,

It looks like you are trying to contruct something which might prove very helpful to all concerned.Why not include the fact that we are multicellular organisms and that the mind is a secondary organ in serves to the community of the body.Just a thought perhaps you can use.
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 11 Jan, 2007 10:14 am
@Nates Mind,
Nate,very interesting material but a little overwhelming for someone just popping in.Is it the purpose of your thread to gather insights from the broad spectrum of people in this forum.I suggest,no offense intended,that you pose focused questions and see what creativity is out there.It is a delightful enterprize however and I wish you luck.I shall be watching and perhaps contributing as this topic moves along.All the best!!

Just an after thought which arose for me in thinking about another thread which pose the problem of,What is thought.It seems to me that inorder to answer these questions the mind has to always be considered within its context,be that the modern context of today or it historical past------------probably not to enlightening for you but in researching this you will get the chaff along with the wheat.
 
Nates Mind
 
Reply Thu 11 Jan, 2007 06:42 pm
@boagie,
boagie,

My researching method:

object <------ the set of the phenomena of the object <------ a model which can represent the principles of all of the phenomena <---------apply the model to the object to test whether it will still be true when new phenomena of the object found <----------adjust the model if necessary <------repeat the last two steps

The purpose of the thread is to find how others think in this field. My experience will limit the set of the phenomena. If others can contribute more phenomena of the same object, I get rewards from this thread.

Nate
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 11 Jan, 2007 07:35 pm
@Nates Mind,
Nate,

How does the unity of subject and object play into this? What I mean is they stand or fall together do they not. Have you thought in terms of general systems theory for some of your conclusions.I apologize if it seems an ignorant inquiry,I shall read more of your material and try to get a proper handle on it.I appreciate you are busy,I shall check in on your progress from time to time. May The Force Be With You!
 
Nates Mind
 
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 06:50 pm
@boagie,
boagie,

I think the researching work is to gain true knowledge. Therefore, there are two questions,
one is what is true knowledge and how to gain true knowledge,
the other is what is the true knowledge of some object, and how to gain it.

The two questions cannot be answered separately, for the method itself is the knowledge of the object. But despite it, there is a general method of gaining theoretical knowledge of all of objects. i.e., we have to "match" the models and all of the realities. That's the reason why I posted this thread.
 
boagie
 
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 07:37 pm
@Nates Mind,
Nate,

I believe you will run into frustration here.It all seems rather overwhelming and I don't know that it is not your presentation.I think you might have better luck if you address verious aspects singularly,at first at any rate.Few people I think will put in the dedicated effort to sort this material out.This forum seems to have a lot of every bright people,give them a proper chance to respond to you, perhaps by dealing in specifics,discussing one aspect at a time.
 
Aristoddler
 
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2007 11:00 am
@Nates Mind,
Your original post leaves a lot of interpretation to the reader to assume you are harboring a lot of doubt about us as and our existence.

What lies behind my eyes is what I am, and that is what matters to me.
 
Nates Mind
 
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2007 06:01 pm
@Aristoddler,
I research mind from the following 4 tracks,
1. Engineering. When I study nature and do engineering design, I ask questions, Why can mind perceive nature? Are mind and nature two different things, or having some interaction between them? Why can our engineering designs from our mind react on nature? How can our engineering designs react on nature more effectively? And why?
2. The development of mind. I look through the entire history of mind, from atom to rock, from rock to bacteria, from bacteria to single cells, from single cells to flagellate or paramecium, to grass, to loc
ust, to birds, to animals, to monkey, to human. What I find is that we man is not totally different from those existing before us, but only partly different. It gives me clues of the functions and the values of mind.
3. To convert a mind. If I can successfully convert me from a personality to another one, I can know more about the essenses and principles of mind. This criteria comes from my engineering experience, that if the theory can be applied to the object more successfully, the theory is more truer.
4. Military. Anyone can believe in his/her perception of the world. But if anybody dares not to be seriously in reality, what he/she gets will not be an argument, but to lose something in the battle field, even to lose his/her life. For this very reason, I read more military history than philosophical literature, and to believe in any "phenomenon" or perception very carefully. I don't want to be cheated by my own judgment. For the reality is more powerful than our belief or imagination. (I posted the thread of "the functional structure of mind". It's most valuable application is in military. To distinguish true or false, and to know how men draw any conclusion, both true and false, and how to fight against the opponents.)
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Can They be Guides of Thinking?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2019 at 07:55:36