Purpose of the thinking mind?

[coelophysis]

one big step towards being at peace with everything is understanding and accepting that some things don't have a purpose

there may be an explanation as to why they exist, but they don't need a purpose to exist

their purpose may just be to exist

 

[BanginMyLifeAway]

^Really? I never knew that about the mind-chattering having a correlation with ADHD.

I mean because I am constantly thinking to myself, whether it be something important like planning out something to even just observation or just stupid shit like a song stuck in my head, etc. Almost like I'm constantly talking to myself I guess. I wonder if that's even a bad thing lol.

And to the OP, I think it has a lot to do with your mind always making connections and just replaying everything over and over. Kind of like a constant flow of electricity, your mind continues to make those connections and always seems to be "thinking" about something.

i got ADHD i guess my mind does have alotta thoughts i am actually saying every word in my head as i type it..is that strange?

so wtft? im no surviving bc i have no chatter im my brain? not to sound mean, but i really dont understand the function of chatter.

was i stupid to will it away and destroy my inner voice with hard drugs?

i have done plenty of hard drugs and i cant destroy mine and im actually clean and sober(Minus bupe) For 2 months now and i almost wanna say when i was doing heavy drugs i had more mind chatter..atleast crazier mind chatter

 

[SpinOutOfControl]

ADHD is not a mental illness, nor is internal dialogue a sign of mental illness. A racing chattering mind is pretty normal and probably healthy. Id be concerned if your mind wasn't telling you anything.

 

[vegan]

their purpose may just be to exist

- having and needing a purpose are 2 different things
i was saying that they don't need a purpose to exist

i don't see the relation between your post and what you quoted

- by saying that "their purpose may just be to exist", you open again the doors to many questions such as "who decides that existence is their purpose?" / "what purpose does existence in itself exactly fulfill? for who? for things that are not aware that their purpose is to exist? for someone outside of the sphere of existence? (i'd need an explanation for that one)"

i don't think it helps
it's almost back to question one

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

I think our thoughts is our human instinct. Just like any creature has instincts that their parents don't teach them, thinking is ours. The internal monologue is what allows us to survive, and it's what allows us to do all of the amazing things we, as a species, have done.

 

[vegan]

hadn't seen this reply

Everything is interdependent -- if one thing has a purpose, then so does everything else, because the "purposed" cannot exist without the "purposeless".

why?
do you have examples to clarify this point?
cause i can give you a 1000 counterexamples just looking at my right thumb

How would you define something with purpose? What separates it from something purposeless?

things can have a purpose within a subjective choice of values

the purpose of this message if to communicate with you... within the conditions that define my view of the world

however, for mister X, this message has no purpose

it seems to me that things can only have purposes (=aim, object, reason to be, etc.) regarding something else, but not just on their own


so the other post "their purpose may just be to exist " doesn't make sense to me because if a thing itself doesn't consider its own existence as a purpose, then lacks an external entity for who this thing's existence has a purpose

in the end, when all other factors are gone, you're left with "is there some kind of being external to existence for who things' existence is a purpose in itself?"

and i don't see how a being external to existence can exist

 

[twentysix]

government with checking and balancing.
and...

 

[TheAppleCore]

why?
do you have examples to clarify this point?

No, it's just an axiom that I accept.

things can have a purpose within a subjective choice of values

the purpose of this message if to communicate with you... within the conditions that define my view of the world

however, for mister X, this message has no purpose

...

so the other post "their purpose may just be to exist " doesn't make sense to me because if a thing itself doesn't consider its own existence as a purpose, then lacks an external entity for who this thing's existence has a purpose

in the end, when all other factors are gone, you're left with "is there some kind of being external to existence for who things' existence is a purpose in itself?"

and i don't see how a being external to existence can exist

I definitely see what you're saying. Interesting.

One way "everything" might be able to have a purpose: the universe itself (everything) IS one mind / being, which values itself. So in that sense, the universe is sort of like a self-reflected, fractal value system. (That might lead to an infinite regression...?)


Still, I have a strong suspicion that any single object in the universe is dependent on everything else. You can't take away a single atom, without destroying everything else. Compare the universe to a biological organism. Take away an internal organ, and soon the creature dies and all its parts rot away.

Or, picture a refrigeration mechanism made of pure ice, that generates power which keeps itself cool, so the ice remains solid. If you remove a part of the machine, it fails to function properly, so it begins to heat, and the entire thing melts away.

it seems to me that things can only have purposes (=aim, object, reason to be, etc.) regarding something else, but not just on their own

Here's how I was seeing it, before I read your post. To determine the value of something:

1. Does object A have a purpose?
1a) No, therefore object A has no value. End here.
1b) Yes, it is object B. Proceed to step 2.

2. Does object B have a purpose?
2a) No, therefore object A has no value. End here.
2b) Yes, it is object C. Proceed to step 3.

3. Does object C have a purpose?
3a) No, therefore object A has no value. End here.
3b) Yes, it is object D, etc. Infinite regress! End here.

Something needs to have a purpose in itself for anything to have a purpose at all.

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

So why don't you apply that same technique to the mind and the problems of the mind to try and determine their purpose?

 

[radiohshifter]

i got ADHD i guess my mind does have alotta thoughts i am actually saying every word in my head as i type it..is that strange?

is that a symptom of adhd, if it is i better get checked, anyone else find it really weird when there is no internal chatter going on, it happens everyonce in a while and i wonder if i should embrace it, or if im going to miss out on the benefits of actually thinking, maybe its an anxiety thing

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

Embrace the internal chatter as an attribute of your mind, but it's not all your mind is capable of, as I'm sure you know. Maybe try to learn from it?

 

[Vader]

This is a very interesting topic, given that epiphenomenalism is the most widely accepted theory about the relationship between mind and body (at least in analytic circles). According to this theory, consciousness is an emergent property of matter, but it is merely an effect, and cannot cause events in the physical world. It's a one way street, consciousness being nothing more than a projection of matter.

Now, this idea sits very neatly with a materialist, reductionist point of view, but it means that consciousness must be a pointless consequence of the physical structure of the brain, one that came about by accident. How on Earth does that make sense in evolutionary terms? How can something so incredibly complex as mind have evolved if it is not a favourable adaptation? After all, if epiphenomenalism is true, a philosophical zombie ought to be just as fit for survival and reproduction as the thinking human. I'm not aware of any attempts to explain this, and reconcile two ideas which, though both stem from currently accepted scientific axioms, are seemingly incompatible (if anyone knows of one, I'd love to hear about it).

 

[Quantum Perception]

IMO The thinking mind's purpose is like a library or university of the universe. So the part of the universe that houses the information on itself is the human or thinking mind.

Oh BTW epiphenomenalism is like a cruel cosmic joke lol.
But of course it doesn't have to be that way!
Just had to comment on that.

 

[TheAppleCore]

Now, this idea sits very neatly with a materialist, reductionist point of view, but it means that consciousness must be a pointless consequence of the physical structure of the brain, one that came about by accident. How on Earth does that make sense in evolutionary terms?

Well, that depends on how you define "accident". If we use evolution and Darwinian adaptation as the paradigm of concepts like "purpose", then as you have rightly concluded, consciousness is completely accidental. However, that doesn't mean that the creation of humankind doesn't abide by other natural laws that supersede those of Darwin, which bring about consciousness out of necessity rather than mere accident. "God" is one such concept, among many (for example).

And, this is all assuming that consciousness is a very delicate and rare phenomenon, produced only by a very exacting and narrow range of material preconditions, namely the complex structure of the human brain. I'm more inclined to think that consciousness is an effect of ALL material systems, whether organic or otherwise. To say that consciousness is limited to that which WE perceive it to be seems rather myopic. Since the brain is fundamentally composed of the same matter and energy that you find in the rest of the cosmos, why shouldn't the entirety of the material world exhibit various permutations of "consciousness"? In this case, there need not be an explanation for human consciousness, because it is in fact impossible for us NOT to be conscious in some way, and philosophical zombies are physically impossible! Which is what I truly believe.

Moreover, what you're describing is not a materialistic consciousness. You're describing an effect of the body -- a consequence of the physical structure of the brain, as you worded it -- which in turn has no interaction with the material world, which would mean that it must be immaterial, because all material things interact with the rest of the material world in a cause-effect dynamic. In a truly material universe, consciousness is not even an effect of the material world -- it's merely a description of the material world. It IS matter and energy, and physical form; and human consciousness is the human brain. In which case, there most certainly IS an evolutionary drive toward human consciousness, because human consciousness happens to define the structure of a creature that is very good at reproducing itself.

Statistically unlikely that we find ourselves in the form of Homo sapiens, as opposed to any of the other myriad possible hypothetical creatures? Yes, but if you think about it, all life is an incredible statistical anomaly. And, if you define a star by its mass to an error of .00001%, every star in the night sky is also astonishingly unlikely!

 

[JJ-180]

The purpose of the thinking mind may even be just to provide a posteriori justification for instinctual and pre-determined actions.

 

[Vader]

Well, that depends on how you define "accident". If we use evolution and Darwinian adaptation as the paradigm of concepts like "purpose", then as you have rightly concluded, consciousness is completely accidental. However, that doesn't mean that the creation of humankind doesn't abide by other natural laws that supersede those of Darwin, which bring about consciousness out of necessity rather than mere accident. "God" is one such concept, among many (for example).

Sure, I'm just saying that if we are to accept that features of living systems only persist when they are successful adaptations (which I do), then consciousness must be a successful adaptation, i.e. it must be able to bring about changes in the physical world, and if so epiphenomenalism is false. Personally, I think that we as humans ought to determine what we consider to be value and purpose; it frustrates me when people conflate our interests with those of our genes.

I'm more inclined to think that consciousness is an effect of ALL material systems, whether organic or otherwise.

Really? So you think that my toaster is conscious? I would find it hard to stomach the idea that my laptop is conscious and therefore that I have enslaved it.

oreover, what you're describing is not a materialistic consciousness.

Isn't that an oxymoron? I think we all know that consciousness is intangible.

In which case, there most certainly IS an evolutionary drive toward human consciousness, because human consciousness happens to define the structure of a creature that is very good at reproducing itself.

...in which case epiphenomenalism must be false, which is the point that I was making.

Statistically unlikely that we find ourselves in the form of Homo sapiens, as opposed to any of the other myriad possible hypothetical creatures? Yes, but if you think about it, all life is an incredible statistical anomaly. And, if you define a star by its mass to an error of .00001%, every star in the night sky is also astonishingly unlikely!

True, but I don't see what bearing it has on the present discussion if I'm honest.

The purpose of the thinking mind may even be just to provide a posteriori justification for instinctual and pre-determined actions.

The whole concept of justification supervenes on that of mind, though. So, the question then becomes: What is the purpose of justification? Aren't we in danger of drifting into circularity?

 

[Dedbeet]

Isn't that an oxymoron? I think we all know that consciousness is intangible.

Not really -- we assume consciousness is intangible, because we presume a separation between consciousness and 'tangible matter'.

How, though? Tangibility is an aspect of consciousness, both defined and perceived in/through consciousness.

It boils down to something so simple, the mind dies of sheer boggling.

*Consciousness is its content*, at all times. Would you believe it is that simple?

"Form is emptiness, emptiness is form".

Peace...

 

[HigherAwareness]

Bottom line our evolved and complex way of thinking is a biological survival method that keeps us alive VIA our witts

 

[High Yogi]

It seems our minds are constantly thinking even when we are not aware of it happening.

What do you think the purpose or reasoning behind it is?

I have this idea that we are just having a conversation with ourselves all of the time.

I think humans want to be involved or interacting with other humans all of the time (at least biologically), but since we are not we have developed our thinking mind.

I'm sure other animals think as well but I'm talking more a long the lines in which we humans think, specifically in language perhaps.

Why do you think we developed a mind that just chatters away, sometimes uncontrollably?

I believe human beings are rationale animals and that the only distinction between us and the animal kingdom is our rationale. AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada Gives a wide range of evidence to back this claim. He submits that humans are not at all different than cats and dogs, but only through our intellect. There are 4 primary actions in the animal kingdom- eating, sleeping, mating and defending, So you see, we are not much different from the animals. A dog sleeps, a man sleeps. A dog eats, a man eats. A dog mates, a man mates. A dog defends his territory, a man too defends his territory. Where then, lies the difference? the difference lies in our consciousness.

This being human is a special gift. It is a gift because as humans we have taken a step up from the animal world, so that we may inquire on the absolute truth and nature of reality. This is the difference. You see, a dog is not interested in the Bhagavad-gita, you may sit there for a year and try to read it to him, but he is simply just not interested! and not just the bhagavad-gita, but any spiritual book for that matter. AS humans, our main interest should be in trying to obtain knowledge of the absolute or supreme reality. This is why we have inquiry and this is from where all curiosity branches out of.

In todays society, we have knowledge left and right, but how much of this knowledge actually means anything? I mean, yeah we have advanced technologies and tremendous buildings such as skyscrapers and what not, and we have planes that travel around the world. This is all very impressive. But none of this is true knowledge worth inquiry. How come its not? Because this life of ours is just a temporary suite, and when we quit this body, all things will be left behind other than our experiences and spiritual knowledge. All these toys that we have been playing with, they mean nothing. They are just here for sense gratification. A dog gets around on four legs and we get around on four wheels, and we call that advancement. Thats not advancement! Advancement is when you start to inquire where do we go after death, why are we here, and where did we come from? this is true inquiry and this is true knowledge. All else is false and temporary.

So then, i believe the purpose of the thinking mind is to inquire on the absolute truth and nature of reality. This is our purpose, this is our distinction as human beings.

Now this thinking mind, although it may lead us to great ecstasies, it may also lead us great miseries. The yoga sutra of Patanjali says: "This mind can be either a source of anguish, or of non anguish." The difference lies on who you are to you. Are your own master, or are you your own slave? Do you control your mind or does your mind control you?

Also, this thinking process is just like the walking process. The aim is to put it to an end so that we may experience peace. The peace experienced is similar to the joy one feels after carrying a heavy burden, such as a humungous rock. You are walking around with a boulder on your shoulders and i tell you to let it go, but you say "if i let it go, then i will have nothing left!" so there you stand holding the rock. Only once your completely sick and tired of carrying around the rock, will you let it go and youll realize "man, what was i thinking carrying that burden around?!" same holds true with the mind. The thinking process is like the walking process. If you stop walking, im not going to ask "where has your walking gone" your walking has just ceased. Same too, If you stop thinking, im not going to say " where has your thinking gone?" because the thinking process was just put to rest and when a problem occurs, you may easily start thinking again. One who is wise will realize that the thinking process is unsatisfactory, and so he is constantly not using it. By not using it, he is freed from the weight of the burden, and experiences peace.