"Man's Mind: His Basic Tool of Survival

Hello All,

I’ve been enjoying reading the various forums here. However, I figure it will take me at least 2.6 years to catch up. In the meantime, I thought I’d start a new thread with the goal of getting to know some of you better, a little sooner.

So....

Some of you may recognize the author of the following quote. For now I wish to withhold the author’s name. As it is only proper that credit be given, I will supply the name a little later.

~~~~~~~~~~

“Man’s mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it He cannot dig a ditch--or build a cyclotron--without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.

“But to think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call ‘human nature,’ the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival--so that for you, who are a human being, the question ‘to be or not to be’ is ‘to think of not to think...”

~~~~~~~~~~

Agree?

Disagree?

And if so...why or why not?


~~~~~~~~~~

Regards,

Counterbalance

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Greetings -

I agree.

Why? Well, lets break the first paragraph down into a more easily evaluated equation.

Hypothesis:
Man's mind is his basic tool of survival.

Axioms:
1. Life is given to him, survival is not.
2. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not.
3. His mind is given to him, its content is not.
4. To remain alive, he must act,
5. before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action.
6. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it.

So, to obtain the means for survival (in this case, food), one must have knowledge of those means. Even with a host of other tools with which food can be harvested, you must know that you need food, and that you cannot get food without employing those other tools. You have tools A(mind) and B(everything else) with which you can get C(food). If you can get B from A, and without A you cannot get C, it follows that A is the more basic than B.

Conclusion:
To remain alive, he must think.

Now, the second paragraph;

But to think is an act of choice.

True. One can either go about the task of finding food, or one can hope and pray that food will mystically appear.

Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct.

Indeed, try proving a complex mathematical theorem with only your emotions as guide. Also, if reason did work automatically, why would there be so many dissenting opinions in our (or any) society?

In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort.

As stated above, feeling the proof to a theorem does not prove it; yet some people are content to act on that feeling, ignoring(not thinking) that it is incorrect.

But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival--so that for you, who are a human being, the question ‘to be or not to be’ is ‘to think of not to think...”

Everyone exists. Not everyone thinks. As demonstrated earlier, and as the speaker goes on to say, "A being of volitional conciousness has no automatic course of behavior." Without thought, and the use of reason, the course that being ends up on is random and without purpose.


Thanks,
FyreStar

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Consider the obverse ...

To remain alive, he must think.
To think, he must remain alive.

...to think is an act of choice.
Not to think is an act of choice.

...before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action.
After he has acted, he may think about the nature and purpose of his action.

Any the less 'true'?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Greetings -

***Chagur said:
To think, he must remain alive.

Self-evident, wouldn't you say?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

***Chagur said:
...to think is an act of choice.
Not to think is an act of choice.

These statemens say the same thing. The choice is whether or not to think.

***Chagur said:
...before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action.
After he has acted, he may think about the nature and purpose of his action.

True... but that doesn't change the validity of the original statement.

I'm not sure where you are going with this.. what conclusion were you intending to draw?

Thanks,
FyreStar

 

Thank you, FyreStar, Chagur & kmguru...

I'd hoped to find there had been some thoughtful responses when I got the chance to look in again, so I'm hardly disappointed.

I'd planned to add my own thoughts, and certainly will, but also want to give it a little more time. This, and related topics, have likely been discussed here before, but if anyone else hasn't become too weary of repeating themselves, I'm all ears.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(FyreStar...I get the impression that you are familiar with the uncredited author. Help me keep the secret a little longer?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Worth much more than 1 cent to me. Thanks again for everyone's input.

Counterbalance

 

FyreStar ...

That 'thinking' is ancillary to 'action' - In this case, remaining alive; and that 'not thinking' is impossible. Too often I have found what is referred to as 'thinking' is synonymous with 'analysing'.

 

Greetings -

Chagur.. you say that action proceeds thought? This doesn't make sense to me.. Describe to me how a physicist develops a theory without thought. Or how a businessman turns profit without thought. Reduced to simplicity, tell me how a man could possibly find food to survive without thought. There may be a semantic problem here, but don't be so quick to assume that it is ours.

Thanks,
FyreStar

P.S. Counterbalance - Roger that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

To continue the quote...

"A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions. 'Value' is that which one acts to gain and keeps it. 'Value' presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? 'Value' presupposes a standard, a purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative. Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible....

"....Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil...."

~~~~

No automatic course of behavior?

Is it only to a living entity that things can be good or evil?

Can we prove that life goes out of existence? Or do we rely on the proof that we have--that as far as we know--we don't actually know what happens when we die?

~~~

I know of no reason to disagree with any of the (as yet) un-named author's assertions, but different interpretations are welcome.

(And FyreStar, even if you also agree, say on! I enjoy reading your posts.)


Counterbalance

 

FyreStar ...

Understandable considering your apparent acceptance of Rand's Objectivism.

Consider in utero: Action .. yes! Thought .. ?

And, no need to 'find food'.

The problem appears to be not one of semantics, but rather how big the picture is.

 

Good point, Chagur.

In utero: is thought possible?

What kind of proof do we have to support a belief that it is not?

Or that it is?

Is all action (in utero) reflexive? Reactive?

Or is there a thought: "I'm cramped," followed by an action of: "streeeettttccchhhhh."

"I'm cramped; therefore, I'll stretch. "

Simplistic, yes. But keeping it simple can further understanding in the long run.

Oh, and I agree that there is a much bigger picture. It just gets a bit fuzzier the more we open the lens.

Mucho thanks for the input!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Counterbalance


(And yes, the author of the quoted material is Ayn Rand, the founder of the philosophy Objectivism. These are excerpts from the famous speech in Atlas Shrugged , "This is John Galt Speaking." )

Speaking of understanding, I hope I'm using these text codes correctly! Here goes...

 

A reply

Counterbalance, I know this is not your original quote. However, please consider this: You hold two buckets, one in each hand. One is filled with water and one is empty. You know instantly which one is heavier. Where did this knowledge come from? Did you have to be taught how to discern which bucket was heavier? Did you have to think about about it and then conclude that, based on what you were taught, the bucket full of water is heavier? Probably not. The things that you need to know about your immediate environment are built in and hardwired. Of course this does not discredit the above quote in one easy analogy, it merely outlines that not all knowledge is dependent upon the critical analysis of higher thought. It is amazing how a person requires so much instruction to achieve what squirrels achieve with a minimal need to build cyclotrons or dig ditches. Mabye it is just a matter of degree.

 

Hi machaon,

Thanks. I'm quite open to considering your suggestions. Note that in one of my prior posts I asked:

~~~~~~~~~~~

You make a good point, machaon. I'd like to hear more if you've any further thoughts on this.

My reason for choosing this topic was to (hopefully) start a discussion about this. Granted, it could easily turn into a debate or an argument, but it doesn't have to. It's not critical that we all agree. My questions were merely questions and not assertions of my own hard line opinion.

That said...

You asked the question:

And I wonder: Even if a human body can "feel" the weight of the water-filled bucket, what does the mind know automatically?

Does it merely label the sensation the body feels? Does it transcribe the information and make sense of it? Can it do so if it hasn't been taught the definitions of words like "heavy?" Could a severely mentally-impaired person be able to do this? (Would they be able to discern the difference?) Perhaps they might scowl at the heavy bucket, but not be clear on why they did this?

I don't have all the answers, so I'm open to looking deeper into this.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Counterbalance

 

Thank you counterbalance

Thank you for your reply. I am also curious to learn more about this matter. I will do some research on this subject in order to provide this forum with good information based on the data I can find. If I can do this, then we will both be winners

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Man is not born of an egg, and is at first nutured. Without nuturing man would surely die.

I mention this because I get this image that the very start of this topic sees a fully fledged man standing gapping at a new world. Of course in reality the entire process of something growing means at some point it was young.

You might say:

Of course an Acorn sits upon the ground beneath the tree that sheds it, it is now subject to chance. Will it be eaten by a squirrel, will it wrot within a dirt stagnent puddle or begin to sprout roots?

Okay a man has the ability to think, how is this apart of his survivial? Well you mentioned that the ability to think allows the chance to overcome, to solve puzzles with intellect.
But again back to nuturing, We learn of things not just by experience but by being taught. When you at a young age hear your mother say "Don't touch that, it will burn you" you should take heed, because it is your mother, a person who has not just nutured you but protected you and taught you of her experiences.

You as a curious child, take note, but while she's not looking... your curiousity gets the better of you.. you tip over a hot mug of coffee, and luckily it doesn't spill on you, But you get a scare...
A scare not just from the hot coffee and the pain of a few drips splattering on you, but the scare of your mother letting loose a scream of terror at fear for her childs potential injury being serious.

"Your lucky your not burnt"... "how many times have I told you"... "Don't do this again"
You get your scold in a different way... it forms your understanding of remorse, knowing you did something wrong and to take heed next time.

Another quote springs to mind:

You get bitten by a dog and it was bad, and now you are scared of dogs. Simply put on a subconscious level, you don't want that to happen again, so it effects your decision when your faced with entering a room with a dog.

Of course that can stem to Bad dreams (Nightmares), A giant spider chases you in a dream when asa young child, in later life your scared of spiders.

Other than your immidiate family teaching you, there is the interaction of others. (Some of you will know all about "On the job training")
Of course we aren't the only specie that has on the Job training.

It's noted in the 100th monkey experiment that involved 2 islands with monkeys on them. Each island was self-sufficient, but a team of scientists dropped sweet potatoes(at least I think they were) on the beaches.

Sweet potatoes, monkeys had never seen before let alone eaten, So at first they took no notice of this new plentiful food supply.

It took a few weeks for a monkey to venture to the supply of sweet potatoes, and for it to eventually eat it. With in minutes, the beach was swarmed with the other monkeys all eating the potatoes. They had learnt from one that it was edible.

At that exact same moment on the other island, the monkeys started eating them too... (telepathy perhaps?)

It's also noted that Chimps can lick sticks to poke into termite mounds to get the termites. (Yum!)

As for our survival functions...
If you feel pain, you know where it's coming from, what the reason is and you deal with it. Unless the pain is internal.

If your bleeding, you go by what you know... Some panick and pass out, while others will apply pressure and eventually dress the wound.

You know not to eat food that has gone off... Is it because it tastes bad? Or because you know you would get ill? If it's the latter who told you would get ill? (If no one told you, it proves we can also compute for ourselves)

 

Okay, where were we...?

Hello again!


FyreStar wrote: “Everyone exists. Not everyone thinks. As demonstrated earlier, and as the speaker goes on to say, ‘A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior.’ Without thought, and the use of reason, the course that being ends up on is random and without purpose. “

And FyreStar asks: “Reduced to simplicity, tell me how a man could possibly find food to survive without thought...”

###########

Chagur asserts: “That ’thinking’ is ancillary to ’action’ - In this case, remaining alive; and that ‘not thinking’ is impossible. Too often I have found what is referred to as ‘thinking’ is synonymous to ‘analyzing.’”

And Chagur proposes: “Consider in utero: Action .. yes! Thought ..?”

###########

kmguru suggests: “The mind comes with the contents. Basic programs that runs the heart, the nervous system etc. Without the information regarding the level of glucose, amount of red blood cells, T-cells and so on, the body can not control and will die.”


###########

machaon advises: “...The things that you need to know about your immediate environment are built in and hardwired. Of course this does not discredit the above [Rand] quote in one easy analogy, it merely outlines that not all knowledge is dependent upon the critical analysis of higher thought. It is amazing how a person requires so much instruction to achieve what squirrels achieve with a minimal need to build cyclotrons or dig ditches. Maybe it’s just a matter of degrees.

###########

(last but not least!)

Stryderunknown reminded: “Man is not born of an egg, and is at first nutured. Without nuturing man would surely die. I mention this because I get this image that the very start of this topic sees a fully fledge man standing gapping at a new world. Of course in reality the entire process of something growing means at some point it was young. ‘From Acorns, Grow might Oaks.’ ‘Once bitten, twice shy.’”


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chagur and I both commented on how there was a ‘bigger picture.’ Everyone who’s posted so far has opened a window upon this hazy vista; offered a different view of that picture. Including FyreStar when he wrote: “Not everyone thinks.”

So how to tie all of this together? Because it all does appear to be linked.

Guess it’s best to start ... in the beginning?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

~~~~~~


The sperm and egg meet and if cell division is successful, and if an embryo or fetus is not aborted--or dies within the womb for other reasons--then a child is born. All that happens during development of a fetus within the womb during the traditional nine months of gestation is still in many ways a mystery. Fascinating discoveries about how a fetus is formed and “wired” are being made all of the time. Anyone who is knowledgeable about these matters is certainly welcome to contribute their own or already established theories. Particularly anything that may further our understanding about whether or not “thought” is possible in utero.

(There are studies, for example, supporting an unborn fetus’s ability to recognize it’s parent’s voices, to respond in predictable ways to certain types of music, etc... Much to suggest identification and integration, (thinking), but much that it is yet unknown, too.)

~~~~

Another point: Nurturing is required for the human infant. We’ve all heard the horror stories of the abused child found locked away in a basement or a closet, “living” there since its birth. Never taught anything except not to bite the hand that feeds it. Or even that it doesn’t matter whether it bites or not. The abused child is still alive when authorities come to rescue he/she, and we can’t be sure if we can credit the abusive parents so much for its survival because they periodically tossed food at the child, or because the child has learned how to “stay alive” by other means. There may be comprehensive studies about this specific type of (abusive) lack in nurturing for humans. Yet I don’t think there’s any question that nurturing and teaching are required for a child to develop “normally.” And normal would include further developing of the ability to learn. Unless a child is mentally-handicapped, it begins to learn during its first days of Life. And, seemingly, while in the womb.

The last line in the first quote I provided is: “But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival--so that for you, who are a human being, the question “to be or not to be’ is ‘to think or not to think.’”



In other words, once a child has been nurtured, gone through it’s first few critical stages of “development,” learned (as all creatures will to some degree), and reaches a so-called normal (age-appropriate) level of human cognitive ability ... it begins to use logic in its fuller sense. It begins to reason. It utilizes acquired knowledge to further one or more of its personal objectives. Ever noticed how you can't reason with a two-year-old?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In doing this, does this growing human now seek to sustain or improve his own life by means of .. choice? He may not yet understand that eating too many jelly beans will make him sick, but according to his continuously developing ability to reason, it is quite logical in his mind to accept that more jelly beans will make him happy and that he’s improving his state of existence by grabbing another fistful.

~~~

His human senses give him information, proof, a “heads-up!” His body in various states of health or decay will aid or impair his ability to process the incoming sensations. His memories and current environment may or may not hinder or help the process. But what does he do ultimately? Does he not respond by making a choice of some kind?

And sometimes he reacts. (Action before thought)

Ever seen a man hit his thumb with a hammer and calmly stop, look at his thumb and then proceed with his hammering? Most people would react to the instantaneous pain shooting through that smashed thumb by jerking the thumb away from the offending tool, by holding it, by swearing, by crying...whatever... And yet a few people--for whatever reason, and by whatever means of self-control--do not “react” other than to stop hammering and exam the injured thumb. Which, actually, is pretty logical.

People resist “reacting” all of the time. They make a choice to respond instead. And a response typically requires prior thought before being uttered or before carrying out an action.

~~~

One child is told not to touch the hot coffee mug and has learned (by various means) that it is, in fact, in his best interest not to touch the mug. Did he not make an active choice to mind his mother in order not to threaten his survival? (A scolding or a spanking or a burn can be quite threatening

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) And is it possible for a child to never be told that the mug is hot, therefore dangerous, but only has to place a finger near it, feels the heat, and relies on its own mental library of experience to reason the first time that hot = possible danger/pain.

Or... has the child only learned that, in his current environment, getting attention for disobeying or risk-taking will somehow aid his survival--perhaps only on an emotional level--but nonetheless ranking as highly significant to that child. And if we can say that this is illogical behavior, where did the child learn it? Was it learned? Did he reason this out?

Or... has the child who continuously shows little sign of using logic in this kind of scenario, and who keeps getting burned... perhaps have a mental deficiency? Or simply hasn’t been exposed to logical behavior by others from which to learn?

If we can say that by one means or another a child’s normal development is not impeded, and that if he is not exposed to too much irrational behavior for examples to learn by, and that he is allowed to grow into a “natural” human being.... is Man’s Mind then his basic tool of survival? Is then his ability and choice to use reason his ticket to a productive life by his standards?

~~~~

Comments offered in all of the posts made here so far, along with Rand’s ideas and with input from a friend have helped me to put together this view and these questions.

The purpose for doing so is to seek a better understanding. And to that end, I wanted to ask a few questions relative to points made in prior posts.

FyreStar: How would you define “not thinking?”

Chagur: How would you define “thinking?” “Analyzing?”

kmguru: When you speak of the mind’s contents, do you include a sort of built in knowledge of the external world?

machaon: If you think it is still relevant, what kind of degrees? Would you provide some examples?

Stryderunknown: Can we consider “Man’s Mind: His Basic Tool of Survival” as such if we omit focusing on the first essential stages of development and nurturing and view him as a creature that has already begun learning and who can now choose to practice his ability to reason?

~~~~

Looking forward...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Counterbalance

 

the bigger image...

I think this one is a very interesting thread and even if I have some reasons not to post here (like mine unfamiliarity with English, or the fact that it seems almost like a closed thread) I once believed I had found an answer to this matter, so... but let's cut the crap.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Counterbalance posts:

What does Rand mean by 'think' here?
You see, this was the point where it all went wrong. Of course, 'to think is an act of choice'. But, like Chagur said, 'not to think is an act of choice', too. True. But what are you doing when you aren't thinking at all? Have you ever tried to stop all you thoughts - just for one minute? I never succeeded.

I believe the problem is how do you define the 'thinking' process.
Let me put it that way: we should have more than one word for it; every word to define a different degree (depth) of 'thinking' - from the kind of thinking that approaches us to the instinctual animals growing to the minds of our greatest scientists.

Albert Einstein had an interesting opinion about this. I will try to translate it for you.

Back to Rand's quote:

Yep, but he doesn't have to think a lot, because others may have already done it for him. It is enough that one man has done al the thinking and the others will use his conclusions even if they don't understand.

In conclusion, different way of thinking divide society into different kinds of people. I'm talking about quality here. Well used, our mind (which is 80% our choice) takes us apart from mediocrity.

This is not all I wanted to say here, but it will be enough for now.

 

Hi Twilight!

Your English is fine and I appreciate the input.

The purpose of this thread was to draw attention to the very things you've focused upon: What is thinking? And how necessary is it (and therefore the brain/mind) to man's survival?

If you've more to say on the subject, feel free to elaborate. I'm well aware that there are varying opinions and theories about this, so friendly disputation is not discouraged as far as I'm concerned.

Communication leads to learning.

Say on!

~~~

Counterbalance

 

Thank you, Counterbalance. I got your point

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

First of all... I think man's mind is indeed his basic tool of survival, because while other animals developed different skills in order to get food, safety etc., man has improved his mind. That also led to the involvement of the other skills he might have had in the past.

But I have a question related on what Chagur said earlier in this thread: is to think an act of choice or is not to think an act of choice? Interesting.

 

~~~

Interesting? Indeed. I cannot help but think that a better understanding of how our minds work can be anything but beneficial to mankind. Thanks again for sharing your insights.

Perhaps--at some point during his current journey around Sol-- Chagur will favor us again with his views. I'm also aware that being "Supreme Dictator of the World" takes up a lot of a man's time, so I'm content to wait.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Can hardly expect a better Rome to be built in a day.

~~~

Counterbalance