Functionism

[frosty77]

Things exist by the circumstances and manner in which they function in systems.
Nothing exists alone. A thing is not the same thing independent of circumstance. Function creates, not things. A person exists as follows: Sub-atomic particles functioning in a particular manner creating atomic particles that function to create our physical body including the brain. The brain functions in a particulat manner to create the mind (ones personal self). The personal self governs how the physical self functions. An analogy is a person driving a car. If the person driving the car strikes another person; is the car or the person driving the car the guilty party? The answer is the person. One can cease to exist as the same person who commits an act at the personal level by ceasing to think, act and feel in a certain manner toward a particular situation. This philosophical viewpoint is controversial in the sense that it can allow a physical self to escape punishment for a crime. However, ceasing to think, act and feel in a certain manner is not an easy thing to do.It requires a total undoing of a particular method of viewing a situation. Guilt, anger, love etc, tie people to a past manner of being.

[jonquil]

Does everything have to have a function? What's the function of a rock just sitting there in a field, or say an asteroid floating through space?

[cheegster]

There is a major problem with this theory; it indicates a dualit between the 'personal self' and the 'physical self'. This is exactly why one would not get away with the crime stated. Otherwise individuals would just blame things on their physical self - 'Nuh-uh, I tried to stop my physical self but I couldn't'.

It is a very physicalist viewpoint, but you're mad not to accept that they are the same thing in modern philosophy.

[James S Saint]

There is a major problem with this theory; it indicates a dualit between the 'personal self' and the 'physical self'. This is exactly why one would not get away with the crime stated. Otherwise individuals would just blame things on their physical self - 'Nuh-uh, I tried to stop my physical self but I couldn't'.

It is a very physicalist viewpoint, but you're mad not to accept that they are the same thing in modern philosophy.

It is a really, really, really bad idea to assess a truth statement based on how you speculate that someone might use it. Isn't it a better idea to regulate how they use truth, rather than to try to regulate what is believed to be truth?

There IS a difference between the conscious entity and the physical self in the same way there is a difference between hardware and software - deal with it.

[cheegster]

It is a really, really, really bad idea to assess a truth statement based on how you speculate that someone might use it. Isn't it a better idea to regulate how they use truth, rather than to try to regulate what is believed to be truth?

There IS a difference between the conscious entity and the physical self in the same way there is a difference between hardware and software - deal with it.

I disagreed with his truth statement based on my own perception of truth. Then I challenged him to reconcile his argument (or prove me wrong).

Do you reeeeally want to turn this into a physicalism/non-physicalism argument? Really? Go ahead if you want, punk

[cheegster]

On a side note, when I said 'it is a physicalist POV', I meant my following viewpoint, not referring to his. In case that was how you read my response, Sainty.

[north]

Things exist by the circumstances and manner in which they function in systems.

so things are therefore the essence of the system

[JohnJones]

Things exist by the circumstances and manner in which they function in systems.
Nothing exists alone. A thing is not the same thing independent of circumstance. Function creates, not things. A person exists as follows: Sub-atomic particles functioning in a particular manner creating atomic particles that function to create our physical body including the brain. The brain functions in a particulat manner to create the mind (ones personal self). The personal self governs how the physical self functions. An analogy is a person driving a car. If the person driving the car strikes another person; is the car or the person driving the car the guilty party? The answer is the person. One can cease to exist as the same person who commits an act at the personal level by ceasing to think, act and feel in a certain manner toward a particular situation. This philosophical viewpoint is controversial in the sense that it can allow a physical self to escape punishment for a crime. However, ceasing to think, act and feel in a certain manner is not an easy thing to do.It requires a total undoing of a particular method of viewing a situation. Guilt, anger, love etc, tie people to a past manner of being.

It's spelt "functionalism". Bad start.

[cheegster]

Things exist by the circumstances and manner in which they function in systems.
Nothing exists alone. A thing is not the same thing independent of circumstance. Function creates, not things. A person exists as follows: Sub-atomic particles functioning in a particular manner creating atomic particles that function to create our physical body including the brain. The brain functions in a particulat manner to create the mind (ones personal self). The personal self governs how the physical self functions. An analogy is a person driving a car. If the person driving the car strikes another person; is the car or the person driving the car the guilty party? The answer is the person. One can cease to exist as the same person who commits an act at the personal level by ceasing to think, act and feel in a certain manner toward a particular situation. This philosophical viewpoint is controversial in the sense that it can allow a physical self to escape punishment for a crime. However, ceasing to think, act and feel in a certain manner is not an easy thing to do.It requires a total undoing of a particular method of viewing a situation. Guilt, anger, love etc, tie people to a past manner of being.

It's spelt "functionalism". Bad start.

Hah, I thought that, but then I realised it isn't at all related to the main functionalism concept, it is more in reference to the person themselves rather than society(s) as a whole.

[frosty77]

Things exist by the circumstances and manner in which they function in systems.
Nothing exists alone. A thing is not the same thing independent of circumstance. Function creates, not things. A person exists as follows: Sub-atomic particles functioning in a particular manner creating atomic particles that function to create our physical body including the brain. The brain functions in a particulat manner to create the mind (ones personal self). The personal self governs how the physical self functions. An analogy is a person driving a car. If the person driving the car strikes another person; is the car or the person driving the car the guilty party? The answer is the person. One can cease to exist as the same person who commits an act at the personal level by ceasing to think, act and feel in a certain manner toward a particular situation. This philosophical viewpoint is controversial in the sense that it can allow a physical self to escape punishment for a crime. However, ceasing to think, act and feel in a certain manner is not an easy thing to do.It requires a total undoing of a particular method of viewing a situation. Guilt, anger, love etc, tie people to a past manner of being.

Reply-A rock functions in a particular manner to exist as a rock... and it interacts with space in a certain manner and in particular circumstances to exist in the manner in which it does. The rock doesn't exist alone. It exists only by interacting with that particular frame(s) of space to exist as a rock in space. Space is not a "nothingness". It has properties and exists acording to its system and the system in which it interacts with.

[frosty77]

There is a major problem with this theory; it indicates a dualit between the 'personal self' and the 'physical self'. This is exactly why one would not get away with the crime stated. Otherwise individuals would just blame things on their physical self - 'Nuh-uh, I tried to stop my physical self but I couldn't'.

It is a very physicalist viewpoint, but you're mad not to accept that they are the same thing in modern philosophy.

How can you blame your physical self for something your thoughts and feelings caused it to do? Your mind tells your body how, when, where to act.

[frosty77]

It is a really, really, really bad idea to assess a truth statement based on how you speculate that someone might use it. Isn't it a better idea to regulate how they use truth, rather than to try to regulate what is believed to be truth?

There IS a difference between the conscious entity and the physical self in the same way there is a difference between hardware and software - deal with it.

I disagreed with his truth statement based on my own perception of truth. Then I challenged him to reconcile his argument (or prove me wrong).

Do you reeeeally want to turn this into a physicalism/non-physicalism argument? Really? Go ahead if you want, punk

I fail to understand your argument in your 2nd and 3rd small paragraphs. Please re-state.

[frosty77]

Things exist by the circumstances and manner in which they function in systems.
Nothing exists alone. A thing is not the same thing independent of circumstance. Function creates, not things. A person exists as follows: Sub-atomic particles functioning in a particular manner creating atomic particles that function to create our physical body including the brain. The brain functions in a particulat manner to create the mind (ones personal self). The personal self governs how the physical self functions. An analogy is a person driving a car. If the person driving the car strikes another person; is the car or the person driving the car the guilty party? The answer is the person. One can cease to exist as the same person who commits an act at the personal level by ceasing to think, act and feel in a certain manner toward a particular situation. This philosophical viewpoint is controversial in the sense that it can allow a physical self to escape punishment for a crime. However, ceasing to think, act and feel in a certain manner is not an easy thing to do.It requires a total undoing of a particular method of viewing a situation. Guilt, anger, love etc, tie people to a past manner of being.

It's spelt "functionalism". Bad start.

Hah, I thought that, but then I realised it isn't at all related to the main functionalism concept, it is more in reference to the person themselves rather than society(s) as a whole.

Reply- It's about existence, which includes everything. It's called Functionism. I created this phiolosphy and I named it.

[cheegster]

How can you blame your physical self for something your thoughts and feelings caused it to do? Your mind tells your body how, when, where to act.

Again, you have imposed a real duality here, with no real explanation of the gap.

Where are these thoughts and feelings located? Your mind and body are the same thing.

I fail to understand your argument in your 2nd and 3rd small paragraphs. Please re-state.

Sorry- bit confused - I only had 2 paragraphs?

Reply- It's about existence, which includes everything. It's called Functionism. I created this phiolosphy and I named it.

Yeah maaan, I gathered that - I was just clearing it up for JJ.

[frosty77]

There is a major problem with this theory; it indicates a dualit between the 'personal self' and the 'physical self'. This is exactly why one would not get away with the crime stated. Otherwise individuals would just blame things on their physical self - 'Nuh-uh, I tried to stop my physical self but I couldn't'.

It is a very physicalist viewpoint, but you're mad not to accept that they are the same thing in modern philosophy.

Reply: Does your mind tell your hand to raise, or does the hand tell itself? If you have cancer of the liver do you want your doctor to operate on the total physical or treat the specific ailment? Are you the same person you were when you were 3 years old? Do your personal self still harbor guilt over some action your personal self told your physical self to perform at that age?

[cheegster]

Well of course the 'physical' and 'personal' self are interconnected. Your OP suggested to me at first that you thought that the personal self was some sort of transcendental abstract thing, I'm not sure this is what you meant now though.

I am not suggesting that either (what you call) the physical self or the personal self cannot be wholly responsible for actions. For example - controversially, women here in England have been acquitted of charges for certain crimes (mainly violent ones) because of drastic hormonal changes. So in these cases, they have been absolved of any wrongdoing because their personal selves were not in control. A dangerous concept, huh? That's an example of the controversy you mentioned. The antithetical example would be your brain directly raising a hand, as you said.

However, on a deeper level, my argumen was based on the fact that this 'personal self' is really just the physical one - just part of the organism. Latent in any sort of intelligence lays a simple part of nature; it is physical make up. Even really complex structures.

In other words, the 'personal self' is wholly physical.

[frosty77]

Things exist by the circumstances and manner in which they function in systems.

so things are therefore the essence of the system

Interesting way of putting it, but I would say yes. I pride myself on the idea that Functionism combines physics and philosophy. So, in a way, your idea has been verified to be real.

[frosty77]

It is a really, really, really bad idea to assess a truth statement based on how you speculate that someone might use it. Isn't it a better idea to regulate how they use truth, rather than to try to regulate what is believed to be truth?

There IS a difference between the conscious entity and the physical self in the same way there is a difference between hardware and software - deal with it.

I disagreed with his truth statement based on my own perception of truth. Then I challenged him to reconcile his argument (or prove me wrong).

Do you reeeeally want to turn this into a physicalism/non-physicalism argument? Really? Go ahead if you want, punk

I fail to understand your argument in your 2nd and 3rd small paragraphs. Please re-state.

Concluding on an idea that you are still investigating is a form of enslavement. It terminates that which you are investigating. Why wouldn't we want to turn this into an argument between physicalism/non-physicalism. Calling me a punk doesn't insult me ,but it does indicate that you have a set way of looking at life and feel threatened by some form of contradiction.

[cheegster]

Concluding on an idea that you are still investigating is a form of enslavement. It terminates that which you are investigating. Why wouldn't we want to turn this into an argument between physicalism/non-physicalism. Calling me a punk doesn't insult me ,but it does indicate that you have a set way of looking at life and feel threatened by some form of contradiction.

What? Do you understand how the quoting system works?

Firstly, I was adressing James Saint, indicated by the fact that I quoted him.

Secondly, calling him a punk was satirical. As in 'make my day punk'. A playful way to induce argument. I even put a wink afterwards in case somebody didn't get it.

[kyle2000]

atomic particles that function to create our physical body including the brain. The brain functions in a particulat manner to create the mind (ones personal self).

Dead atoms cannot create. Creation requires planning and foresight which atoms do not have. Individual atoms cannot choose to create anything.

The personal self governs how the physical self functions. An analogy is a person driving a car. If the person driving the car strikes another person; is the car or the person driving the car the guilty party? The answer is the person.

But is this person material? Is it located in time and space? I agree with your analogy, that the person is the mind and the car is the body, but the mind is immaterial.

[frosty77]

Well of course the 'physical' and 'personal' self are interconnected. Your OP suggested to me at first that you thought that the personal self was some sort of transcendental abstract thing, I'm not sure this is what you meant now though.

I am not suggesting that either (what you call) the physical self or the personal self cannot be wholly responsible for actions. For example - controversially, women here in England have been acquitted of charges for certain crimes (mainly violent ones) because of drastic hormonal changes. So in these cases, they have been absolved of any wrongdoing because their personal selves were not in control. A dangerous concept, huh? That's an example of the controversy you mentioned. The antithetical example would be your brain directly raising a hand, as you said.

However, on a deeper level, my argumen was based on the fact that this 'personal self' is really just the physical one - just part of the organism. Latent in any sort of intelligence lays a simple part of nature; it is physical make up. Even really complex structures.

In other words, the 'personal self' is wholly physical.

Reply: I'm not saying that the physical self doesn't have influences on the personal self, but the personal self makes the decision to act or think or feel a certain way. You brought up an interesting argument about the dualit stance. Thinking things are different from singular things like rocks. A rock exists internally by functioning in a manner that makes the idea of "rock" . Notice that I said "idea" because that rock exists by inter-functioning with the circumstances of its existence in a system with its environment and other circumstances. A thinking thing does that too, but has a personal component whereas the personal existence can dictate various circumstances that a rock cannot. To clarify what I meant by the rock existing, the rock exists, lets say, in a box in such and such area at such and such time, etc. The rock does not exist alone from those circumstances. If you take the rock out of the box and hold it in your hand, then the rock only exists as a rock in your hand in such and such area at such and such time, etc. Assuming that the rock exist alone is merely an idea, not a fact.

[frosty77]

Concluding on an idea that you are still investigating is a form of enslavement. It terminates that which you are investigating. Why wouldn't we want to turn this into an argument between physicalism/non-physicalism. Calling me a punk doesn't insult me ,but it does indicate that you have a set way of looking at life and feel threatened by some form of contradiction.

What? Do you understand how the quoting system works?

Firstly, I was adressing James Saint, indicated by the fact that I quoted him.

Secondly, calling him a punk was satirical. As in 'make my day punk'. A playful way to induce argument. I even put a wink afterwards in case somebody didn't get it.

Reply to quoting system: I am new to this forum and I really don't know exactly how to use this system. Please explain

[elephanticus]

Where is your argument? You assert a controversial conclusion without any premises.
Additionally you might want to re-word what you are saying a bit. You assert a teleological perspective by stating that "x exists by ... the manner in which they function in systems." It might be better to use the word 'behaviour', as generally the word 'function' is reserved for a relationship between a given input and output, as in mathematics.
Finally, aside from the assertion that existence is governed by the way in something behaves, your theory seems to be a restatement of foundationalism. You might want to expand more on your idea that existences build on each other, or else omit it.

[kyle2000]

you still haven't answered whether you think the personal self, or the mind is material or immaterial. functionalists believe the mind is material, but as I have already stated, creation requires choices. atoms have no choice, therefore atoms cannot create a brain.

[Only_Humean]

you still haven't answered whether you think the personal self, or the mind is material or immaterial. functionalists believe the mind is material, but as I have already stated, creation requires choices. atoms have no choice, therefore atoms cannot create a brain.

That's... really irrelevant. A person doesn't have a university, therefore people cannot create a university. An atom has no mechanical strength, therefore atoms cannot create mechanical strength. My monkeywrench must be held together by something non-physical!

I think where many people go wrong is looking for some Thing that the mind is. "The mind", such as it is, is not a Thing, material or immaterial.

How can your mind tell your hand to raise? What tells your mind to tell your hand to do so? And who tells whatever that is to tell your mind?

You raise your hand, or you don't. Or you try, but are prevented. No-one tells anyone anything.