The nature of Mind

So...Agnosticism gives us what?
Options.
To speak of ideas such as 'soul'
Without religious preconceptions.
[well, without as much as 'the razor' can scrape off. ]


That 'soul' MAYBE nothing spiritual at all..It may in fact be just like electromagnetism.
We call it spiritual because
"any sufficiently advanced technology 'or system'
Is indestinguishable from magic.
That is, we semi-civilised apes dont know what 'IT' might be.

So Hikaru, what 'is' the nature of mind/consciousness?
Do we have a 'soul' that IS NOT a product of a functioning brain?

Que?pasa Mr Faulty?

Occam

 

Are mind and consciousness the same thing?

Or is mind only an instrument of consciousness?

 

BlackBill

Firstly..Occam calls consciousness 'self awareness of its own existance in a processing reality'

An ant has a mind. That being the product of a functioning 'brain'
That 'mind', or 'Locus of understanding.' [apparently instinctual]
May not be conscious that it exists as a mind.
It has no 'self awareness............"

No?

Occam

 

I am not sure if an ant, a fish or indeed a dog has what we would call a mind. I say this for two reasons. First, they don't need 'mind' to survive, and they are driven purely by instinctive reaction and so on. I agree that higher animals like dogs do have self awareness, but do they have it in the way we do?
I don't think so, which leads to my second point, that all of our thinking is of a symbolic/linguistic nature. All our thinking is conditioned by language, and without language of some kind is no thinking. All our knowledge, all that we know in our minds, are linguistic constructs, abstract, symbolic images of 'things'. or perhaps in some cases, purely abstract. In short, I think that much of what we call mind is completely dependent on language, and may even be no more than a structure built of language.
Since animals lack, so far as we can determine, a symbolic language, it is hard to see how the consciousness of the animal could be anything like human consciousness. If they have a 'mind' it is surely nothing like our mind.
If I feel an emotion, say pleasure, which comes from the purely physical, sensory side of my being - eg. I get by the fire on a cold winters day , I inevitably think about it, translate the direct experience into linguistic terms. I may even tell myself ' ah, thats better!'. The dog feels the same sense of pleasure, I assume, in similar circumstances, but the dog can't and doesn't think about it - at most, he may wag his tail.
But the actual consciousness itself?
I think that could be the same in both humans and animals. But- we are more evolved, and uniquely so as regards life on earth, and more conscious.
Language gives us the power of abstract reflection, and without that, it seems to me can be nothing we would recognize as mind.

 

Firstly ... I am quite fascinated with the ant.

Think about it. Ants supposedly never think for themselves, right? Is it not always about the hive? Ants, bees, and other small insects, all have "hive-mind," that is, they benefit when the Hive benefits, and they live for the Hive. They have achieved complete Oneness with their minute civilizations.

Is it possible that humans are on a lesser scale of "knowledge" than ants? Because we do not have this Oneness among our brethren? And, if we ever gain that Oneness ... will Humanity (as One) end up being just a little ant farm to some higher being? Will that higher being be an ant to an even greater being? Will that madness ever end? This is why I preach "scope."

How is our existance defined? Only within the world we live in, correct? We are HUMAN. That is, our existances are defined as being whatever human is. We don't know exactly what that means, to be human, yet. But, I think it is foolish to think about higher existance. As humans, we ARE human, and nothing more. And that, as humans, we should do what we can with what we have, the best way we know how. And that if we don't achiveve enlightenment, if we don't obtain Oneness, if we don't become a god, then that should be alright. After all, we are defined as HUMAN, are we not?

This concept relates to programming ... the concept of "scope." Within certain parts of a computer program, some variables exist only within some parts of the program, and they don't exist in other parts. If we are defined as humans, then we exist in every way and place that humans exist, and nothing more. If we tried to become gods, or "global variables" as they are called in programming (), we would fail, because we ARE NOT gods/global variables. It is important to remember this, and to remember that we all have things to do, we all have a place in the whole, even if it is insignificant.

As Ghandi said, "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it."

Okay, on to the posts!

BillBlackBlake: I must disagree greatly, when it comes to your definition of mind relying solely on language. It has been proven in the past that human infants, especially when together in large numbers, have actually learned how to communicate using odd noises, squabbles, and coos, even before their vocal chords have developed to allow them to produce language. Part of these infants' communication was determined to be physical; that is, bodily guestures, such as pointing (which is common to humans), and sticking out tongues (which ... invariably, is also common to humans, though probably would have a different meaning to infants), and sucking thumbs.

I am leading to the fact that dogs and other animals also likely have this sense of "language," even if they do not encounter species of their own kind. For example ... all dogs wag their tails and bark. This would lead someone to believe that it is instinctive. But dogs, like infants, do not have vocal chords capable of producing the incredible array of sounds that we humans have. So wouldn't it make sense that part of their language is also physical? Infants suck their thumb when they are sad and/or hungry ... dogs wag their tails when they are happy and/or excited.

It would make sense that, internally, all organisms have a sense of language, even if that language applies only to them. Just as with humans, I speak a language different than the language of other humans. Our diversity in language is a result of our necessity to communicate, and our ability to produce dynamic sounds with our voices. But we also use our bodies when we communciate, using gestures, and even sign language, when we need to.

I think that dogs and various other organisms all have their own "language" internally, and that their languages are often very similar, due to instinct and/or limitation of vocal chords and education.

I do believe that, if a dog were so properly educated, he/she may eventually learn how to say rudimentary words in a human language. You watch "America's Funniest Home Videos," and you will see dogs that mutter, "I love you," and "Please," and other such "words" that, although aren't perfect, are phoenetically similar. They may not know the human meaning of these words, but I bet the sounds, to the dogs, have their own meanings.

Anyway ... it would seem that education and understanding is limited by development of communicative skills. That I'll agree with. However, that is not to say that all things with virtually no communicative skills are not capable of having an internal language from which they can derive understanding and education, even in very limited amounts.

Occam:

"So Hikaru, what 'is' the nature of mind/consciousness?
Do we have a 'soul' that IS NOT a product of a functioning brain?"

Not to sound rude, but why in the bloody hell would you ask me?
We have sought this knowledge for aeons, and never came across it.
I do not have the answer, only my own personal opinions.
If that is what you seek from me, then here they are:

My interpretation of life and existance is two-fold. I used to be agnostic, but now I believe in a certain creator, whom I believe I have met with on metaphysically. Now, I realize many people are going to chew me out for believing in this entity simply due to a powerful psychoactive trip, but ... I find it odd to encounter the exacting essence of this entity on multiple voyages into that void, and I also find it odd that so many others have experienced that entity as well. So I am not alone in basing my beliefs off of it.

I see a being/entity which I will call "Gaia" to deviate from "God," since that word brings on many misconceptions about the entity I am referring to.

This being, Gaia, exists on two planes, a physical plane, and an astral/ethereal plane. On the physical plane, Gaia is all matter within this universe; the planets, the suns, the black holes, the physics and laws, and all of the phenomena of the universe. On the ethereal plane, Gaia exists as a universal consciousness, or at least as a single conscious being.

We, each of us individually, including all animals, and self-aware beings, including those unknown to us, we are all aware of the self and aware of the world around us. That is, we are all naturally aware of Gaia and the presence of that entity (I refrain from using "she" as a pronoun for Gaia, since Gaia is not necessarily feminine, though I would imagine Gaia has more feminine qualities than masculine, or at least feminine qualities that stand out more).

I believe that our existance is also two-fold. That we exist on a material plane, and also on the same ethereal one that Gaia exists on. In our material plane, we have concepts such as length, width, and breadth. In the ethereal plane, these concepts may very well not exist at all, and only concepts such as "spirit," or rather, "feeling/emotion" exist.

I believe that our brains are, essentially, black boxes that allow communication between our existances in both realms. An old saying goes, "If our brains were so simple that we could understand them, then we would be so simple we couldn't." It echoes the likelihood that no matter how complex and enlightened we become, we will never be able to understand exactly how our brains work.

I see our existance in the material realm as a "duty" to Gaia, to keep the peace, to co-exist, and to maintain the balance of our world and our universe. We are, essentially, the maintainance workers of this universe. It is our sacred or not-so-sacred duty to uphold the world we live in. And to do this purpose, it is ideal that we should know how to maintain our world.

Certainly, burning up all the oil, polluting the air and sea, these are not acts of maintainance, but of self-interest. I think that humanity has forgotten our duty to our Earth, and that the natural balance between Earth and humanity has been upset, and that now, we are responsible for strengthening the link and rebalancing our existances by correcting our follies. I do not know if this will ever happen, but I am going to try my best.

I also see it as this ... Gaia has also given us "life." That is, ego, a distinct awareness of self (rather than only awareness of the world around us, which is all we need to maintain our world). Gaia has given us the distinct pleasure of having our own lives and our own freedoms, and being able to experience our own feelings and emotions, be they happy or sad.

This "life," this "ego," is our spirit. That is, our existance in the ethereal realm. And it is ours, a gift from the source, essentially. What we do with it is OUR CHOICE, and not the choice of another. That is free will; that is freedom, in its purest form, and the right to such life and freedom are inherent rights to all of humanity. That is my belief.

And as I said before, I see our existance as two-fold. Gaia's gift to us is life and ego, but our existances as such do not come without responsibility; the responsibility to maintain the balance in our universe and to co-exist peacefully and erase all hate from within us.

This goes hand in hand with your/Occam's saying, about reason being one eye and emotion being the other. Reason being a product of our material existance, and emotion being the product of our ethereal existance. It is important, at least for us, to experience both emotion and reason. To keep the balance in the material realm, and to have our own emotions at the same time.

This is how I see the nature of mind and consciousness.

Sorry for being long winded. I'm actually scrolling up and wondering to myself, why I can't write term papers like this. Alright, that's enough for now. =P Comments and opinions ALWAYS welcome. =)

 

BlackBill

Occam thinks they do... The senses must integrate somwhere In creatures that have any senses at all.
An Ant has many.
Ballance, vision, and majorly...chemical recognition senses that we only just begin to understand.
All of these must be co-ordinated if the ant is going to do anything at all.
[just like humans]
The standing wave of neuro-electric activity is what occam calls a mind.
It may be a far less complex 'mind' than that of a human...
It may not be conscious of itself...
But it is a mind none the less.
Maybe even a mind that is somehow linked into a gestalt called the hive.

Occam agrees on the importance of language.
Reason cannot be expressed without a language.
Understanding of anything greater than our visual horizon cannot be had without language.
Language is the tool our reason has applied to itself so it can survive.

And again..occam opinions that ANY functioning 'brain'
Produces a 'co-ordinating sensorium'.
Very few species on this world have 'selfaware/conscious sensoriums'
Man has. Many primate species have been shown to have such.
And Whales/dolphins rate way high in probabillity of such.

Occam

 

Hikaru

Occam is deeply upset...
You suggested that the nature of consciousness is a far more
interesting thing to talk about than hairsplitting religious dogma.
Thats why the 'bloody hell' occam asks you

Have you been smoking again? :sunglasse

To address your points.

*Occam thinks human beings DO have a oneness as a race.
It is expressed in many ways..
One might be our near total agreement that killing eachother is wrong.
But this 'oneness' is bent and warped by the machinations of human ego.
Turned to tribalism/nationalism.
Given a thousand justifications to segregate humans into 'them'.

Competition has greater emphasis in the education system
than co-operation..
Why.
Because co-operation would be the death of consumerism.

*This other realm you speak of.
Occam has no trouble in accepting the existance of such.
Any with even a rudimentary understanding of quantum theory
has heard of the multiverse.
An infinite number of 'parralel realities' that result from the collapsing to superposition of all probabillities.
Can we see them.? Not yet.
Does that mean they are not there? No.

Human understanding has been egotistically rationalised in our modern world. We arrogantly sweep under the rug MANY phenomena that we dont understand because ego doesnt like to admit it doesnt know something.
There are literally tens of thousands of events that we have
NO EXPLANATION FOR.
That indicate a depth to reality way beyond the 'accepted description'
of reality..
Occam feels/thinks this intuitively.
And thus allows 'feeling' to, in this case, overide rational methodology.

So..to imagineer without preconception..

'Self awareness'
The 'i' that is the individual that exists in their 3d sensorium of our reality.
May only be possible if the 'standing wave of mind' is complex enough.
That 'mind' may reach a 'critical mass'. A term well understood in physics.
On reaching this point.. it exists in two planes. [or more]

Occam suggests that human minds reach critical mass within the womb.
Many weeks before birth.
Soul is not introduced at conception..identical twins invalidate such an idea.
Soul/spirit may be the standing wave of 'mind' becoming so complex.
It requires more than one reality to exist in.
And in so doing, takes on aspects beyond our 3d realities' abillity to understand

Ergo, human consciouness is physically 'enabled' in this reality.
But once enabled. Exists in more than one reality.


Occam

 

What do you mean, again? That implies that at one point, I had to have ceased. Hahaha ...

(that's not serious, though ...)

A very valid point. If we were not taught to be competitive, well, there wouldn't be a very big capitalist market, would there? We're all born and raised to be drones of a capitalist society ... in truth, I see capitalist democracy to be as much of a failure as the improperly implemented communism that was instituted in Russia. =\

Now, be a good little drone, and go to the market and buy a half pound of beef, shall we?

Also ... I have only a very limited knoweldge of quantum physics ... you wouldn't happen to know of any good articles that explain some of the basics, maybe from CERN, would you? =( The whole parallel universes concept scares me ... and I'd be much less scared if I knew what the heck I was talking about! =P So far I've only touched on string theory, thermodynamics, and particle physics/antimatter ... but I haven't jumped into quantum theory yet. =(

 

Occam,

The thing seems to hinge on our definition of what mind is.
Obviously, any animal must have some kind of central co-ordinating process going on. But I wonder if that is mind.
In we humans, much of what we do is not based upon any kind of rational thinking, but on un-conscious or sub-conscious processes, some of which we are not aware of. The same is true in animals.
Take the sex implulse - a dog doesn't 'fall in love' - it acts on purely chemical signals, it gives no thought to the process.
In man, the same thing happens, but it all gets 'mentalized'. Instead of just getting on with the job, as the dog does, the mind intervenes, and we build a big abstract picture of our involvement with this person.

I have to admit Occam, that I am very interested in the work of the Indian philosopher and yogi Sri Aurobindo. He posits, in line with much earlier hindu philosophy, that the total being, the phsyche of man can be divided into Physical, Vital and mental. The concept of the vital is what stands out as different from most such systems of division.
The vital nature is the instinctive and also the emotional, feeling side of our being. It is present in animals, and what separates us from them is mind - ie the structure that allows us to have this power of reflection upon which all our mental knowledge is based.
Is mind anymore than a linguistic structure? I think on one level, it must be - we could say it's a potential in man that is not present in other spieces.(it is perhaps the way our brains are 'wired') But the structure of the mind does seem to me to be mainly linguistic.
It could be said too that mind is something like an intermediary - something through which we see and know and understand 'reality'.
In this view, consciouness itself is separate from the body, vital and mind, but works through all three.

I'm not suggesting that this view is neccesarily the right one, or the only one, I simply put it out for consideration.

 

BlackBillBlake:

Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe the mind as "symbolic" rather than "linguistic." Since gestures, sounds, marks, and even smells (like pheromones for example) all have equivalent meanings and are all part of the ethnicity and communication skills in each of us.

Considering that, it would seem that the minds of animals are indeed minds, but their minds are wired to provide up to a certain ... capacity of knowledge, understanding, and rationality, which goes hand in hand with the capabilities of their bodies (vocal, for instance).

 

Language is symbolic.
But the point is that where gestures, sounds etc. are concerned, we experience them, but part of our experience is a kind of mental/linguistic 'mapping' process.
I hear a noise, and instantly, I think ' i hear a noise'. The animal can't do that. It just hears the noise.
But I just don't see how 'rationality' could operate in animals who lack symbolic languages.

 

I see no evidence which would lead to the idea of a "soul", if I am correctly understanding what is commonly referred to as such, without having a definition for us to go on.
What we do have though is a sense of morals, whether we admit it or not, and for those of us stuck on the wheel of karma, what goes around comes around. It doesn´t take a degree in physics or religion to know the difference between right and wrong, or what is going to happen if everyone starts to "mess with mother nature". But if we try to trace things up too far there comes a point at which it is impossible to go any further. Nor do I see a purpose in pursueing some questions, if we can live close by in peace and happiness.

 

Well I don't know about you, but when I hear a noise, I turn my head to face the direction of the noise, before I think "what was that?" The extra thinking of "what was that?" happens after you hear the noise and acknowledge its existance. The fact that we think "what was that?" is probably a testimony to the fact that humans can rationalize better than animals, but I don't think that language is a requirement of rationalization. An animal that can't think "what was that?" will still turn its head (or raise its ears or whatever), and will still be curious as to what it was, and maybe even try to figure it out by seeking what caused it. Which is, of course, why when my dad pulls into the driveway in his truck, my dog goes over to the door and waits to be let outside. He has (rationally) learned to recognize that sound, and decided that he's gotta pee, knows that he's going to be able to shortly, so he prepares. That's definately rational.

 

BlackBill

Maybe animals without 'reason' can still act rationally..
Reason is based in the cause/effect reality we seem to exist in.
It's method is of the very laws that allow it to exist..
A blackbird pulling up a piece of meat that is tied by a long string to its
perch, will repeated pin sections of string under its claw till the tasty morsel is gained.
This looks like 'planning' to us..and it is,,but without thinking about it..
from memory. the bird can 'leap ahead' to a desired result.
Memory of actions past , experience.. And even in say dogs..
Emotion...
A dog may not plan for retirement..But it will hide your shoe in memory
of a 'fun/happy' game..It has a purely emotional 'personality'
'Experience/memory' gives animals a doorway to 'past/future'

The concept of past/future, is had only with reason and it's tool
language.

Occam

 

Hikaru

And thats pretty much what occam said to blackBill.

So where is the line.
Between self consciousness and instinctive consciousness?

Occam opinions that that line is not something that exists between species.
But within the confines of each mind on this planet.
And of all the trillions of them [minds]
Only a few billions understand the line even exists.
[and occam does not include all humans in this]

Occam

 

I'm afraid I didn't make my meaning clear.
I'll try another hypothetetical example. I look at a chair, and I see a chair - an object, evidently discreet from other objects, and because of my linguistic conditioning, I just can't help but attach the tag 'chair' to what I see. It is impossible, in ordinary consciousness, not to do so. I can't just look at the chair and not see it as the mental description, built up of language, which is in my head of a chair. I can't just view it as an indeterminate object, whilst keeping it in the centre of my attention.
And this process of 'labeling' the world we percieve is continuous.

As for the dog - is it rational? I don't know that it is, at least not in terms of what we might consider rational inner processes.
I'd say a dog has an instinctive way of adapting to changing cues etc. A dog must have some knid of inner co-ordinating centre - I'd agree with that, but if that is mind 'as we know it' is another question.
All dpends on what we define as 'mind'. If by mind a capacity for abstract reasoning is meant, then I think only humans have that.
But perhaps a dog can reason, in some primitive sense - but very likely, only about an actual outer situation presented to it's senses etc.
We, on the other hand, think about wholly abstract matters - we have 'universal' terms, we think about things that may have no strict survival value for us -
just a few thoughts.

 

"Cogito ergo sum" - if a person is conscious of themselves as a thinking entity, self-consciousness must, I suppose, be there. So every being capable of thought would have to be seen as self-conscious.
So if one affirms that animals have thoughts, albiet non-linguistic thoughts, they would have self consciousness of sorts. But probably not quite in the way we do, as we have the capacity to think in an abstract way about questions such as our own existence etc.

 

This two-fold existence, of matter and spirit...


All 92 physical elements which completely compose our Earth, and indeed all of life, were created exclusively by stars and supernovas.

Outer space and inner space are one in the same.

We are space consciousness.


blessings and light.

 

There is something important to discern from this:

We look at a multi-legged object designed for sitting, and we think "hey, omg, that's a chair." Yes, we are constantly doing this. However ... what about the things we DON'T have words for? We can't attach words or even necessarily symbols to them, until we know what they are, or until we find something that symbolizes what we see.

Likewise, since animals don't have an audible language, they can't associate "chair" with a multi-legged object. But I am more than willing to bet that they can associate the memory of their favourite human sitting IN that chair. And that is how they discern that it is an object for sitting. More evidence comes from that fact that it feels cushioned, even though they don't know what cushioned means. And it's clear that this manner of thinking exists in animals, as my pets back at home actually honour a "whose couch spot is whose" on the crappy, "downstairs" furniture that we allow our pets to lounge on. I have even seen my little dog get up and move to the other side, because he was sitting where my big dog usually sits.

Thus, animals, through one way or another, CAN associate things, even if they have no language that can be spoken, in the same way that a human infant (which MUST be able to rationalize on some miniscule level) will touch something hot, and then go "ouch," and do it again, and go "ouch" again, and then learn to associate "ouch" with touching the thing, and never touch it again.

I think animals and infants are about on the same thinking level. The difference between the two being that infants have the mental capacity to really continue these associations and not forget or confuse them, and animals don't seem to be able to do that.

Since we have a spoken language, we don't need to associate the memory of sitting with a chair. We can associate a word, "chair," with various memories of sitting, and then associate the word "chair" with the actual object. And that, in turn, allows us to associate the word "chair" with other objects, like say, a "table," and through this, we are able to find relevance through linking and chaining our words, to the point where it becomes second nature, and we begin to THINK using those words, rather than memories. We mentally eliminate the gaps, and start using words, because they have a much more widely-accepted and structured syntax.

Animals, however, don't have the capacity to do this. But I don't think that means they are unable to rationalize, at least on simple levels.

 

MNS

Yah..Next time someome asks 'where did i come from'
The most accurate answer may be that every atom on your body
heavier than hydrogen1 was 'constructed' inside a star.

We are literaly[physically] children of the stars.

Occam