Well I do have a crowded chaotic life, a few reminders would be appreciated.
@CC,
Just ran across this interesting concept that may fit your general description of the body’s “mindscape”.
The Physical Stance
Imagine you wanted to predict the result of a very simple event, like releasing a rock from your hand. Using your knowledge about the laws of nature, you would guess that the rock will fall down, not rise up. Dennett calls this thinking process the “physical stance” because it views the object whose behavior is to be predicted as being under control of physical laws. This perspective affords the potential for amazing precision in your predictions. If you have accurate information about the important variables - the angle and velocity of the rock’s release, etc, you can determine almost exactly what it will do after leaving your hand. Physicists, chemists and engineers primarily use the physical stance in their work. A lot of what we think of as “science” is applying the physical stance.
Then there is another perspective what Dennett calls the “Intentional Stance”
The Intentional Stance
![[IMG]](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/uploads/centerforinquiry/original/2X/2/2028487945629b29271fc092912f639ed8ce5b1f.jpeg)
In a broad sort of sense, sure, but what I’m trying to do is not about redefining or reinterpreting scientific efforts. Scientific efforts are the building blocks for my understanding.
For instance that schematic, it’s plenty interesting, but incomplete. There’s no place for the various motivated characters (archetypes) that inhabit me, and the evolving relationships they have with each other, and others in the real world where interactions impinge upon and evolve those relationships as the years and decades add up. Although it may speak to some of the mechanisms of those interactions.
Mine is a more personal, humanistic, search for clarity about the "Who I Am?” questions. It’s about me, and the process that has established my personal relationship with myself and the information that comes my way. My sorting, filtering, comparing, and particularly how I weight the information being fed to me and how it’s woven into the tapestry of my existing understanding.
Stuff that directly impacts my everyday, it’s important, but left out of said study. That doesn’t diminish the paper, taken within the unnaturally narrow confines of the academic exercise it set for itself - but it does not speak to my key concerns.
I’m about the inner recognition of my minds connects with the outside reality, that’s the totally mind boggling fascinating thing.
At 67, I’ve become disillusioned with scientific super egos and their various money hungry searches for the ultimate answer to this or that. To my eyes and sensibilities, after a life time of absorbing the unfolding world I’m immersed in, it seems a fools errand. Then I look around at a world saturated with lost and clueless souls in all their various manifestations, all looking for some mysterious answer that promises to clarify everything. It’s sad.
I’m all about coming to terms with the various characters, emotions, impulses and priorities bouncing around within my mind and trying to get at my body’s attention.
I’ve absorbed into my being the notion that there is no ultimate truth.
There is honesty and fidelity to truthfully recording and disseminating information,
but there’s no ultimate truth.
Because there is no ultimate point of reference within the universe or Earth’s biosphere that created us. (Plus there’s always more to learn, which will inevitably adjust current understanding.)
Although for us humans I believe we have a benchmark that can help us better decipher our place in the world - namely, in recognizing the divide between the constellation of thoughts flowing through our mind and biological, physical matter out of which we were created. The cascading implications, consequences, and awareness this simple formula offers is impressive.
1 Like
I understand that you want to reach deeper in understanding your historical relationship with nature. It’s a perfectly sound approach as it looks at the entire evolutionary story of the “emergence” of humans species.
I do believe that Daniel Dennett’s “Physical stance” addresses only the body response to external influences, such as gravity, a physical response.
But I do like the concept of the “Intentional stance” that addresses the quasi-intelligent mechanics of the entire human biome.
In another thread, we talk about “purpose”. I believe Daniel Dennett addressed this with the concept of “Intentional stance”, i.e. all parts of the human biome have a purpose, they must do what they are evolved to do. Their intent is to do what they do. Just as homeostasis subconsciously keeps the body’s biochemistry in balance.
I’m confused by this jump.
Okay, now we’re reinforcing the obvious
Okay, all that seems fairly straightforward, if not obvious. Though why brainiacs get a pass on the need to write clearly and concisely, rather than through convolutions rolling into each other like waves at the beach, I’ll never get.
Still my main question is: how does that plug into a personal appreciation for the evolutionary process and what it has to tell us about ourselves?
If you like Evolution, then research how his process actually occurred ashould only increase the awe and wonder contemplating that humans evolved from this humble beginning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwc65aSQ65Y
This is a glimpse of evolutionary processes from a relatively small number of fundamental minerals into the eventual emergence of life and ultimately humans.
Come on Write, you know that I’m familiar with Hazan and yes, he dishes out petite epiphanies and he could Iight me abuzz for days processing his evidence and insights.
But as with all epiphanies, petite, or grande, time passes and the notions percolate into your being, which is good, it sets us up for processing the next surprises.
He is step by step solving the mysteries of evolution of life on Earth (and perhaps on other planets) from just a few chemicals. It sets my mind abuzz!
1 Like