I would use quote, but I'm posting from mobile. "There is a particular definition of mind that has remained throughout history.. and that definition is communication that allowed the brain to arise." The ability to learn, and create, is what ultimately allowed any improvement: I suppose you could consider history as a type of respondents to actions. If you look at it from a sub human level, communication is perceived with only learned knowledge. It doesn't exist unless you're taught. Communication offers the ability to socialize, and creates interaction. Thus It only transfers knowledge, which has nothing to do with establishing new. If I could speak every language, does that amount to anything except my ablity to share information, or learn from? I could actively learn without any communication, or even human contact. There is one sole purpose of the mind. Survival. Living organisms have instilled instincts to live, and the purpose of life, is to live. To arise, you must first live, and learn from experience, to seek knowledge.
First problem. Who learns? Or perhaps what? When and what constitutes the emergence of an organism? What determines improvement without the idea of an organism existing, in the first place? What you're saying is certainly valid in a particular regard. What I am saying goes a little deeper. What is the nature of communication in a homogenous substance? The only communication that occurs, must occur between two separately identifiable "beings". What separates one from another? Okay, mind. Tbh, it's definition is most comfortably a very simple one. It is the realm of our experience. Boom. Simple af. Mind has nothing to do with things that we identify with mind, because mind cannot describe mind. We cannot identofy objects of the mind, products of the mind, with the actual mind. It's like living in water your whole life amd trying to describe the nature of water. You talk about what water does for you, but are you truly relating the nature of water?
I also just noticed you spoke of purpose. What do you think gives purpose? Why is life the purpose? If life is the purpose, can you tell me what life is?
I never said who... But, if you look at living organisms the "brain" is just a micro processor, which interpret, develops, and creates. It doesn't have to be a person, even unicellular organisms process and communicate. Except, its only for one thing. Survival. Going off the quote "communication...." Which suggests its between to understanding organisms.
If you want to pussy foot around, then you'll never see what purpose is. For humans, and other life with greater intellects- purpose is self choice, only you can decide. I'm saying that all living organisms have one instilled purpose: life. That is if you have boundies set. You can't deny existance of anything, or truly prove it.
Maybe this will have you interpret my views. Which I'm not saying is correct, we are discussing theorys, and un captured information. "What do you think gives purpose? Why is life the purpose? If life is the purpose, can you tell me what life is? " Nothing gives purpose: when you say gives, it suggests are trying to use purpose as a verb, and meaning a above human, or creator. Life is purpose, and here is why. When you're a living being, you do what? Survive, and continue life. Is that not a purpose In any form of existence all creatures do this. Example, have you heard of animals committing suicide?
If you're using animals not committing suicide as evidence of your point, then either humans disprove your point or humans somehow have a different purpose than just life.
I agree with what most you're saying except this. Most common example is lemmings, but that one is actually more myth. Animals do engage in self destruction though. You see it a lot working with dogs.. thing is, they're not taught the idea of suicide by their society. All it is is a form of self destruction.. but with humans, everything is many many many times more complex and suicide happens to be a result of that advanced complexity of humanity. When dogs get anxiety, sometimes they rip at their own fur in extreme cases.. lose the will to eat, drink, live. Some would rather waste away to nothing when they're owner dies. There are even parasites and such that will infect their host and basically mind control them into doing something they normally know would get them killed so the parasite can move on to the next stage.. so it's in their capacity. I saw a bird basically bashing it's head on the side of my shed once, but since they don't really have much free time or need out in the wild to ponder on how to kill themselves.. they don't just up and do it. I bet if we taught crows the concept of suicide and how to do it, there would be ones who kill themselves when shit hits the emotional fan though. Not only that, nature is a bitch.. it's going to take one hell of a traumatic event to top their daily struggle. Not like with people.. sometimes it doesn't take much..
Not when you separate the two- animals don't have the intelligence we do. They rely on instincts and survive... Aka life. Humans have the luxury of sustenance: which lead to our development of evolving from animalistic traits, or primal development. Not to say, humans don't live a more purposeful life, but you forget to account for human nature, and emotions into play. That's when mind, takes over the brain. when pure survival, becomes second to feeling- and rationality changes.
I do enjoy your point of view: and I can see how that is a possibility. You mentioned service dogs, I'm not sure on how you can compare domesticated 'canis and a completely primal mind. I've experienced what you described, my grandpa passed away, and his cat was effected tremendously, to the point she had seizures, and had no quality of life. But, I don't presume she had the emotional distress That I did: I'll add this- there are many documented videos of animals standing besides almost morning like, the death of their mate, friend, or siblings.
The mind is more than the brain, it's the interaction between the brain,body and other tools used as a cognitive scaffold to manipulate . This is an embodied perspective and is also compatible with materialism. I'd say the mind is more concentrated in the brain and leaves a trail in the external world through interaction, like this post.
Animal instincts are emotions, same kind of emotions we have. There really isn't anything special about humans in terms of the animal kingdom.. Nothing unique about our brain or body, even our behavior.. cause we are animals. The difference in humans comes from our complexity. Animals are emotional creatures, same as us.. and can go through emotional stress, even self mutilation. Lots of animals do mourn.. they also love and hate, fear, feel jealousy and pride, anxiety, depression, anger, annoyance, guilt, curiosity. The only unique aspect of humans in terms of their emotions is belief.. but that could be argued to be misplaced emotions such as love.
What is materialism? Reality is reality. Trying to describe it, we've created countless different models. Has the reality changed? No.
Materialism is the position which asserts that the functioning of life, and the variegated components that go into sustaining it, is reducible to the active interactions of an extended substance; governed by the principles of automatism (automata). It's not that hard to get. Reality is reality. If the answer were that simple, o learned one, then we wouldn't be here - you and I, or anyone in this thread - utilizing such a wonderful medium (or mechanical device) as a means for relating information (in such a convenient way). Has the reality changed? Compare the conditions, and practical knowledge (ready at hand), for a European man (or a Westerner) in the 6th century, with the conditions, and practical knowledge (ready at hand), for a European man (or a Westerner) in the 21st century, and you'd be a fool to say that "reality" has just remained "reality", because it just is "reality" and can be nothing else (how "philosophical" of you). Accordingly, the resolve of, and answer to, philosophy should not result in one foiling them-self in nothingness, as a fragile infant is foiled within a blanket, rather, the resolve of, and answer to, philosophy lies in man shaking himself of, and shedding, this nothingness, this un-knowing and ignorance, so that, with a refined will, he may overcome the turbid mire. How the acceptance of nothingness depletes man of an imperative determination, and interchanges it with in an apathetic repose, is the result of a sickly and feeble philosophy. You know, there is a great philosopher, Rene Descartes, who once responded to a particular inquirer bombarding him with a torrent of questions, by very clearly stating that, a renaissance man may go to evince a few resolutions (over a long duration of time), while any ol' fool can raise a million and one questions, right where he stands (without any intent of resolve). In other words, just because there isn't an answer given immediately, or that one can skeptically approach a question, does not mean that there isn't an answer and therefore you should stop inquiring (that would just be a dejected assumption of yours).
You don't think I haven't been to where you are? That sharp edge should be dulled. When dulled, you will then speak with wisdom. Lool for the ancient inside you, the obstinate child must be sacrificed.
^ You show another symptom, that is, another sign revealing your affliction, of decadence and a dejected philosophy; no offense. In other words, the knife should not be dulled, but covered, in a pouch or you what have you, so that it may retain its acuity without a total nullification, a self-imposed castration, of its valued purpose.
As long as you take others metaphors and use them to your end, the tattvas remain imbalanced. Had you walked in with no ego, you would have left with great treasure. So simple your mind will be like butter to the knife. "Humility means humbleness of mind and being unassuming in manner. A person possessing it has put away pride and arrogance, he resembles a foot-wiping cloth, a bull with its horns cut off, a snake with its fangs removed. He is gentle, cheerful and easy to speak to. Paramatthajotika 144 "