What is Mind?

[Psychonaut]

Which theory of mind do you adhere to and why?
Dualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29#Substance_dualism )
Interactionist/Substance Dualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29#Substance_dualism )
Psychophysical Parallelism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychophysical_parallelism)
Occasionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasionalism)
Property Dualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism)
Epiphenomenalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism)
Monism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism)
Idealistic Monism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism)
Subjective Idealism (Phenomenalism) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenalism)
Objective Idealism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_idealism)
Actual Idealism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_Idealism)
Transcendental Idealism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_idealism)
Absolute Idealism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_idealism)
British Idealism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_idealism)
Materialistic Monism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism)
Behaviorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism)
Identity Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_physicalism)
Functionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind))
Non-Reductive Physicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism#Non-reductive_physicalism)
Emergentism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism)
Eliminativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism)
Neutral Monism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism)
Animism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism)
Hylozoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylozoism)
Panpsychism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism)
Pansensism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach)
Panexperientialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panexperientialism#Panexperientialism.2C_panprotoe xperientialism.2C_and_panprotopsychism)

[Grey]

When I was about 14 I came to the conclusion that all of my decisions were based on a combination of past experience and genetic predisposition. Following this line of thinking, I've never had any reason to believe that the mind exists except as an aspect of the body.

I'm open to other conceptions of the mind, but in my limited experience, my materialistic conception seems the most logical, and so it hasn't really changed up until the present.

[Curtis24]

I think of myself more as a "Mechanist"(is that the word?). I believe all of reality is the result of physical processes involving measurable units. That being said, its possible a soul does exist, that can exist apart from the biological brain, but if so, it is still physical in nature - just comprising units too small, or too camouflouged, for us to see or measure with our current technology.

[Breedingvariety]

Now the dogma of the Ghost in the Machine does just this. It maintains that there exist both bodies and minds; that there occur physical processes and mental processes; that there are mechanical causes of corporeal movements and mental causes of corporeal movements. I shall argue that these and other analogous conjunctions are absurd."

— Gilbert Ryle (The Concept of Mind)

If my argument is successful, there will follow some interesting consequences. First, the hallowed contrast between Mind and Matter will be dissipated, but dissipated not by either of the equally hallowed absorptions of Mind by Matter or Matter by Mind, but in quite a different way.... It will also follow that both Idealism and Materialism are answers to an improper question. The "reduction" of the material world to mental states and processes, as well as the "reduction" of the mental states and processes to physical states and processes, presuppose the legitimacy of the disjunction "either there exist minds or there exist bodies (but not both)". It would be like saying, "either she bought a left-hand and a right-hand glove or she bought a pair of gloves (but not both)".


– Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind

Ryle's assertion that the workings of the mind are not distinct from the actions of the body comes from Schopenhauer's influence. The workings of the will are one and the same as the workings of the body, according to Schopenhauer[1]. In the section called "The Systematic Elusiveness of 'I',"[2] Ryle asserted that a person who speaks of "I" or "Self" does not really know that of which he/she speaks. He has "failed to catch more than the flying coat–tails of that which he was pursuing." This is reminiscent of Schopenhauer's statement, "For the ego that represents, thus the subject of knowing, can itself never become representation or object, since, as the necessary correlative of all representations, it is their condition."[3] Also, Ryle's claim that the nature of a person's motives are defined by that person's actions in a situation is also an example of Schopenhauer's influence. A person's empirical character, Schopenhauer said, is made evident only by that person's actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concept_of_Mind

As a student he read Schopenhauer, and much later, in his fiftieth year—having, he thought, forgotten Schopenhauer almost entirely—published The Concept of Mind, in which not only the central thesis, but the essentials of the subsidiary theses come straight out of Schopenhauer. Ryle genuinely believed he was putting forth his own ideas. Only when someone pointed it out after publication did he realize he had recycled Schopenhauer.


– Bryan Magee, Confessions of a Philosopher, Ch. 16

"Philosophy is the replacement of category-habits by category-disciplines." —Gilbert Ryle
I haven't read him, just googled "mind by Schopenhauer".

[Lars]

I think of myself more as a "Mechanist"(is that the word?). I believe all of reality is the result of physical processes involving measurable units. That being said, its possible a soul does exist, that can exist apart from the biological brain, but if so, it is still physical in nature - just comprising units too small, or too camouflouged, for us to see or measure with our current technology.

Isn't that Physicalism?

I'm with you a little bit, but I deny the existence of souls/spirits as entities all together.
We are all matter which has different roles to do. Our anuses are just as important as our brains; to put it elegantly.

Everything can be described by physics and we get closer and closer to reality every year.


This thread is pretty overwhelming and I have no idea in which box to tick. :|

[Eldritch]

This thread is pretty overwhelming and I have no idea in which box to tick. :|

This. :eek:

I'm almost tempted to dismiss the whole question altogether and just say that mind is an emergent product of biochemical processes in the brain and be done with it. But I suppose that none of the options above deny that side of things in the first place.

Also, having read both the entries about Dualism and Monism (I haven't yet looked into any of the subcategories), neither one really seems "right" to me. :shrug:

[Breedingvariety]

Mind is phenomenon representation of nuomenon Will.

Look, it cannot be seen - it is beyond form.
Listen, it cannot be heard - it is beyond sound.
Grasp, it cannot be held - it is intangible.
These three are indefinable, they are one.

From above it is not bright;
From below it is not dark:
Unbroken thread beyond description.
It returns to nothingness.
Form of the formless,
Image of the imageless,
It is called indefinable and beyond imagination.

Stand before it - there is no beginning.
Follow it and there is no end.
Stay with the Tao, Move with the present.

Knowing the ancient beginning is the essence of Tao.


Laozi
Mind is the definer. Or is it defined by defining, formed by forming, imagined by imagination? It moves with the present.

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things

Thus, constantly free of desire
One observes its wonders
Constantly filled with desire
One observes its manifestations

These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders


"Tao Te Ching" Laozi

[Psychonaut]

Isn't that Physicalism?

It would certainly be some variety of physicalism (aka monistic materialism). It sounds, to my ear, more like Democritus' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus) theory of soul-atoms than anything else.


This thread is pretty overwhelming and I have no idea in which box to tick. :|

Hey, at least I organized your choices in a hierarchical list! :D


Also, having read both the entries about Dualism and Monism (I haven't yet looked into any of the subcategories), neither one really seems "right" to me. :shrug:

Encountering them as broad categories does kind of abstract them from the way we commonly think about them. Most people (especially those who come from a religious background) have a kind of intuitive sense of substance dualism being true, and many hard-science types adhere to one of the varieties of materialistic monism.

Idealists like Breedingvariety are exceedingly rare even in philosophical circles. ;)

[Allenson]

Hmmm, let' see..........

http://allaboutalpha.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/dart1.jpg

But seriously, I'll have to read up some, if I can. ;)

[Germanicus]

Pansensism. For me my life revolves around perfect balance, without it life would be insufferable, mental and physical balance go hand in hand.

[Allenson]

OK, after some albeit quick reading, I would say that I lean toward monism, at the very least.

It's a start, I reckon.

[Psychonaut]

OK, after some albeit quick reading, I would say that I lean toward monism, at the very least.

It's a start, I reckon.

It might be worth mentioning that both Pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism) and Panentheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism) are always monistic and almost always on the neutral monist side (with whackos like Hegel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegel) being idealists).

[Allenson]

It might be worth mentioning that both Pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism) and Panentheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism) are always monistic and almost always on the neutral monist side (with whackos like Hegel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegel) being idealists).

I'm down with that. Mother Nature (God) = Everything.

Maybe I'm a dualist pantheist...although that seems a little contradictory.

[Loddfafner]

I don't have a strong enough feel for many of the options to recognize which is closest to my own tentative theory of mind, and the Wikipedia entries for them do not get me very far. I checked "emergentism" only because I see the concept of emergence covers a big part of my theory of mind but not all of it.

Emergence is about the properties that emerge from aggregates of simple units that cannot be predicted by what one knows about any or all of those individual units. The cell has properties of its own beyond its component molecules, just as humans have properties beyond the sum of our cells, and societies have properties (or more accurately, processes) beyond the sum of the individuals that compose them. The brain is a possibility that emerges out of the sum of neurons.

As for what else is necessary for mind, that is the situation or context. The mind is shaped by the situations within which it makes sense and leads the self to act. The mind alone, without situations, is nothing.

[Psychonaut]

As for what else is necessary for mind, that is the situation or context. The mind is shaped by the situations within which it makes sense and leads the self to act. The mind alone, without situations, is nothing.

Honestly, I think that you'd find Whitehead's panexperientialism more to your liking (and I know you've got his opus ;)). The panexperientialist theory is emminently relational and contextual, treating the fundamental "substance" of which reality is built as the event or actual occasion. That makes mentality a processual flow of external objects being prehended and internalized to continually reconstitute the subject in terms of both its environment and its novel interactions with that situation.

[Birka]

My brain hurts.

[Grey]

When I was about 14 I came to the conclusion that all of my decisions were based on a combination of past experience and genetic predisposition. Following this line of thinking, I've never had any reason to believe that the mind exists except as an aspect of the body.

I'm open to other conceptions of the mind, but in my limited experience, my materialistic conception seems the most logical, and so it hasn't really changed up until the present.

I'm actually not so certain about this anymore (only a few days later, I know). It certainly seems like a plausible explanation at face value, but after revisiting the idea, I no longer think it is the explanation; there is possibly another agent at work in all processes, including the mental, though I'm a bit confused about the details.

If I may ask an additional question: do you believe there is a limit to knowledge or memory?

[Psychonaut]

If I may ask an additional question: do you believe there is a limit to knowledge or memory?

Do you mean conscious of unconscious memory? There do seem to be unconscious limits placed on the amount of knowledge that can be consciously stored and recalled, but the fact that such blocks are not wholly present in those with abnormally exceptional memories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidetic_memory) leads me to believe that these limits can likely be overcome through training—something I'd wager lei.talk has some information on. I would also take up the rather controversial opinion that unconscious memory is not only ubiquitous throughout nature, but that it is also total. David Skrbina in Panpsychism in the West (p. 84) approaches this position by saying:


A generalized conception of memory has at least two components: the ability to record experiences, and the ability to replay or project them into the future. Humans record experiences through morphological changes in the brain and then are able to replay them internally, and relate them externally via muscular action and language. Generalized memory requires, first of all, a permanent (or at least temporarily persistent) change in the sensing body. That this occurs to all physical objects seems clear. Everything degrades and wears down over time, more or less so depending on the forces experienced. Ancient documents, fossils, rocks, and even planetary fragments can be dated with reasonable precision because of the permanent, cumulative record that all things acquire.

Furthermore, since physical objects do not communicate in the human sense, one may say that a form of memory exists if the record of experiences is present and available to an outside observer. Humans can clearly detect and measure physical changes over eons, and thus in at least one sense the record of experiential change is replayed. Many changes are more subtle and may not be detectable with present technology. But this does not alter the fact that all experiences are recorded, and can theoretically be recovered.

[mymy]

I never asked myself what is mind, I was always more interested to know what is "SOUL"...
Need to read all those theories to see what they say... But even now when trying to think about mind, i ask myself what is connection between mind and soul... and is soul stronger than mind? are mind and soul different things or same?

[demiirel]

Human minds look mindless to us, being subject to whatever happens to the brain.

Human minds might be mindful in reality, but only the Mind knows whether that is true or not.

Particles are driven. Mind drives.

The brain is driven by disturbances in the physical body, in the external physical environment and in the internal virtual environment (which is also ultimately physical). Therefore the human mind is most likely a mass of passive particles.

The Mind creates. But we can't see its actions.

[Aemma]

Monist versus dualist here for sure. And I do lean more towards that last category of Monism.

This very much resonates with me:


Russell summarizes this notion as follows:

"James's view is that the raw material out of which the world is built up is not of two sorts, one matter and the other mind, but that it is arranged in different patterns by its inter-relations, and that some arrangements may be called mental, while others may be called physical".

I would add that inasmuch as from processes emerge other entities such as systems, some sort of understanding of an element of an inherent dynamism as opposed to stasis should be also be a given and acknowledged as a by-product of the constant inter-relations that are at play.


But there's more I want to add here once I have read a friend's papers to get better insight into the nuts and bolts of it all. ;) So I'll come back and add some stuff in a bit, I'm hoping. :)

Great thread Psy! Thank you! Very thought-provoking! :thumb001:

[Adalwolf]

(with whackos like Hegel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegel) being idealists).

Schopenhauer on Hegel:


If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right.
Further, if I were to say that this summus philosophus [...] scribbled nonsense quite unlike any mortal before him, so that whoever could read his most eulogized work, the so-called Phenomenology of the Mind, without feeling as if he were in a madhouse, would qualify as an inmate for Bedlam, I should be no less right.

[Aemma]

Schopenhauer on Hegel:

Is there absolutely no room for some appreciation of Hegel's Dialectic as some form of conceptual framework from which to analyse things? I don't know, I kind of like the whole Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis thing sometimes. :shrug:

[Psychonaut]

Is there absolutely no room for some appreciation of Hegel's Dialectic as some form of conceptual framework from which to analyse things? I don't know, I kind of like the whole Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis thing sometimes. :shrug:

The thing about using Hegel at all is that there's just so damn much metaphysical baggage that comes along with him. He's so rarely engaged by Anglo-American philosophers because his work is so densely entwined, with all of his ideas being contingent upon each other (as a good philosophical system should be structured). Elizabeth Kraus' book that I'm studying right now characterizes his Phenomenology of Spirit, alongside Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Whitehead's Process and Reality, as one of the most difficult and unapproachable texts in all of philosophy.

[Aemma]

I never asked myself what is mind, I was always more interested to know what is "SOUL"...
Need to read all those theories to see what they say... But even now when trying to think about mind, i ask myself what is connection between mind and soul... and is soul stronger than mind? are mind and soul different things or same?

From what I've read so far and understand, having now read my friend's paper, in the past, some philosophers have seen soul and mind to be the same thing. The former seems to be used more so by some religious people whereas the latter more so by non-religious people iirc. Although I invite my friend to please correct me on this if I have erred. :D


Human minds look mindless to us, being subject to whatever happens to the brain.

Human minds might be mindful in reality, but only the Mind knows whether that is true or not.

Particles are driven. Mind drives.

The brain is driven by disturbances in the physical body, in the external physical environment and in the internal virtual environment (which is also ultimately physical). Therefore the human mind is most likely a mass of passive particles.

The Mind creates. But we can't see its actions.

Are you quite sure that the human mind is a mass of passive particles? I'm not even sure that there is such a thing as passive particles to begin with. :shrug:

As I see see it, the human mind is a mass of particles alright but they be bee-boppin' and scattin' all over the place! :D


Monist versus dualist here for sure. And I do lean more towards that last category of Monism.

This very much resonates with me:



I would add that inasmuch as from processes emerge other entities such as systems, some sort of understanding of an element of an inherent dynamism as opposed to stasis should be also be a given and acknowledged as a by-product of the constant inter-relations that are at play.


But there's more I want to add here once I have read a friend's papers to get better insight into the nuts and bolts of it all. ;) So I'll come back and add some stuff in a bit, I'm hoping. :)

Great thread Psy! Thank you! Very thought-provoking! :thumb001:

Ok adding more since reading my friend's amazing paper which gave me a proper overview of the nuts and bolts of it all.

I am definitely a monist, not a materialist nor an idealist one though, but in the neutral category, more so the "family of panpsychist thought." So for the reason that I prefer the terminology of "family of panpsychist thought", I checked off the Neutral Monism, Other box. :shrug:

I'm not a fan of the emergent theory since it seems to me to assume things materialise from nothingness. Unless I'm missing some salient point in this theory, that doesn't make much sense to me, much like the Big Bang doesn't make much sense to me either in that manner anymore--the Big Bang itself is but an element in an iterative process is more how I have recently come to see cosmology. More on that in another thread though.

And I just don't view the world in terms of a duality at all in the end, so none of the other options fit in with my worldview.

Hmmm not sure what else to add here on this.

I obviously have some other books I need to get cracking on, thanks to my friend. ;) :D

[SaxonCeorl]

I voted for property dualism but, after reading about emergentism, I feel that it better represents my opinion of the mental/physical relationship.

I'm probably overgeneralizing this horrendously, but it seems that Emergentism admits that there can be no mental without the physical, but that - once created - the mental "emerges" out from the physical and becomes abstracted from the physical. With property dualism, meanwhile, the mental can only be thought of as a strict property of the physical.

However, I diasgree with this Analytical criticism of property dualism:


Properties must by definition inhere in something, and in fact, it is impossible to imagine a property as separate from an entity in which it might inhere. It is for example, impossible to imagine the color red as divorced from the surface of which it is a property.

I disagree; I can imagine the color red and my mind simply thinks of "red" without picturing it on an particular substance.


Consciousness, however, can easily be imagined as divorced from what it is purportedly a property of. To put it another way, I can easily imagine myself, that is my conscious self, as separate from and unrelated to that physical substance which my brain is the physical manifestation of. In fact, I can conceive of my conscious self as inhering in nothing at all, i.e. not being a property. Therefore, consciousness and the mental states attendant upon it are not properties.

I don't feel this way; I cannot imagine my consciousness as inhering in nothing at all, I always feel that it is all a property of the physical processes of my brain. So, I would argue that mental states are indeed properties of the physical brain.

That said, I agree with Emergenism, particularly with the example given about water. Water cannot exist without hydrogen and oxygen but, once you bind two hydorgen molecules with one oxygen molecule, a new substance "emerges" that has properties entirely different from the sum of its parts. That said, I'm not sure that emergentism is really any different than property dualism, aside from the fact that emergentism makes a more explicit point about the "emergent" characteristics that differentiate a mental property from the physical substance it inheres in.


I'm not a fan of the emergent theory since it seems to me to assume things materialise from nothingness.

I read it as saying that things can materialize from other things, not from nothingness. The water example is illustrative here: Water is a "thing" that materializes from a combination of two other "things": hydrogen and oxygen.

[Aemma]

I voted for property dualism but, after reading about emergentism, I feel that it better represents my opinion of the mental/physical relationship.

I'm probably overgeneralizing this horrendously, but it seems that Emergentism admits that there can be no mental without the physical, but that - once created - the mental "emerges" out from the physical and becomes abstracted from the physical. With property dualism, meanwhile, the mental can only be thought of as a strict property of the physical.

However, I diasgree with this Analytical criticism of property dualism:



I disagree; I can imagine the color red and my mind simply thinks of "red" without picturing it on an particular substance.



I don't feel this way; I cannot imagine my consciousness as inhering in nothing at all, I always feel that it is all a property of the physical processes of my brain. So, I would argue that mental states are indeed properties of the physical brain.

So there cannot be Mind without a human physical brain I am assuming you're saying?



That said, I agree with Emergenism, particularly with the example given about water. Water cannot exist without hydrogen and oxygen but, once you bind two hydorgen molecules with one oxygen molecule, a new substance "emerges" that has properties entirely different from the sum of its parts. That said, I'm not sure that emergentism is really any different than property dualism, aside from the fact that emergentism makes a more explicit point about the "emergent" characteristics that differentiate a mental property from the physical substance it inheres in.



I read it as saying that things can materialize from other things, not from nothingness. The water example is illustrative here: Water is a "thing" that materializes from a combination of two other "things": hydrogen and oxygen.

Yeah I get that whole thing. Don't get me wrong I'm as process-oriented as the next process-oriented person, but there seemed to be something I either misread, misinterpreted OR read and interpreted correctly but it didn't sit well with me. Let me re-read it and I'll come back.

[Svipdag]

As I see it, Mind is a combination of faculties: consciousness, cognition, reason, memory, and possibly, emotion. These manifest themselves as functions of the brain. We do not observe the complex which we call "Mind"
independently of a brain.

Computers can mimic cognition, reason, and memory because we have tauight them to. There, is, however, no evidence that computers are ever AWARE of anything, especially themselves.

Whatever "das Ding an sich" may be, whatever the world outside our skins is in reality, the world of our experience is subjective. It is constructed from the reactions of our sensory nerves to whatever lies outside. It is constructed by the Mind . Therefore, I can legitimately define Mind as "That which creates the world of our experience."

This creation is totally private. I have no idea how what I call green looks to you. Colour, brightness, loudness, pitch, timbre, NONE of these exists outside our skins . Light has velocity (c), quantum energy, wave number; sound has amplitude and frequencies. It is Mind which creates the properties which we experience: colour, etc .

We live our lives in a world of illusion [maya ?] created by the mind from sensory information derived from the world outside our skins, but filtered through and modified by the nervous system and then embellished by the Mind.

In this world, because we can receive sensory data only sequentially, time exists. Is there time outside us, or is there only sequentially observed eternity ? All of the time of our experience exists only in memory. Whatever events we seem to observe have already happened before the Mind creates its version of them . The "Present" is only the recent past as retained in short-term memory.

Is mind, then, but an epi-phenomenon of the operation of the brain, or is the brain merely a tool which Mind uses for the execution of its world-building function ?

[Aemma]

As I see it, Mind is a combination of faculties: consciousness, cognition, reason, memory, and possibly, emotion. These manifest themselves as functions of the brain. We do not observe the complex which we call "Mind"
independently of a brain.

Computers can mimic cognition, reason, and memory because we have tauight them to. There, is, however, no evidence that computers are ever AWARE of anything, especially themselves.

Whatever "das Ding an sich" may be, whatever the world outside our skins is in reality, the world of our experience is subjective. It is constructed from the reactions of our sensory nerves to whatever lies outside. It is constructed by the Mind . Therefore, I can legitimately define Mind as "That which creates the world of our experience."

This creation is totally private. I have no idea how what I call green looks to you. Colour, brightness, loudness, pitch, timbre, NONE of these exists outside our skins . Light has velocity (c), quantum energy, wave number; sound has amplitude and frequencies. It is Mind which creates the properties which we experience: colour, etc .

We live our lives in a world of illusion [maya ?] created by the mind from sensory information derived from the world outside our skins, but filtered through and modified by the nervous system and then embellished by the Mind.

In this world, because we can receive sensory data only sequentially, time exists. Is there time outside us, or is there only sequentially observed eternity ? All of the time of our experience exists only in memory. Whatever events we seem to observe have already happened before the Mind creates its version of them . The "Present" is only the recent past as retained in short-term memory.

Is mind, then, but an epi-phenomenon of the operation of the brain, or is the brain merely a tool which Mind uses for the execution of its world-building function ?

So in your view Svipdag, can Mind exist outside of the human condition?

[demiirel]

Are you quite sure that the human mind is a mass of passive particles? I'm not even sure that there is such a thing as passive particles to begin with. :shrug:

As I see see it, the human mind is a mass of particles alright but they be bee-boppin' and scattin' all over the place! :D


I still think all particles are passive. It's in their nature to be pushed around. You don't really think there are "willful" particles around now, do you? They're just mere tiny particles, the epitome of passivity. All properties of particles are pre-determined. And how they tumble or bee-bop in the vastness of interstellar or intra-atomic space is purely the result of their properties, not their choice.

It's like a domino effect. When I read what you wrote my mind underwent a process of dominoes falling in quick succession. My instincts and my other base appetites was what led me to revisit this thread in the first place. The same have led me to post this reply. I'm nothing but a monstrous conglomeration of mindless, passive particles typing away on the keyboard as if I'm some free, intelligent agent, when in reality I'm just an emergent illusion.

Everything is determined. There's no free will in the human mind it seems. This becomes clear when you look at the evolution of the brain.

Only the extra-particular Mind has determinative powers. It arranges and presides over The Cosmic Drama.

[Psychonaut]

From what I've read so far and understand, having now read my friend's paper, in the past, some philosophers have seen soul and mind to be the same thing. The former seems to be used more so by some religious people whereas the latter more so by non-religious people iirc. Although I invite my friend to please correct me on this if I have erred. :D

Yeah, although ψυχή (psyche)was originally closer to soul than mind, later usage subsumed νόος (nous—"intellect") and πνεύμα (pneuma—"spirit") into it. So, by the time non-Greeks start using psyche, it had become kind of a catch-all term for mentality. And, once we get to Descartes, we see prehension, which is really more closely connected with νόος than ψυχή identified as the defining feature of the soul/mind.


I am definitely a monist, not a materialist nor an idealist one though, but in the neutral category, more so the "family of panpsychist thought." So for the reason that I prefer the terminology of "family of panpsychist thought", I checked off the Neutral Monism, Other box. :shrug:

:thumb001:


I don't feel this way; I cannot imagine my consciousness as inhering in nothing at all, I always feel that it is all a property of the physical processes of my brain. So, I would argue that mental states are indeed properties of the physical brain.

Is mind to be equated with reflexive-consciousness though? Or, is mind something deeper and more generalized, like the grasping of experiences?

[Breedingvariety]

Is mind, then, but an epi-phenomenon of the operation of the brain,
You know about brain by having image of brain in your mind. No mind- no brain. But there can be mind without image of brain. So brain is not just secondary to mind. Brain is just one of myriad images appearing in it.

or is the brain merely a tool which Mind uses for the execution of its world-building function ?
How can mind have functions? It would mean there is something giving it functions.

[Aemma]

I still think all particles are passive. It's in their nature to be pushed around. You don't really think there are "willful" particles around now, do you? They're just mere tiny particles, the epitome of passivity. All properties of particles are pre-determined. And how they tumble or bee-bop in the vastness of interstellar or intra-atomic space is purely the result of their properties, not their choice.

It's like a domino effect. When I read what you wrote my mind underwent a process of dominoes falling in quick succession. My instincts and my other base appetites was what led me to revisit this thread in the first place. The same have led me to post this reply. I'm nothing but a monstrous conglomeration of mindless, passive particles typing away on the keyboard as if I'm some free, intelligent agent, when in reality I'm just an emergent illusion.

Everything is determined. There's no free will in the human mind it seems. This becomes clear when you look at the evolution of the brain.

Only the extra-particular Mind has determinative powers. It arranges and presides over The Cosmic Drama.

Hmm thought-provoking post Demi. Thanks for the response. I wish to respond in a more elaborate manner and I will once I gather my thoughts a tad better. But here's a first response at any rate. :)

A monstrous conglomeration of mindless, passive particles, eh? :D It reminds me of some alien who once called Capt. Picard and the other humans on board the Enterprise "an ugly bag of mostly water." ;) :D With respect to this notion however, I would counter that this conglomeration indeed does have Mind since it is self-organising, does have purpose and does act and takes the form of what we define as "human being".

I also don't agree with the notion that we are an emergent illusion but I get what you're saying. I guess the very word "illusion" just rubs me the wrong way: we may appear illusory from a subjective pov if this is part of a person's mental constructs that assist in self-definition. But I am more comfortable with more positive language to describe that which we are. The term "illusion" puts me too much in mind of the not-real if you will, and I find humans to be all too real I'm afraid. :D

Anyway, just some thoughts for now. Thanks again for your response. :)

[Don]

A. Damasio, ‘Self comes to mind’ (2010)

http://www.phenomenologylab.eu/index.php/2011/02/damasio-self-comes-to-mind/

http://newhumanist.org.uk/images/1101-Damasio.jpg

A NEEDED book if you are really interested in these matters.

[Aemma]

A. Damasio, ‘Self comes to mind’ (2010)

http://www.phenomenologylab.eu/index.php/2011/02/damasio-self-comes-to-mind/

http://newhumanist.org.uk/images/1101-Damasio.jpg

A NEEDED book if you are really interested in these matters.

Ahh! Thanks very much for this Don. I'm a huge fan of Julian Jaynes'. I was pleasantly surprised to see his work referenced in this write-up. Hmmmm another book to add to my list of must-gets. :) :thumb001:

[demiirel]

With respect to this notion however, I would counter that this conglomeration indeed does have Mind since it is self-organising, does have purpose and does act and takes the form of what we define as "human being".

I also don't agree with the notion that we are an emergent illusion but I get what you're saying. I guess the very word "illusion" just rubs me the wrong way: we may appear illusory from a subjective pov if this is part of a person's mental constructs that assist in self-definition. But I am more comfortable with more positive language to describe that which we are. The term "illusion" puts me too much in mind of the not-real if you will, and I find humans to be all too real I'm afraid. :D

Anyway, just some thoughts for now. Thanks again for your response. :)

Appreciate your response.

Illusion=subjective pov (is the sense in which I meant it). Humans are really real for real, I agree with you on that.

The human mind does indeed give off the impression of self-organising, having purpose and acting and taking the form of what we define as "human being". But is that really the case? Is the human mind really a mind? Or is it just a counterfeit physical image of the supreme Mind?

I've always wondered how mindless creatures act like they have a mind. For example plants. Their methods of adaptation when it comes to propagating their seeds, attracting bees for pollination and even predation gives off the impression that they have a mind. It's like they see the environment around them and make a reasoned adaptation to optimally exploit this environment.

For instance, the Venus Fly Trap developing a "mouth" is a superb act of adaptation. Very mindful. I however think that it was the "supreme Mind" who programmed nature in such a way that, under specific pressures and conditions, a mindlike state of organization could be exhibited by naturally mindless entities.

http://tealco.net/plant_and_fractiles/venus_fly_trap_purple.jpg

The human mind is therefore just the mindless, passive brain exhibiting superficially "mindlike" qualities, when in reality it is just ADAPTING to its environment the same way plants and animals adapt. The human mind is nothing but an adaptation.

[Aemma]

Appreciate your response.

Illusion=subjective pov (is the sense in which I meant it). Humans are really real for real, I agree with you on that.

The human mind does indeed give off the impression of self-organising, having purpose and acting and taking the form of what we define as "human being". But is that really the case? Is the human mind really a mind? Or is it just a counterfeit physical image of the supreme Mind?

I've always wondered how mindless creatures act like they have a mind. For example plants. Their methods of adaptation when it comes to propagating their seeds, attracting bees for pollination and even predation gives off the impression that they have a mind. It's like they see the environment around them and make a reasoned adaptation to optimally exploit this environment.

For instance, the Venus Fly Trap developing a "mouth" is a superb act of adaptation. Very mindful. I however think that it was the "supreme Mind" who programmed nature in such a way that, under specific pressures and conditions, a mindlike state of organization could be exhibited by naturally mindless entities.

http://tealco.net/plant_and_fractiles/venus_fly_trap_purple.jpg

The human mind is therefore just the mindless, passive brain exhibiting superficially "mindlike" qualities, when in reality it is just ADAPTING to its environment the same way plants and animals adapt. The human mind is nothing but an adaptation.

Well I think this is pretty bang on the money actually. And that's the thing, Mind is everywhere. Not everything possesses a mind, what we would term brain in other parlance, but Mind, with a capital M, exists in everything in the end. And within this Mind, processes or what you call adaptations (another good way of seeing it) turn into systems which act within this Mind. I do think though that the adaptations are not unidirectional, where let's say only the plant changes within the environment, but environment also changes as a result of that plant's impact on the system we call environment. All to say that there exists a constant feeding of information of systems upon other systems, no matter what hierachy we might as humans ascribe to any given system. Information is constantly being generated and variants of the parent iterations being pumped out as a result which, depending upon the degree of variation might generate yet a qualitatively different system altogether. ....or not. :D

In the end, I don't think we're that far apart in terms of foundational belief. :)

Alright gotta split for a bit...

Nice discussion Demi! Thanks again! :)

[Svipdag]

Yes, of course Mind can exist outside of the human condition. Animals have Mind, though of a somewhat different sort, the inner world-building capability limited by sensory organs having different response capabilities. A dog's world is a monochromatic one in which smell plays a much greater role than in Man's inner world, and sound is very different from Man's experience of it, owing to much greater high-frequency response.

This world is as "real" as Man's and as useful to the dog as ours is to us. In it, the dog lives and thinks. Some behavioural psychologists claim that animals think in pictures whereas humans think in words.This is pure speculation. An animal's perceptions and thoughts are as inaccessible to a human psychologist as his perceptions and thoughts are to me. We are all monads.

Some humans think visually. Nikola Tesla performed few experiments because he could perform them in his mind, visually, non-verbally, and perfect his inventions before building them. Some autistic persons also have this ability.

Anything which shows purposive ("goal-oriented") behaviour has Mind, and, especially the aspect of Mind known as volition. Mind, then, need not be human.

[harriet]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't physicalism imply determinism? Determinism may well turn out to be true (a lot of physicists like Deutsch, Hawking et al adhere to it) but I find it personally disturbing. I don't like the idea that my future is already determined - it seems to devalue life of any meaning.

[Psychonaut]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't physicalism imply determinism?

That's the three million dollar question. More physicalists are compatibilists than determinists, but the question of how novelty can emerge from determined systems is one of the biggest hurdles faced by contemporary physicalists.