Well, for one thing it helps fashion our character (the stress), and it's our character (or spirit) that we take with us when we pass on.

Too much acid? Too much alkaline? Either way you get poison. So yes, it's all about the contrast of opposites.

Yes, so which is it? Was the hand designed for the glove? Or, was the glove designed for the hand?

Then you're saying it's evidence of structure or, a design which has always been. Because determinism implies something which is bound within structure. And yet if structure, by its very nature is confining -- in and of itself -- without an external agent or, free will, to act upon it, then there's no way of breaking free of it (hmm ... ), and hence nothing will evolve. So structure and free will, just like any other form of dualism, must go hand in hand.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

FYI, just split the thread and sent the new one down to the Iacchus' Ignorance forum. Unfortunately I think we lost sight of Imperious825's questions which spurred us into this discussion here. It's funny, we haven't heard from Imperious825 in the last couple of days. Hmm ... I wonder why that is?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

So, what's the point in having a mind if not to speculate about the nature of things? Certainly this is not something it compels us to do is it? If it is, then what luxury do we get out of having one? To serve the illusory sense that we have free will, so that we can go on acting and behaving is if everything was hunky-dory in our world? But who's purpose would it serve if life were just an illusion? If you take away any sense of purpose we have, why would we strive to do anything, especially if we understood it's all been predetermined? Of course if we could understand this, through our ability to speculate and freely associate that is, doesn't that also imply we have a choice in the matter?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

The "point" if you must call it that, is to ensure survival of the species. It is the same "point" that insects have when they lay a few thousand eggs, it is just a different way that has evolved for ensuring propagation.

Many animals have evolved the ability to solve problems to various degrees, and Man is better at it than any others so far. As such, it lets us occupy niches that we would not normally be able to occupy. So in that sense, it is a good survival strategy, however, it may end up in causing us to make our environment inhospitable to humans (after what has been, to this point, a very brief stay on Earth), and in that sense, it would be a bad survival strategy.

But one thing seems obvious to me: The "complex mind" survival trait works best when the mind is solving problems. When it is merely contemplating the nature of things that cannot be known, it is not doing its job.
Once again, let me remind you that neither I nor Diggy and I'm guessing anybody else posting here thinks that life is an illusion. Neither does our philosophy of life logically lead to that conclusion. I can only think of one person here who is even suggesting that life might be an illusion. Guess who.

But don't get hung up on "purpose". Even spiritual people admit that they do not and cannot know the mind of God. So if there is a "cosmic purpose", (which seems unlikely, but still possible) then you will never know it. That is why I stick to purposes I can understand, like making life better for people, especially my loved ones. I can't do a lot, but I can do some. That is all the purpose I need.
I am not suggesting that we take away your purpose or your ability to speculate or make choices. I am suggesting that your speculation is most useful when it accomplishes something. In my opinion, speculating on the nature of things that we cannot know is not accomplishing anything.

Yes, survival no doubt plays it's part, but what is it specifically about an enlarged brain that gives us an advantage? ... the fact that it allows us the ability to choose a different scenario whenever things don't work?

Yes, and perhaps this is what we need philosophy for, to speculate on such things ...

Are you suggesting philosophy is useless then? What's the point in contemplating anything then?

Daniel Dennett?

However, if there's no such thing as right and wrong, then we are "perfectly" justified in doing whatever we damn well please, correct? Ultimately, we need to base our values on something don't we?

So, can I take it that you're agreeing with me that speculation is involved in the process of free will?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Not just choose, but actually engineer different scenarios. For example, less intelligent animals, when food runs short can only choose to go somewhere else or to try to survive on less food. Primative humans faced with the same dilemma, through the process of problem solving, discovered that food comes from seeds and if they save seeds then they can plant food.
Not if there is no way of knowing whether or not your speculations are correct.
Only if the philosophy cannot answer (verifiably) the questions it asks. Science is a method which can and sometimes does answer the questions it asks in a way that can be demonstrated to everyone. Spirituality does not.
When I said "here" I expected it would be obvious to you that I meant someone posting on this forum. I should have known better than to expect that.
Why do you insist on misinterpreting what I say? All of us base our values on something (and I have even told you what my "something" is). I am merely suggesting that the "something" we choose is not universal, or else we would all have the same values.
I had my head handed to me on a platter when I tried to defend the existence of "free will" to Diggy, but yes, thought influences choice.

However, this in no way addresses the point I was making that speculation which is cannot be verified is not as meaningful as speculation that can be verified.

The thing is you don't know, not unless you speculate on it first. And, just because you may not be able to come up with an answer (which is what you seem to be implying here) doesn't mean somebody else is incapable of coming up with an answer does it?

Spirituality is a different medium. It gets closer to "why" we know, as opposed to "what" we know, so in that respect you can't expect an answer which is so blatantly obvious.

How do you know it wasn't? But then again you can imply whatever you want to imply, but that doesn't make it correct.

Even a murderer has his own set of values about what he's doing. Are you suggesting that there's really no way of discerning between the two?

Verified by whom?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

You might be interested in this...or not...there is a (rather speculative) notion being advanced in Evolutionary Biology (where, of course, it will be both attacked and supported, until either it passes muster or falls from favor) that our immense brains (brains, not minds--"mind" is circularly defined, but in the context of this question, you will see that the "mind", as product of this immense brain, is exactly the point of this notion) are the product of sexual selection, much as the peacock's tail or the irish elk's antlers. In each case, as Darwin predicted, a characteristic that is directly linked to reproductive fitness becomes a secondary sexual characteristic, and is very strongly selected for, despite other obvious disadvantages. The peacock's tail is awkward, heavy, and showy, and makes the peacock more likely to be taken by a predator--but it also works magic on peahens. The advantage in sexual attractiveness outweighs the disadvantage of increased cost, and we end up with a tail that is clearly much more than is needed to stabilize flight. The irish elk's antlers are huge and unwieldy, but are a sexual display and so are selected for despite their being much larger than required for defense. Our brains are huge--many times the size they need to be for us to do all the things we need to do to survive. No other animal uses as much energy as we do to feed our brains, no other animal has the problems in childbirth that we do, trying to fit a huge skull through a tiny pelvis (the tiny pelvis, compared to other animals our size, which is needed for bipedalism). Our brain size is extremely costly to us, but it also allows us to...well, to show off, like the peacock or elk do. Our ability to speak, to create, to think abstractly, to make art...all of it is showing off to try to get into somebody else's genes. And just as the peacock's tail is more than it needs to be, so is our brain. We have the capacity to think about things which are far more than what we need to think about, or what is even useful to think about. Philosophy is a peacock's tail, showy but impractical.

So....arguably (it is, after all, only a theory), the question is not "what's the point in having a mind if not to speculate about the nature of things?" The question might be "is the ability to speculate about the nature of things merely a fortunate byproduct of our attempts to improve our reproductive fitness?" We are very lucky that we can speculate about the nature of things, very lucky indeed, but that does not at all mean that our ability evolved for that purpose.

Is this why men tend to speculate about women in their thinking more than other things? In order to maintain the erotic notion? It could be ... While according to Swedenborg's book, Conjugal Love (which includes the love of the sexes), this is the first and primary love which proceeds from the throne of God.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?