Conscious Reasoning

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Conscious Reasoning

I would say that the basic facts that we have, with which to start the search for the cusp of instinctive and consciously reasoned behavior might be:

  1. Somewhere in the chain of life, from its mysterious beginning to the present, there exists a point when the behavior of creatures is influenced by something we call consciousness rather than something we call instinct.

  2. Using computer lingo, we can classify instinct as behavior caused by hardwired algorithms.

  3. Reason is a means to control behavior based upon real time assessment of real time circumstances.

  4. Reason requires that data from the senses be ordered into some fashion that will facilitate real time inferences, this is called conceptualization; followed by inferences made from these concepts.

  5. We have, from computer modeling technology, empirical evidence that the neural system that control perception and mobility have the capacity to conceptualize and to infer. In other words, the essential elements of sensorimotor control are also similar to the essential elements of reasoning.

  6. If biology has created the structure that has the elements for reasoning, it is logical to conclude that such a system would not be duplicated for reason but that this very same system would be modified in whatever manner is necessary for it to function also as an instrument that can reason.

Instinct controlled the behavior of creatures until consciousness kicked in and now humans are controlled to a large extent by reason rather than instinct. Throughout time the evolutionary process, which includes instinctive behavior, maintained some form of equilibrium in the world. With the introduction of rational creatures this evolutionary process has been drastically disrupted.

As reasoning creatures that have disrupted the evolutionary process, we must replace this evolutionary process with a rational process that can duplicate or improve on the natural evolutionary process. If we cannot perform this prodigious task adequately the whole shebang will be flushed down the toilet.

Secretary of State Powell said in regards to the Iraq war that “if we break it, we own it”. I think we can say the same thing about our human activity and natural evolution. We break natural evolution and thereby we own the problems caused by that action.

2

assuming of course that we know the mind of god and/or know what natural evolution is supposed to be.

-Imp

3

I would like to post this as sort of an addendum to the original post.
What is reasoning? Is it a comparison of variables which results in the best decision? I would argue this to be a close definition of it. The human mind doesn’t just work with a series of true/false, on/off recognitions. It also weighs ethical and moral considerations. Do synaptic impulses converge with spirtual endowments to form epistemological humanism? Reasoning affects mathmatical conclusions, matters of the ‘heart’, common sense issues, all manner of vices and conscience.

Our brain encompasses neural recptors that control the autonomic regions in our bodies. These receptors also flow to our vision, sense of smell, taste, hearing and touch. These can work in various combinations or all together to get processed and activate reasoning abilities that formulates understanding of our environment. So, does emotion fit in with reasoning, or does it cause knee jerk responses which makes you lose footholds on reality.

Let’s look at emotions a littler closer. Are we the only species that recognizes it? Knows of its weaknesses and attributes? Can it weave itself into the fabric of reasoning to make a useful and beneficial appendage for mankind? Perhaps it is what sets us apart as a species that will draw us to a higher plane of thought. It must infuse compassion is us all. Sets up guidelines for moral and ethical behavior.

4

“It is through feelings, which are inwardly directed and private, that emotions, which are outwardly directed and public, begin their impact on the mind; but the full and lasting impact of feelings requires consciousness, because only along with the advent of a sense of self do feelings become known to the individual having them.”

First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling. There is no evidence that we are conscious of all our feelings, in fact evidence indicates that we are not conscious of all feelings.

Antonio Damasio, Distinguished Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, testifies in his book “The Feelings of What Happens” that the biological process of feelings begins with a ‘state of emotion’, which can be triggered unconsciously and is followed by ‘a state of feeling’, which can be presented nonconsciously; this nonconscious state can then become ‘a state of feeling made conscious’.

Human emotion and feeling pivot on consciousness; this fact has not been generally recognized prior to Damasio’s research. Emotion has probably evolved long before consciousness and surfaces in many of us when caused by inducers we often do not recognize consciously.

The powerful contrast between emotion and feeling is used by the author in his search for a comprehension of consciousness. It is a neurological fact, states the author, that when consciousness is suspended then emotion is likewise usually suspended. This observed human characteristic led Damasio to suspect that even though emotion and consciousness are different phenomenon that there must be an important connection between the two.

Damasio proposes “that the term feeling should be reserve for the private, mental experience of an emotion, while the term emotion should be used to designate the collection of responses, many of which are publicly observable.” This means that while we can observe our own private feelings we cannot observe these same feelings in others.

Empirical evidence indicates that we need not be conscious of emotional inducers nor can we control emotions willfully. We can, however, control the entertainment of an emotional inducer even though we cannot control the emotion induced.

I was raised as a Catholic and taught by the nuns that “impure thoughts” were a sin only if we “entertained’ bad thoughts after an inducer caused an emotion that we felt, i.e. God would not punish us for the first impure thought but He would punish us for dwelling upon the impure thought. If that is not sufficient verification of the theory derived from Damasio’s empirical evidence, what is?

In a typical emotion, parts of the brain sends forth messages to other parts of the body, some of these messages travel via the blood stream and some via the body’s nerve system. These neural and chemical messages results in a global change in the organism. The brain itself is just as radically changed. But, before the brain becomes conscious of this matter, before the emotion becomes known, two additional steps must occur. The first is feeling, i.e. an imaging of the bodily changes, followed by a ‘core consciousness’ to the entire set of phenomena. “Knowing an emotion—feeling a feeling—only occurs at this point.”

5

The whole of your message to me appears to be well founded and logical. There is nothing I can add or take away since your grasp of reasoning far exceeds my knowledge base concerning it. I tip my hat to you. If your thirst for for philosophical thought and critical thinking extends past this venue, please email me so I may give you a link to a philosophical room I have. There may be topics in my discussion board that may interest you.

6

listininbolt

I am a retired engineer with a good bit of formal education and twenty five years of self-learning. I began the self-learning experience while in my mid-forties. I had no goal in mind; I was just following my intellectual curiosity in whatever direction it led me. This hobby, self-learning, has become very important to me. I have bounced around from one hobby to another but have always been enticed back by the excitement I have discovered in this learning process. Carl Sagan is quoted as having written; “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.”

I label myself as a September Scholar because I began the process at mid-life and because my quest is disinterested knowledge.

Disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term ‘disinterested knowledge’ as similar to ‘pure research’, as compared to ‘applied research’. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.

I think of the self-learner of disinterested knowledge as driven by curiosity and imagination to understand. The September Scholar seeks to ‘see’ and then to ‘grasp’ through intellection directed at understanding the self as well as the world. The knowledge and understanding that is sought by the September Scholar are determined only by personal motivations. It is noteworthy that disinterested knowledge is knowledge I am driven to acquire because it is of dominating interest to me. Because I have such an interest in this disinterested knowledge my adrenaline level rises in anticipation of my voyage of discovery.

We often use the metaphors of ‘seeing’ for knowing and ‘grasping’ for understanding. I think these metaphors significantly illuminate the difference between these two forms of intellection. We see much but grasp little. It takes great force to impel us to go beyond seeing to the point of grasping. The force driving us is the strong personal involvement we have to the question that guides our quest. I think it is this inclusion of self-fulfillment, as associated with the question, that makes self-learning so important.

The self-learner of disinterested knowledge is engaged in a single-minded search for understanding. The goal, grasping the ‘truth’, is generally of insignificant consequence in comparison to the single-minded search. Others must judge the value of the ‘truth’ discovered by the autodidactic. I suggest that truth, should it be of any universal value, will evolve in a biological fashion when a significant number of pursuers of disinterested knowledge engage in dialogue.

7

coberst,

I too started a learning process late in life. My education ended in High School. My family was very poor along with abusive situations that went on. Needless to say my self esteem was not the greatest at that my point in my life. But not wanting to be a victim of my past I endeavored to improve my life. I take total responsibilty for denouncements and attributes. As my life continues and my health plus presence of mind stays with me, I will continue learn. This in hopes to try to be a good example for my fellow man. The internet has provided the vehicle I need to convey thoughts with other people who desire to intellectually improve their minds. Unfortunately people of that nature may appear to be elitists by others who do not care to continue learning.

8

More and more I believe reasoning is a consequence of language.