The choice to focus

[philosopher]

Of course it does. Ideas only exist in brains. Even when written on paper or on a computer, those scribblings can only be deciphered by a brain and turned into ideas in that brain. Identify a non-physical concept or existent, and I will show you how it connects to reality. A non-physical existent that is not a higher concept built on the pre-existence of a physical existent is a contradiction.

I'm not sure it's correct to say ideas are in the brain. When I introspect on ideas they have certain attributes: clarity, meaning, groundedness, etc. but not location. That is another thing they are missing along with weight and size. As to whether they have a physical analog, maybe they do, but I don't think it's obvious either way.

As a scientific phenomenon, it would be more accurate to describe ideas as existents than entities, precisely because of the difficulty in locating them physically and specifying their attributes. We don't know what ideas are yet, but assigning entity status to them is an a priori commitment to a particular theory. As an existent it is permissible for an idea to be a relation or an action, an activity of the brain and brain cells.

Yes, you are right, I should have said "existent" not "entity."

[Harrison Danneskjold]

I think the largest obstacle is the attempt to trace a single effect back to a single cause, which is to some extent built into the concept of causality, but perhaps a hindrance to the conceptualization of our own minds.

Concretization:

I am focusing on this post right now and shall attempt to learn why. Here "why" refers to whichever circumstance was necessary for this choice to focus; without which it would not have occurred.

Firstly, I would not be focused on this presently if this website were not open in front of me; I cannot focus on nothing.

Secondly, I would not be focused on this presently if I were not so interested in clearly grasping the answer.

Both are entirely necessary for this choice to focus and furthermore, both the opening of this webpage and my own interest in volition, necessitate choices and experiences further back in my own life (such as my choice to seriously focus on philosophy, prompted by watching Atlas Shrugged, which I chose to do out of curiosity. . .).

Ultimately these causal conditions encompass the entirety of my own life thus far; the sum of the nature of my soul.

This is what I think "self-initiation" refers to here; if a single cause must be identified, it must include everything that I am.

That's the progress I've made thus far.

[theestevearnold]

Similar to how a man with a healthy mind won't choose to commit suicide, that man will subconciously choose to focus.

Note that I submitted the "prime mover" is his subconcious, which removes the chicken/egg quandry and places focusing as almost an automatic action done by men with healthy minds. Since focusing is optional, it retains its greatness by the fact that it's not a biological (robotic/programmed) mandate. Free @$@#!&?$! Will is like marrying for love while the animals are stuck in arranged marriages.

An inquiry should be made into why men choose to evade. Intellectual cowardice was why I evaded. Then I grew a pair, dropped the oriental mystic-altruism--I was a Vedic driven Taoist/Buddhist for 20 years, evading causality--to finally accept reality. It's not as fancy as a Hindu demon in a Himalayan Ashram, but I can count on it. A will always equal A. My soul doesn't fear the truths anymore, so I subconciously I choose to focus. This action is greater than a response to the sensory stimuli of a loud noise. This is about a man with the courage to address existence. What's the difference between a hero's and a coward's soul? I don't care. I'm glad we both have the free will to put our souls into action.....or not. (I'm the hero.)

I'm not implying that That I'm a Hugh Jackman. My pecs need work.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

An inquiry should be made into why men choose to evade. Intellectual cowardice was why I evaded.

I think that's the cause of all evasion; fear.

 

Take the belief in an after-life, for example.  There is no rational basis for it whatsoever, and yet most of the people on Earth accept it.  Why?

Well, look at how they treat its negation; in this case the suggestion that death is death, point blank.  It deeply and profoundly horrifies them to contemplate.  Why?

Because mortality is not a pleasant thing to dwell upon.

 

For another example, look at all of the statist-collectivist arguments in existence; they're all obvious rationalizations.  So what's the real motive?

Is it driven by any true desire for the unearned. . . Or by the fear of responsibility?

 

Such an inquiry properly deserves its own thread (so I'll leave it at that), but I think that every sort of intellectual injury people inflict on themselves, is chosen as an escape from fear.