>>238Not a full psychological model, no. Because what would that be limited by? Where are the endpoints of influence/energy/mind when they are interconnected all across the planet and further, ultimately? See Godel's theorem, also. Modern science is too busy probing the brain still, observing the afterglow of what's really behind every thought, which is always in motion.
Reality comes down to worldview, on the perception level, which is really beautiful and mathematical when you realize that people who can't grasp it simply never will even when they have the intuitions given to them in word form. For those who can, you just have to keep pushing your mind, keep thinking and working on yourself and there are some very helpful websites out there.
>Babies are born all the time. They all cry out for a parental figure, and suck nipples/thumb/etc. They cry/laugh/shit without knowing what those things are. They do it automatically like a simple machine. An instinct. Its been observed and proven everyday. There is no mystery to this.The mystery is there because some of us want to know a consistent, coherent and complete understanding of the thing-in-itself, including where the boundaries of all the different definitions may occur; not just the observed after-effects of said things in deliberate social contexts. In other words, we want to understand reality itself, rather than just sampling it and comparing data.
>>245>no, i think its either just what it learns or theres something biological that causes instincts, not solely dependant on the information the cockroach hasBut what causes the thing that causes?
Philosophy is supposed to tackle the most fundamental assumptions. Try this one:
>A universe of matter cannot spontaneously give rise to mind. Matter on its own can't think.>The inverse is the only logical alternative: the universe is fundamentally mind, and gives rise to matter.