Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[3017Metaphysician]

Jack said.
“It has varying degrees of consciousness awareness because some people seem to get sick without that much awareness of their emotions while others seem to have more of the emotional angst related to experiences.”
“the absence of concepts and self consciousness make this so different from in human beings who may dwell or reflect on events.”

There is natural barrier or tentorium cerebelli to separate the contents. The narrative of events could be influenced by the cognitive method and the method is the basis of the understanding. The reason for this representation is the manifold and the energy producing dimensions. Orbiting the manifold are baseline chemical disks that at any time project themselves into the personal space in an inherited method of mind. The qualitative and quantitative analysis is the standardized professional to for example determine the levels of attention. But what is it the Biologist is saying?
It is also true that consciousness evolves in the lifetime of experience installing new methodology to uncover and also change the experiential and the formative content.

Part of the problem is putting together an accurate picture of individual development of consciousness. It would seem that narrative identity, as in the 'I', which Descartes describes is central to reflective identity. The development of language in the individual, like the development of humanity plays a part in this. The body is the dimension through which the feelings are based, but also emotional development involves the emotions, especially in relation to attachments to others. The importance of attachment is recognised by the child development psychologists, such as John Bowlby.

In this process, the physical is the starting point but it may be that other dimensions are involved and here is where the collective unconscious comes in. It may involve intersubjective understanding as well as individual insight. This may be realised in dreams or the waking realm of imagination. In this process the individual is constructing an inner picture, with associations and links between the various components of experience. It may like the building of a sophisticated architectural design. Some of it may be more conscious than other aspects. It may depend on the ability to reflect on awareness and emotions. Some people are probably more able to do this and it may depend on how people have learned to think, even going back to how one was aided to think and reflect in childhood and through life developments. It may be assisted by therapy, including cognitive behavioral techniques.

The process could be described as one of psychological mindedness or even mindful awareness. It may be about being attuned to the sensory aspects of experiences alongside feeling tones of the emotions, as well as rational ideas and intuitive imagination. In this way, it is about the task of being more aware as a conscious being, or narrator, constructing and editing the various strands from the stream of consciousness.

Yes, good stuff. Have you read WJ's : The Illusion of Will, Self and Time?

In some respects, in our daily everydayness of cognition we have choice and no-choice happening in a succession. We can choose to be a certain way, but only to the extent that our memory, experiences and our stream of consciousness can provide for (that sense of self/self-awareness). Meaning, feeling and thoughts often happen TO us, as apposed to being a voluntary artisan:

I conceive of man as always spoken to from behind, and unable to turn his head and see the speaker.

As such, you find yourself watching random thoughts arriving unescorted into consciousness (i.e., driving while daydreaming/stream of consciousness/making decisions from past experiences, etc.). These thoughts in themselves are experienced more as happening TO us than as being made BY us. And so we have this 'play' that manifests or 'plays out' in time... .

Subconsciously then, in many respects we are in a state of believing in, instead of knowing, our conscious reality. For instance, we believe in our thoughts coming from our stream of consciousness as presented to us. In a secular, generic or pragmatic way, the 'will to believe' may very well be an existential condition that all humans find themselves, for which there is no escape. The whole concept of belief then, by itself, is therefore not necessarily a bad thing. (I believe I exist, but I don't really know I exist.)
(?)

[Sy Borg]

Yes, sentience is very powerful not only from the vantage point of say, human love, but in physiology also. From the effects on metabolism, nervous system, heart health, and so on, emotions play a powerful role in sustaining overall health and well Being. Common examples include how fear affects heart rate and many other things... . The metaphysic's of emotion is quite a phenomenon relative to causation...

Emotions appear to be the link between the intellect and the body. There are strong feedback loops between the intellect and emotions and between the body and emotions. There is no direct link between the intellect and the body, rather the emotions act as an intermediary - providing the motivation to act on the findings of the intellect.

In a sense, the emotions are the language with which the mind and body communicate. Note, the emotions need not be powerful. Often these are just mild impulses, like gently spoken subliminal instructions.

[JackDaydream]

Jack said.
“It has varying degrees of consciousness awareness because some people seem to get sick without that much awareness of their emotions while others seem to have more of the emotional angst related to experiences.”
“the absence of concepts and self consciousness make this so different from in human beings who may dwell or reflect on events.”

There is natural barrier or tentorium cerebelli to separate the contents. The narrative of events could be influenced by the cognitive method and the method is the basis of the understanding. The reason for this representation is the manifold and the energy producing dimensions. Orbiting the manifold are baseline chemical disks that at any time project themselves into the personal space in an inherited method of mind. The qualitative and quantitative analysis is the standardized professional to for example determine the levels of attention. But what is it the Biologist is saying?
It is also true that consciousness evolves in the lifetime of experience installing new methodology to uncover and also change the experiential and the formative content.

Part of the problem is putting together an accurate picture of individual development of consciousness. It would seem that narrative identity, as in the 'I', which Descartes describes is central to reflective identity. The development of language in the individual, like the development of humanity plays a part in this. The body is the dimension through which the feelings are based, but also emotional development involves the emotions, especially in relation to attachments to others. The importance of attachment is recognised by the child development psychologists, such as John Bowlby.

In this process, the physical is the starting point but it may be that other dimensions are involved and here is where the collective unconscious comes in. It may involve intersubjective understanding as well as individual insight. This may be realised in dreams or the waking realm of imagination. In this process the individual is constructing an inner picture, with associations and links between the various components of experience. It may like the building of a sophisticated architectural design. Some of it may be more conscious than other aspects. It may depend on the ability to reflect on awareness and emotions. Some people are probably more able to do this and it may depend on how people have learned to think, even going back to how one was aided to think and reflect in childhood and through life developments. It may be assisted by therapy, including cognitive behavioral techniques.

The process could be described as one of psychological mindedness or even mindful awareness. It may be about being attuned to the sensory aspects of experiences alongside feeling tones of the emotions, as well as rational ideas and intuitive imagination. In this way, it is about the task of being more aware as a conscious being, or narrator, constructing and editing the various strands from the stream of consciousness.

Yes, good stuff. Have you read WJ's : The Illusion of Will, Self and Time?

In some respects, in our daily everydayness of cognition we have choice and no-choice happening in a succession. We can choose to be a certain way, but only to the extent that our memory, experiences and our stream of consciousness can provide for (that sense of self/self-awareness). Meaning, feeling and thoughts often happen TO us, as apposed to being a voluntary artisan:

I conceive of man as always spoken to from behind, and unable to turn his head and see the speaker.

As such, you find yourself watching random thoughts arriving unescorted into consciousness (i.e., driving while daydreaming/stream of consciousness/making decisions from past experiences, etc.). These thoughts in themselves are experienced more as happening TO us than as being made BY us. And so we have this 'play' that manifests or 'plays out' in time... .

Subconsciously then, in many respects we are in a state of believing in, instead of knowing, our conscious reality. For instance, we believe in our thoughts coming from our stream of consciousness as presented to us. In a secular, generic or pragmatic way, the 'will to believe' may very well be an existential condition that all humans find themselves, for which there is no escape. The whole concept of belief then, by itself, is therefore not necessarily a bad thing. (I believe I exist, but I don't really know I exist.)
(?)

It does seem that the stream of consciousness is to a large extent something which happens. On the other hand, there is some extent of control. In particular, there is some amount of choice over which thoughts to follow and what not to. I try to not follow negative thoughts, but it is not simple because sometimes thoughts and emotions can be intrusive. Also, a certain amount of pursuing the negative is probably worth while, if it means realising problems before they occur, such as realistic evaluations of situations. But it may be a careful and intricate balance, and suppression of feelings may be a form of denial. The idea of mindfulness does involve the process of observation of thoughts as they arise in the mind, but this may be with a certain attention rather than be swept along by them. But, it is not easy to be an active witness of consciousness.

[Belindi]

Yes, sentience is very powerful not only from the vantage point of say, human love, but in physiology also. From the effects on metabolism, nervous system, heart health, and so on, emotions play a powerful role in sustaining overall health and well Being. Common examples include how fear affects heart rate and many other things... . The metaphysic's of emotion is quite a phenomenon relative to causation...

Emotions appear to be the link between the intellect and the body. There are strong feedback loops between the intellect and emotions and between the body and emotions. There is no direct link between the intellect and the body, rather the emotions act as an intermediary - providing the motivation to act on the findings of the intellect.

In a sense, the emotions are the language with which the mind and body communicate. Note, the emotions need not be powerful. Often these are just mild impulses, like gently spoken subliminal instructions.

Insight into the causes of one's emotions empowers intellectual motivation. Intellectual motivation can become habitual. Behaviour resulting from habitual intellectual motivation can be engineered by others who exert deliberate power over education especially child education. China is changing behaviour among the Uyghur. Hitler changed behaviour among Nazi youth.I don't doubt that my own Dasein has been partly caused by family and national culture and will continue to be so.

Emotions are not only channels of communication within and among individuals. Emotions,together with intellect, are also the well-spring of good . The good that inheres in emotions can be corrupted or enhanced. It's up to us.

[3017Metaphysician]

Yes, sentience is very powerful not only from the vantage point of say, human love, but in physiology also. From the effects on metabolism, nervous system, heart health, and so on, emotions play a powerful role in sustaining overall health and well Being. Common examples include how fear affects heart rate and many other things... . The metaphysic's of emotion is quite a phenomenon relative to causation...

Emotions appear to be the link between the intellect and the body. There are strong feedback loops between the intellect and emotions and between the body and emotions. There is no direct link between the intellect and the body, rather the emotions act as an intermediary - providing the motivation to act on the findings of the intellect.

In a sense, the emotions are the language with which the mind and body communicate. Note, the emotions need not be powerful. Often these are just mild impulses, like gently spoken subliminal instructions.

SB!

Yes indeed, I concur! One might-could also argue that those emotive impulses, albeit subtle, come from the limbic system/Will, where there is an indeterminate impulse just to be. To want, to need, to receive feelings of self. Feelings of self-awareness. To that end, perhaps Schopenhauer would make a case for a metaphysical Will that causes one's own stream of consciousness, including thoughts, ideas, experiences, and other emotive phenomena relative to cognition... . Once again, cosmologically, another way of saying that which breath's fire into the equation's (of existence).

[Belindi]

Sy Borg wrote:

There is no direct link between the intellect and the body,

In that case how is it we can inhibit body processes? E.g. dogs can be house trained.The need for a living thing to persist in its own being affects mind(intellect) and also brain and body proper.

[Sy Borg]

Sy Borg wrote:

There is no direct link between the intellect and the body,

In that case how is it we can inhibit body processes? E.g. dogs can be house trained.The need for a living thing to persist in its own being affects mind(intellect) and also brain and body proper.

Does the mind directly control those body functions? Without emotion, a dog would not be motivated to avoid peeing in the house. The dog wants to not pee in the house - otherwise the large hominids it relies on for food, shelter and companionship become aggressive and uncooperative. If you dog did not care about human reactions, it would relieve itself indoors as soon as the urge arose. Even toileting is an emotional experience - the need to go, the relief of going, the occasional reflexive revulsion, the concern if things don't seem right, and so on.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, sentience is very powerful not only from the vantage point of say, human love, but in physiology also. From the effects on metabolism, nervous system, heart health, and so on, emotions play a powerful role in sustaining overall health and well Being. Common examples include how fear affects heart rate and many other things... . The metaphysic's of emotion is quite a phenomenon relative to causation...

Emotions appear to be the link between the intellect and the body. There are strong feedback loops between the intellect and emotions and between the body and emotions. There is no direct link between the intellect and the body, rather the emotions act as an intermediary - providing the motivation to act on the findings of the intellect.

In a sense, the emotions are the language with which the mind and body communicate. Note, the emotions need not be powerful. Often these are just mild impulses, like gently spoken subliminal instructions.

SB!

Yes indeed, I concur! One might-could also argue that those emotive impulses, albeit subtle, come from the limbic system/Will, where there is an indeterminate impulse just to be. To want, to need, to receive feelings of self. Feelings of self-awareness. To that end, perhaps Schopenhauer would make a case for a metaphysical Will that causes one's own stream of consciousness, including thoughts, ideas, experiences, and other emotive phenomena relative to cognition... . Once again, cosmologically, another way of saying that which breath's fire into the equation's (of existence).

:D

Let's consider the origin of "will". This begins and ends with the drives to grow and survive. How did the survival instinct come about? Organisms that actively worked to survive would have out-competed more passive creatures, which would then resign themselves to a sessile or passive lifestyle of filtering. There was no need for emotions. The organism would sense stimuli and respond with reflex actions.

In time, both the sensing and the reflex responses evolved to become more complex, like a series of if/then statements: With brained animals, the complexity required was too great for reflex responses. Instead, there were vast groups of reflexes which could be triggered by a single sensation. So, if you see a tiger ahead, you don't have time to increase heart rate, dilate pupils, release bladder, stop digestion, release cortisol, and redirect blood to major organs, you only have time to go "Faaarck!", at which point your body's "orchestra" plays that Golden Oldie - The Symphony of Fear.

So emotions can be thought of as compound reflexes, somewhat equivalent to subroutines.

[Belindi]

Sy Borg wrote:

There is no direct link between the intellect and the body,

In that case how is it we can inhibit body processes? E.g. dogs can be house trained.The need for a living thing to persist in its own being affects mind(intellect) and also brain and body proper.

Does the mind directly control those body functions? Without emotion, a dog would not be motivated to avoid peeing in the house. The dog wants to not pee in the house - otherwise the large hominids it relies on for food, shelter and companionship become aggressive and uncooperative. If you dog did not care about human reactions, it would relieve itself indoors as soon as the urge arose. Even toileting is an emotional experience - the need to go, the relief of going, the occasional reflexive revulsion, the concern if things don't seem right, and so on.

Yes but I think the word 'control' is misleading if 'control' means cause. The mind and the brain+body proper are different aspects*** of the same individual, so neither one is caused by the other.

Your claim of "control" is founded upon anatomy and physiology of the nervous and hormonal systems. ("direct link). Okay. But remember there are efferent nerves, and that some endocrine glands are within the dura mater.

*** "aspects" as in different ontological ways to conceptualise the individual.

[Sy Borg]

Sy Borg wrote:

There is no direct link between the intellect and the body,

In that case how is it we can inhibit body processes? E.g. dogs can be house trained.The need for a living thing to persist in its own being affects mind(intellect) and also brain and body proper.

Does the mind directly control those body functions? Without emotion, a dog would not be motivated to avoid peeing in the house. The dog wants to not pee in the house - otherwise the large hominids it relies on for food, shelter and companionship become aggressive and uncooperative. If you dog did not care about human reactions, it would relieve itself indoors as soon as the urge arose. Even toileting is an emotional experience - the need to go, the relief of going, the occasional reflexive revulsion, the concern if things don't seem right, and so on.

Yes but I think the word 'control' is misleading if 'control' means cause. The mind and the brain+body proper are different aspects*** of the same individual, so neither one is caused by the other.

Your claim of "control" is founded upon anatomy and physiology of the nervous and hormonal systems. ("direct link). Okay. But remember there are efferent nerves, and that some endocrine glands are within the dura mater.

*** "aspects" as in different ontological ways to conceptualise the individual.

I see working upwards in evolution as the only sound approach to analysis. How can we understand a building if we know little about its foundations, both constructed and natural?

Consider an early Earth when no brains existed in nature, just highly complex reflexive sensing. If a starfish, for example, tasted an unhealthy chemical, a signal would pass through its nerve net, driving coordinated repulsive actions in its arms and tube feet. There is no intermediary between the sense and the response, the information and the resulting physical action. There doesn't need to be because, without a brain, flexible options are not available, other than varying the extent and angle of the avoidance.

Complex brained animals like humans have many more choices. How to make that choice? An emotion arrives and it triggers multiple responses in all body systems, like an activated subroutine.

[Belindi]

Sy Borg wrote:



In that case how is it we can inhibit body processes? E.g. dogs can be house trained.The need for a living thing to persist in its own being affects mind(intellect) and also brain and body proper.

Does the mind directly control those body functions? Without emotion, a dog would not be motivated to avoid peeing in the house. The dog wants to not pee in the house - otherwise the large hominids it relies on for food, shelter and companionship become aggressive and uncooperative. If you dog did not care about human reactions, it would relieve itself indoors as soon as the urge arose. Even toileting is an emotional experience - the need to go, the relief of going, the occasional reflexive revulsion, the concern if things don't seem right, and so on.

Yes but I think the word 'control' is misleading if 'control' means cause. The mind and the brain+body proper are different aspects*** of the same individual, so neither one is caused by the other.

Your claim of "control" is founded upon anatomy and physiology of the nervous and hormonal systems. ("direct link). Okay. But remember there are efferent nerves, and that some endocrine glands are within the dura mater.

*** "aspects" as in different ontological ways to conceptualise the individual.

I see working upwards in evolution as the only sound approach to analysis. How can we understand a building if we know little about its foundations, both constructed and natural?

Consider an early Earth when no brains existed in nature, just highly complex reflexive sensing. If a starfish, for example, tasted an unhealthy chemical, a signal would pass through its nerve net, driving coordinated repulsive actions in its arms and tube feet. There is no intermediary between the sense and the response, the information and the resulting physical action. There doesn't need to be because, without a brain, flexible options are not available, other than varying the extent and angle of the avoidance.

Complex brained animals like humans have many more choices. How to make that choice? An emotion arrives and it triggers multiple responses in all body systems, like an activated subroutine.

I do see the evolutionary perspective as you explain it. Orgasm, giving birth, and lactating are all prime examples of "muItiple responses in all body systems". I am a big supporter of emotions because I see other mammal species as in most ways behaving and feeling a lot nicer than humans. We humans can learn patience, courage, humility, loyalty, and duty from other mammals.

Mammals can learn from experience as they have memories. Do starfish have memories? I don't know. Some mammals can abstract facts(i.e. regularities) or ideas from their memories of events. Memories and the derived facts or ideas among mammals remain mostly 'cranial' possibilities until they become efferent information. True, craniums are only one spatial arrangement of central nervous system and I heard someone saying that trees' roots are the location of their CNS.but trees don't use symbolic language.

I said " can abstract facts and or ideas". We do this mostly by linguistic symbols.I presume socially symbolic language evolved among humans alongside opposable thumb and fingers .

[3017Metaphysician]

Yes, sentience is very powerful not only from the vantage point of say, human love, but in physiology also. From the effects on metabolism, nervous system, heart health, and so on, emotions play a powerful role in sustaining overall health and well Being. Common examples include how fear affects heart rate and many other things... . The metaphysic's of emotion is quite a phenomenon relative to causation...

Emotions appear to be the link between the intellect and the body. There are strong feedback loops between the intellect and emotions and between the body and emotions. There is no direct link between the intellect and the body, rather the emotions act as an intermediary - providing the motivation to act on the findings of the intellect.

In a sense, the emotions are the language with which the mind and body communicate. Note, the emotions need not be powerful. Often these are just mild impulses, like gently spoken subliminal instructions.

SB!

Yes indeed, I concur! One might-could also argue that those emotive impulses, albeit subtle, come from the limbic system/Will, where there is an indeterminate impulse just to be. To want, to need, to receive feelings of self. Feelings of self-awareness. To that end, perhaps Schopenhauer would make a case for a metaphysical Will that causes one's own stream of consciousness, including thoughts, ideas, experiences, and other emotive phenomena relative to cognition... . Once again, cosmologically, another way of saying that which breath's fire into the equation's (of existence).

Let's consider the origin of "will". This begins and ends with the drives to grow and survive. How did the survival instinct come about? Organisms that actively worked to survive would have out-competed more passive creatures, which would then resign themselves to a sessile or passive lifestyle of filtering. There was no need for emotions. The organism would sense stimuli and respond with reflex actions.

In time, both the sensing and the reflex responses evolved to become more complex, like a series of if/then statements: With brained animals, the complexity required was too great for reflex responses. Instead, there were vast groups of reflexes which could be triggered by a single sensation. So, if you see a tiger ahead, you don't have time to increase heart rate, dilate pupils, release bladder, stop digestion, release cortisol, and redirect blood to major organs, you only have time to go "Faaarck!", at which point your body's "orchestra" plays that Golden Oldie - The Symphony of Fear.

So emotions can be thought of as compound reflexes, somewhat equivalent to subroutines.

SB!

In your view (then), if there was a point in time where there was not a survival need for emotions, when did emotion(s) appear on the scene of conscious landscape? You may have touched on it, but am not sure... .

But perhaps more importantly, back to the existence of the (metaphysical) Will. To get certain definitions out of the way:

1. According to Schopenhauer, the will is the 'inner essence' of the entire world, i.e. the Kantian thing-in-itself (Ding an sich), and exists independently of the forms of the principle of sufficient reason that govern the world as representation. Schopenhauer believed that while we may be precluded from direct knowledge of the Kantian noumenon, we may gain knowledge about it to a certain extent (unlike Kant, for whom the noumenon was completely unknowable). This is because, according to Schopenhauer, the relationship between the world as representation and the world as it is 'in itself' can be understood by investigating the relationship between our bodies (material objects, i.e. representations, existing in space and time) and our will.

2. All phenomena embodies essential striving: electricity and gravity, for instance, are described as fundamental forces of the will. Human capacity for cognition, Schopenhauer asserts, is subordinate to the demands of the will. Moreover, everything that wills necessarily suffers. Schopenhauer presents a pessimistic picture on which unfulfilled desires are painful, and pleasure is merely the sensation experienced at the instant one such pain is removed. However, most desires are never fulfilled, and those that are fulfilled are instantly replaced by more unfulfilled ones.

SB, this seems to align with Voluntarism where the Will somehow takes primacy in cognition (our way of thinking and feeling about things like fulfillment of wants and needs, happiness and so on that needs to be satisfied first). It also speaks to modern day cognitive science (Maslow, James, and others) wherein one's stream of consciousness, one's needs are never satisfied (after one need is met, it is normal to-interminably-have another need waningt to be fulfilled). So we are always wanting/needing individuals. That is all part of the verb Being. Being dynamic, not static.

To parse, then, the Will itself, along with being self-aware of our own intellectual powers, makes us unique amongst the species. Unless of course, for one, you are thinking self-consciousness is an illusion. Taking that into account, I think one would then have the burden of explaining that which is beyond the self, in a purely objective way. That need to want to exist and be. Or, that thing-in-itself that exists a priori (innate/intrinsic to the species) that causes one to be.

As such, one way of looking at this problem is to consider three things:

1. Does the Will cause humans to be. (Subjectivity)
2. What caused the Will in the first place (Objectivity)
3. The Will, that thing-in-itself, is it metaphysical, physical, or both?

[Sy Borg]

Emotions appear to be the link between the intellect and the body. There are strong feedback loops between the intellect and emotions and between the body and emotions. There is no direct link between the intellect and the body, rather the emotions act as an intermediary - providing the motivation to act on the findings of the intellect.

In a sense, the emotions are the language with which the mind and body communicate. Note, the emotions need not be powerful. Often these are just mild impulses, like gently spoken subliminal instructions.

SB!

Yes indeed, I concur! One might-could also argue that those emotive impulses, albeit subtle, come from the limbic system/Will, where there is an indeterminate impulse just to be. To want, to need, to receive feelings of self. Feelings of self-awareness. To that end, perhaps Schopenhauer would make a case for a metaphysical Will that causes one's own stream of consciousness, including thoughts, ideas, experiences, and other emotive phenomena relative to cognition... . Once again, cosmologically, another way of saying that which breath's fire into the equation's (of existence).

:D

Let's consider the origin of "will". This begins and ends with the drives to grow and survive. How did the survival instinct come about? Organisms that actively worked to survive would have out-competed more passive creatures, which would then resign themselves to a sessile or passive lifestyle of filtering. There was no need for emotions. The organism would sense stimuli and respond with reflex actions.

In time, both the sensing and the reflex responses evolved to become more complex, like a series of if/then statements: With brained animals, the complexity required was too great for reflex responses. Instead, there were vast groups of reflexes which could be triggered by a single sensation. So, if you see a tiger ahead, you don't have time to increase heart rate, dilate pupils, release bladder, stop digestion, release cortisol, and redirect blood to major organs, you only have time to go "Faaarck!", at which point your body's "orchestra" plays that Golden Oldie - The Symphony of Fear.

So emotions can be thought of as compound reflexes, somewhat equivalent to subroutines.

SB!

In your view (then), if there was a point in time where there was not a survival need for emotions, when did emotion(s) appear on the scene of conscious landscape? You may have touched on it, but am not sure... .

But perhaps more importantly, back to the existence of the (metaphysical) Will. To get certain definitions out of the way:

1. According to Schopenhauer, the will is the 'inner essence' of the entire world, i.e. the Kantian thing-in-itself (Ding an sich), and exists independently of the forms of the principle of sufficient reason that govern the world as representation. Schopenhauer believed that while we may be precluded from direct knowledge of the Kantian noumenon, we may gain knowledge about it to a certain extent (unlike Kant, for whom the noumenon was completely unknowable). This is because, according to Schopenhauer, the relationship between the world as representation and the world as it is 'in itself' can be understood by investigating the relationship between our bodies (material objects, i.e. representations, existing in space and time) and our will.

2. All phenomena embodies essential striving: electricity and gravity, for instance, are described as fundamental forces of the will. Human capacity for cognition, Schopenhauer asserts, is subordinate to the demands of the will. Moreover, everything that wills necessarily suffers. Schopenhauer presents a pessimistic picture on which unfulfilled desires are painful, and pleasure is merely the sensation experienced at the instant one such pain is removed. However, most desires are never fulfilled, and those that are fulfilled are instantly replaced by more unfulfilled ones.

SB, this seems to align with Voluntarism where the Will somehow takes primacy in cognition (our way of thinking and feeling about things like fulfillment of wants and needs, happiness and so on that needs to be satisfied first). It also speaks to modern day cognitive science (Maslow, James, and others) wherein one's stream of consciousness, one's needs are never satisfied (after one need is met, it is normal to-interminably-have another need waningt to be fulfilled). So we are always wanting/needing individuals. That is all part of the verb Being. Being dynamic, not static.

To parse, then, the Will itself, along with being self-aware of our own intellectual powers, makes us unique amongst the species. Unless of course, for one, you are thinking self-consciousness is an illusion. Taking that into account, I think one would then have the burden of explaining that which is beyond the self, in a purely objective way. That need to want to exist and be. Or, that thing-in-itself that exists a priori (innate/intrinsic to the species) that causes one to be.

As such, one way of looking at this problem is to consider three things:

1. Does the Will cause humans to be. (Subjectivity)
2. What caused the Will in the first place (Objectivity)
3. The Will, that thing-in-itself, is it metaphysical, physical, or both?

Meta, how related are emotions and will? A brainless and ostensibly emotionless sea star possesses a powerful will - a relentless drive to do what it needs to do, and those caught in its grip will feel the force of that drive. The will - the drive to do things - evolved because organisms that worked fiercely and tirelessly out-competed their less-driven peers. It is a powerful, extremely common, aspect of evolution.

Humans experience their own drives, and then rationalise them post-hoc. This rationalisation seem comical when viewed existentially, but it serves the function of engendering trust that one is civilised, controlled - that one can is capable of overcoming their drives with their executive faculties, which philosophers call will (but I think is part of a greater subset, as above).

Will is the capacity to deny oneself a lesser reward now so as to enjoy a better reward later one. There have been many impulse control tests on children (the Marshmallow Test), and it seems that at around age for or five they are capable of controlling themselves. Other species have passed the control test - apes and monkeys, corvids and parrots, some dogs too, even cuttlefish!

Ultimately, the whole of reality is a game of Survival of the Persistent. All that we see are the winners of this game, who lasted long enough under entropy's constant assault to be observed. Exertion of will in life has been selected as a useful trait for growth and survival. Will is a quality of some physical beings. Rocks don't need will - their entire existence is a metaphor for will. Unyielding. Stars and planets too, by their huge scale, are metaphorical declarations to entropy that they are here to stay.

Small and fragile structures, if they are to persist, must work harder to persist than the large and robust.

[Belindi]

Starfish and simpler organisms will move away from that in their environment that irritates them. Conatus is the name we give to "a relentless drive to do what it needs to do"

Conatus persists as long as organisms are not dead or more or less moribund.

I don't know what starfish or amoebae have in the way of endocrine systems if any. They do have nervous reflexes here or there that together with anatomical bits and pieces allow them to act .

You and I have the same sort of nervous reflexes and a lot more. What we have more than starfishes or amoebae is a huge central nervous system, plus anatomical bits and pieces that permit the enunciation of language.

[3017Metaphysician]

SB!

Yes indeed, I concur! One might-could also argue that those emotive impulses, albeit subtle, come from the limbic system/Will, where there is an indeterminate impulse just to be. To want, to need, to receive feelings of self. Feelings of self-awareness. To that end, perhaps Schopenhauer would make a case for a metaphysical Will that causes one's own stream of consciousness, including thoughts, ideas, experiences, and other emotive phenomena relative to cognition... . Once again, cosmologically, another way of saying that which breath's fire into the equation's (of existence).

Let's consider the origin of "will". This begins and ends with the drives to grow and survive. How did the survival instinct come about? Organisms that actively worked to survive would have out-competed more passive creatures, which would then resign themselves to a sessile or passive lifestyle of filtering. There was no need for emotions. The organism would sense stimuli and respond with reflex actions.

In time, both the sensing and the reflex responses evolved to become more complex, like a series of if/then statements: With brained animals, the complexity required was too great for reflex responses. Instead, there were vast groups of reflexes which could be triggered by a single sensation. So, if you see a tiger ahead, you don't have time to increase heart rate, dilate pupils, release bladder, stop digestion, release cortisol, and redirect blood to major organs, you only have time to go "Faaarck!", at which point your body's "orchestra" plays that Golden Oldie - The Symphony of Fear.

So emotions can be thought of as compound reflexes, somewhat equivalent to subroutines.

SB!

In your view (then), if there was a point in time where there was not a survival need for emotions, when did emotion(s) appear on the scene of conscious landscape? You may have touched on it, but am not sure... .

But perhaps more importantly, back to the existence of the (metaphysical) Will. To get certain definitions out of the way:

1. According to Schopenhauer, the will is the 'inner essence' of the entire world, i.e. the Kantian thing-in-itself (Ding an sich), and exists independently of the forms of the principle of sufficient reason that govern the world as representation. Schopenhauer believed that while we may be precluded from direct knowledge of the Kantian noumenon, we may gain knowledge about it to a certain extent (unlike Kant, for whom the noumenon was completely unknowable). This is because, according to Schopenhauer, the relationship between the world as representation and the world as it is 'in itself' can be understood by investigating the relationship between our bodies (material objects, i.e. representations, existing in space and time) and our will.

2. All phenomena embodies essential striving: electricity and gravity, for instance, are described as fundamental forces of the will. Human capacity for cognition, Schopenhauer asserts, is subordinate to the demands of the will. Moreover, everything that wills necessarily suffers. Schopenhauer presents a pessimistic picture on which unfulfilled desires are painful, and pleasure is merely the sensation experienced at the instant one such pain is removed. However, most desires are never fulfilled, and those that are fulfilled are instantly replaced by more unfulfilled ones.

SB, this seems to align with Voluntarism where the Will somehow takes primacy in cognition (our way of thinking and feeling about things like fulfillment of wants and needs, happiness and so on that needs to be satisfied first). It also speaks to modern day cognitive science (Maslow, James, and others) wherein one's stream of consciousness, one's needs are never satisfied (after one need is met, it is normal to-interminably-have another need waningt to be fulfilled). So we are always wanting/needing individuals. That is all part of the verb Being. Being dynamic, not static.

To parse, then, the Will itself, along with being self-aware of our own intellectual powers, makes us unique amongst the species. Unless of course, for one, you are thinking self-consciousness is an illusion. Taking that into account, I think one would then have the burden of explaining that which is beyond the self, in a purely objective way. That need to want to exist and be. Or, that thing-in-itself that exists a priori (innate/intrinsic to the species) that causes one to be.

As such, one way of looking at this problem is to consider three things:

1. Does the Will cause humans to be. (Subjectivity)
2. What caused the Will in the first place (Objectivity)
3. The Will, that thing-in-itself, is it metaphysical, physical, or both?

Meta, how related are emotions and will? A brainless and ostensibly emotionless sea star possesses a powerful will - a relentless drive to do what it needs to do, and those caught in its grip will feel the force of that drive. The will - the drive to do things - evolved because organisms that worked fiercely and tirelessly out-competed their less-driven peers. It is a powerful, extremely common, aspect of evolution.

Humans experience their own drives, and then rationalise them post-hoc. This rationalisation seem comical when viewed existentially, but it serves the function of engendering trust that one is civilised, controlled - that one can is capable of overcoming their drives with their executive faculties, which philosophers call will (but I think is part of a greater subset, as above).

Will is the capacity to deny oneself a lesser reward now so as to enjoy a better reward later one. There have been many impulse control tests on children (the Marshmallow Test), and it seems that at around age for or five they are capable of controlling themselves. Other species have passed the control test - apes and monkeys, corvids and parrots, some dogs too, even cuttlefish!

Ultimately, the whole of reality is a game of Survival of the Persistent. All that we see are the winners of this game, who lasted long enough under entropy's constant assault to be observed. Exertion of will in life has been selected as a useful trait for growth and survival. Will is a quality of some physical beings. Rocks don't need will - their entire existence is a metaphor for will. Unyielding. Stars and planets too, by their huge scale, are metaphorical declarations to entropy that they are here to stay.

Small and fragile structures, if they are to persist, must work harder to persist than the large and robust.

With evolution, you have limitations to that theory (it's only a theory, and in the sense that it excludes the first species it only refers to an ensemble of creatures 'already' existing). And, if I remember correctly, even Darwin acquiesced to its limitations. Nevertheless, (you didn't respond to my query which in-turn may provide for more insight) I think you have a few concepts that we are working with here:

1. Emergence
2. Self-awareness
3. Volition
4. Intellect
5. Evolution of the will and sentience
6. The world as Will (propagation of the species through DNA/genetically coded design and other physical/metaphysical phenomena)

We've briefly touched on 1-5 ( and I welcome more discussion as it relates to the contrasting limitations of evolution), but 6 , I think, is the most glaring discrepancy. Essentially, 6 is that which Stephen Hawkins so infamously enunciated to the world of physics: :

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? "


First, my interpretation to that metaphorical fire as it were, is the thing-in-itself called the metaphysical Will. Agree/disagree?

The points to consider of course, are consciousness, cosmology and a bit of Kantian/Schopenhauer metaphysics... . But, we can certainly exhaust those things that may relate to inert matter and evolution and whether things like feelings have evolved... .