This blog is a forward-flowing narrative.
Please read from the OLDEST post first.
Thank you for dropping in...
In conclusion, for the preceding, the subtle distinction between “MIND” and “SOUL” is detectable through the lens of Growth. In turn, the concept of Growth is the discriminant between what is “Earthly-Real” and “Other-worldly," Real: we know that what is “Real,” in Earthly terms, has two distinctive characteristics:
1) It is substantial. That is, it is made or constituted of the elements found on this planet.
2) It is subject to “growth”; it starts small and grows larger. It ripens, matures or ages. It decays, rusts, ages and dies. It “peaks,” that is, reaches a stage of growth at which it is most recognizable as itself; as a specific phenomenon; as a class of events. All phenomena and events, on Earth, are substantial and gradual. We say, “Subject to Evolution,” that is, a specific direction of growth.
Applying this criterion to MIND, we find the criterion to fit very well:
1) MIND is materialized in an animal body.
2) It is subject to Growth and Evolution.
3) It continuously interacts with Earthly phenomena and events, which it attempts to control.
On the other hand, the same criteria do not apply to “SOUL.” By definition, the Soul is “Not of this Earth.” This is a constant in the description of what a Soul is or might be. It is said to be “immortal,” that it is not subject to decay and death; which, by consequence, also should imply that it is uncreated – but no such luck – they insist that it is “created.”
By the same token, it should not be subject to Growth and Evolution – again, no such luck – for they grant it one narrow field of play: from Evil to Good. How about from Good to Evil? No, they say, nothing goes from Good to Evil, only from Evil to Good. Now, that is a very narrow scope of Evolution and a very unidirectional one at that. Only two modes are admitted: Good or Evil. There is also only one way to win: you can only bet on Good. Which makes you ask, “WHO,” in his right mind, would only ever bet Evil?! Isn’t this what you would call a “zero sum game,” winner takes all? At least, if the evil souls were to be destroyed, we would have some movement, in this scene. “No,” we are told, “they are prescribed in Hell.” So, Growth is restricted to a one-way traffic: either Earth to Heaven or Earth to Hell. This train has only two lines. This game has only two issues.
This is not the mental image we have of evolution, on Earth. Here, a number of surprising things can happen. The most surprising things happen all the time. Well, only yesterday, this amoeba has become a human being. The dinosaurs have disappeared, even though they were doing so well. Even the Earth itself mutates, continuously.
There are many options, on this Earth. Most of them unpredictable.
Well, see for yourself how this creature that lived in caves has now built an orbiting station in Space. Would you have guessed it, a million years ago? This “Soul” is suspiciously not of this Earth. Fine. So, there is something, within us that is not of this Earth; in fact, not of this entire Universe, as we understand it.
What then, could it be?
It seems completely useless for survival. In fact, it is maladapted to Earthly conditions. It does not even recognize right from wrong, except very reluctantly. After all, the Angels are souls. Yet, they too did not recognize Good and Truth. At least, many of them did not, we are told. So, even “pure” souls are rather dumb. They do not seem to recognize their own self-interest. To say the least!
In short, even if God, the ultimate parallel reality, did exist, there is no guarantee that our “soul” will lead us to Him. Now, who needs such a dumb thing? Why burden ourselves with a Soul? Why not stay with this MIND; a child of our own world?
At this point, let us step back and practice some constructive doubt, asking ourselves:
Could MIND and SOUL be reconciled? Could they be one and the same? In the sense that in its mechanical and earthly functions, we call “it” MIND, while in its aspects that relate to the Totality of Reality, all that is, we call it SOUL?
What of we stripped this soul of its mythological contents, of Good and Evil, the Cosmic Struggle and the theme of the Return to the Creator? Could there still be left, enough, for this SOUL to remain something real? Does it have to be immortal?
It seems to me that such a SOUL would still be “natural.” Not as natural as the MIND but, still, natural. It all would depend on what we meant by “Nature.” If you restrict the extension of the word to the phenomena on Earth, you have one restrictive definition. If you broaden the scope to include the entire Universe, “visible and invisible,” in the language of the past, you still face a major problem:
Most people in most times would deny the existence of any invisible Universe. After all, they would argue, WHAT IS OUT THERE, other than more stars or more clouds of plasma? We are cataloguing Everything that is OUT THERE. We have names for everything: SPACE, VOID, STARS, etc., and since we have names, we must know everything. If you were to ask, “How about this Dark Matter, of which we know nothing and which is said to constitute 90 or even 99% of all Matter?
“Don’t you worry about that, either. We have a name for it too. It is all a matter of time before we find its own quirks and quarks.” In other words, I am being asked to have blind faith and presume that I know what I do not know. I am supposed to believe that I know the Entire Universe, all of Reality, on the strength of 1%, or 10%, of all That is.
I would have to assume that that 10% is representative of the 100%.. For that, I must assume that the Universe is homogeneous. If this Universe is that homogeneous, then why is it composed, at 90% or 99%, of some kind of material which we cannot even begin to comprehend? It would seem to me, with my feeble intellect, that a 1% or a 10% of anything, so different from the remaining 90 or 99%, must be an exception. It seems to me that the 90% should be considered “the norm.”
Why, then, is our logic reversed?
Why do we persist in this blind faith that, somehow, our 10% corner of Reality must be all of Reality? Very strange, indeed. What if, in an immortal Universe, there were immortal entities? Why would that be so “strange?”
Back to our problem: do we include, in our definition of “Nature,” that 99% of Dark Matter? Or do only consider what our telescopes see?
Is “Nature,” only and nothing else, what our telescopes see?
Is “Nature,” only and nothing else, but what we could see?
Is it, only and nothing else, but what we describe in our Physics and Chemistry texts?
Is there no other Reality, outside of Science?
Now, please keep in mind the fact that I am an atheist and that, by temperament, I am not fond of Gods, Angels, Miracles or anything of that sort. Furthermore, I am not “selling you” any ideology or faith.
I am just asking you to think with me.
So, tell me – how far does Nature extend? If you conceive it, as I do, as far more than chemical reactions, electromagnetism, the four seasons, rain and thunder, even well beyond (E=MC2), then, it must be vastly unknown and, perhaps, unknowable.
It is a truism that all teachers only teach what they know. What they do not know, they never mention or even deny it exists. The same is true of our scientists. Their discourse is about what they know, think they know. Of course, they also talk a lot about what they do not know. We all know it!
There is also the dogmatism of the “schools of thought.” The bane of civilized minds! Every historical period is dominated by some institutionalized form of thought; in fact, an ideology.
The problem with any ideology is that it sins against true reason, in two major aspects that I know:
1) Its intellectual productions are powered by a single paradigm. In the case of science, Mechanism.
2) Its intellectual productions are the product of institutional consensus, which entails compromise, hair splitting, petty quarrels, vain-glory and, finally, status quo.
There is always some “Method” involved. Mountains of information, that no one knows how to put together, but piecemeal, in scientific “theories,” about this and that and the other thing. A lot of analyses but very little synthesis. Those who attempt a synthesis indulge in histrionics, sensationalism and sleight of hand – that are outright intellectual dishonesty.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
How much “Reality” are “we” “really” in touch with and what, exactly, are “I” and “we?”
This blog is a forward-flowing narrative.
Please read from the OLDEST post first.
Thank you for dropping in...
There lie the dangers of any social ideology, even Democracy. The purpose of any ideology being the maintenance of a status quo. Now, you may ask, “To whom does the crime profit?” – and I will leave you to figure out the answer for yourself!
For centuries, the old standbys of “instinct” and “reflex” have served as explicative principles for a myriad of behaviors. No one ever knew what they were really talking about until, in the 20th century, the phenomenon of “photosensitivity”, in unicellular organisms, gave us a bio-chemical foundation. However, to this day, I still do not know how photons could trigger motion. Too lazy to investigate further, I am satisfied with the thought that the idea is not so unlikely.
The big question I would like answered before I die is the possibility of experience being transmitted genetically. For this would explain many puzzles: the child genius; the idiot savant; extraordinary speed in learning and adaptation, and that so many people seem to know, subconsciously, a hell of a lot of things they never learnt or experienced.
It would, in many ways, reconcile Mind and Matter and end the dichotomy between them. I would not be surprised that such a mechanism does exist, for we have proof that some materials have “memory” of the initial molding in which they were cast; notably, alloys. Crystals too are very promising because they always rearrange themselves in specific patterns. Hence, the notion that Matter is endowed with the characteristics of Memory is not so far-fetched.
As all individual experiences are, really, collective experiences, it would explain that wave after wave of newborns seem to be more “advanced” then their predecessors.
Only the individual carries this ability to transmit his memories through his genes. However, his experiences carry the sum total of the experiences of the collective, within which he lived and was fashioned. Whatever our truly personal inner stirrings might be, they are “formatted” by our culture – culture being a system of inhibitions, generally speaking, only very few individuals go beyond the limitations set by the cultural norms. Otherwise, collectives would be ungovernable. If human nature was such (that individuality was unrestrained) there would have been no civilization.
Our individuality is largely a myth.
A White Lie.
A Mind Game.
A very short leash.
A very personal sense of reality would lead you to an insane asylum or a maximum security jail.
So, whatever experiences are genetically transmitted, they would be those consolidated by uniformity and repetition, as all cultures are, fundamentally, the same – or, to re-phrase, similar in fundamental structures. The result, over millennia, is the creation of a “Human Nature.” That has nothing much to do with Nature. As demonstrated by the cases of individuals who have never escaped enculturation, one way or another.
Since the very first man, who puzzled over the appearance of a straight branch being “bent” by the water, the debate has been raging over how much Reality we are “really” in touch with.
He must have experimented for hours, dipping the branch in a pond: now it appears bent; now it is straight! He must have wondered which of the appearances was ‘real.”
Eventually, by running his hands over the half-submerged branch – or by fixing the branch in the mud to have it cast a shadow – he convinced himself that, probably, the water was creating a “delusion.” The first instance of the mind correcting the senses.
However, our primitive friend had also a lot of trouble with his dreams – “If sleep is for resting, why do we dream? And how is it that these dreams are so detailed and so life-like?” For there was nothing in these dreams that he did not experience in his wake state. Often, he would be sexually aroused, solve a problem or have a change of heart, in those dreams. The dream solution would then prove to be workable in the real world. The sexual arousal would have produced very real gratification. The change of heart would persist in his wake state. What else was he to think but that dreams are also “real?”
He knew nothing of Psychology, or even that his brain was a lot more than something good to eat – when it was someone else’s brain! Now, these dream experiences were far more difficult to “correct.” For the Mind, involved with itself, could hardly “correct” itself. Furthermore, the Mind did not know of its own existence. Literally. Yes, it is obvious to me. The Mind, saying to itself: “I am a Mind,” is a relatively recent invention. For when he said “I,” he did not mean “my mind” – he meant his body, his name, his affiliation to clan, the record of his achievements…but not his mind.
“Those were innocent days,” you might say.
“Not so fast,” would I interrupt rudely.
Who is to say that we are not the ones who are naïve? Who says you could not exist without a Mind? What is “a mind,” come to think of it? And how is it that trillions of Earth creatures have existed and thrived, over billions of years, without even saying to themselves, “I have a mind, you know. A dinosaur mind, you know. A bacterial mind, you know.” Obviously, this “Mind” is not at all necessary for survival.
How is it that mention of Mind, within the written record, appears not earlier than 3,000 years ago? Even Aristotle only speaks of a “Universal Mind.” He never once speaks of his own mind. Didn’t he know he had a mind? Why should such a universal man, a great scholar, not have authored a book entitled, “The Mind”?
The ancient Greeks spoke of “Nous.” By that, they meant Awareness, Thought, Emotion, Will, and such. These are all “functions” or operations and were never thought of as embodied in some organ, a ghost organ, called, “The Mind.” Now, you might vehemently object and say that everyone knows the mind is nothing more than the brain’s “representation” of its own functions.
Then, I will, in turn, ask you to prove (or at least, to demonstrate) that what you believe is objectively and “scientifically” true. How do you propose to “prove” that?
If I remember well, Einstein’s brain was dissected and no “mathematical function” was found. No extra “bumps” or convolutions and no extra mass, either. Just a plain brain that could have been a dolphin’s or an ape’s. Even Dr. Penfield never said that he knew of some spot in the brain that is the “seat” of the mind. As much as tickled his patient’s brains, he never came upon a spot where at that point, the patient would say, “I am This Woman’s Mind.”
On the contrary, neurologists speak in terms of “charting” the brain: this area processes language and that one retains memories, or whatever. Where then, is this Mind, if it is located, produced or codified by the Brain?
For even software is something that exists, somewhere.
I never heard of software made of pure thought.
When we think of Mind, a number of problems arise:
I. If we think of it as a “fact”: our present culture does not recognize “facts” established by introspection or intuition. Even if each of the 7 billion people on Earth were to state, in one voice, “I am a Mind,” or “I have a Mind,” this kind of affirmative pronouncement of fact would not be considered a “fact.”
There is good reason for such an attitude, when you review, in a historical perspective, the beliefs held by people:
1) That the heart was the seat of all thoughts and emotions
2) That pregnancy was not related to the sexual act
3) That madness had to do with possession
4) That family resemblances were due to reincarnations
5) That dreams were memories of other lives, in other dimensions of Reality
6) That you became what you ate
7) That places and objects carried a type of elemental power that could heal or destroy the body
And the list could go on, for miles of writing.
Here and there, one could argue that that some of these beliefs were intuitive understandings of Radiation, multiple personalities, lector-magnetic belts, or the biochemistry involved in the interaction with some soluble minerals such as Lithium, dissolved in ponds. All of which may be true and fine. Nonetheless, the overall impression remains: people do not know about their own functioning. Furthermore, there is quite a distance separating intuitive understanding from exact knowledge.
II. Most analyses of Mind are built on some Analogy. Unavoidably, the prevalent analogies are always of the mechanical paradigm. In our times, we tend to erect our inventions into paradigms of Reality.
Our current favourite paradigm is the Computer; leading to analyses in terms of Hardware and Software.
We are, presently, stuck in this analogical rut.
The Mind, as “Software” was hailed as an inspired analogy, when, in fact, it is nothing more than labeling. Even by ordinary common sense, one should suspect that this Mind that invented the Computer must be a lot more than its creation.
Biblicism has left us scarred: it taught us to analyze the Creator trough his creation. It has become a habit of thought.
In fact, there might be no way of deducing the nature and functioning of the Mind from cars, water pumps, light bulbs or ATMs!
III. There is serious confusion, at the highest levels of understanding, between Mind and Brain:
1) Freud dealt with mental illness as “Spiritual” snags. He never spoke of “brain diseases” and did not suspect the importance of brain biochemistry.
2) The neurologists have been trying to “map” the brain, on the assumptions of “functions” located in “areas” of the brain. However, the neuropsychologist, on the other hand, does not believe that a brain dysfunction could be located in a specific area of the brain. He views the brain as a whole: where speech is affected, memory might also be affected – as well as perception, self-perception and a dozen other things. He also knows that if you remove half the brain, the other half will still function as a “whole.”
At every step of the road, the identification of Mind as Brain meets serious challenges.
It is, therefore, tempting to say, “There is no Mind” or that “Mind is self-representation, for functional purposes.” In other words, Mind is but a “ghost in the machine,” a virtual reality…which flies in the face of what all of humanity has believed all of the time: that “I” and “me” and “myself” are an absolute and Ultimate Reality! For even those who make such sensational, counter-cultural assertions, say, “I.”
What or who, then, is this “I?” A ghost saying that it is a ghost? A hologram? Furthermore, this “I,” supposedly a ghost, acts very oddly:
1) It often ends its own existence through suicide.
2) It longs to end its solitude through Love, Nationalism, Deism or Pantheism. In other words, to abrogate its autonomy, its sovereignty, by “melting” into some other “I.”
3) It often addresses itself as “you” or “we.” Is it confused about its existence? Is it unable to count? Does it think about itself as a collectivity? Does it adopt various perceptions of itself, at will, in a calculated fashion? Perhaps it simply does not care to count or label itself. It suffices that IT IS, in its own perception of its Reality. Are “I,” “You,” “Myself” or “We” indifferently used, by the Mind, as identifying clusters of various aspects of its Reality?” Now I am an “I” and now a “Them,” depending on the perspective that is required to solve a problem. That the psychiatrist sees signs of dysfunction in such richness of means and articulation does not say much about the psychiatrist!
4) It is a matter of fact that people in a coma, even over long periods of time, have re-emerged “whole,” with the same personality, getting into the act where they had left off. Were their minds “on hold” in some limbo? Neurosurgeons will tell you that the brain is insensitive to pain. No need to anesthetize it. What then, is a migraine or a headache? What is the difference between all the varieties of pain: despair, longing, boredom, tooth-ache or love sickness? That is a lot of pain, for a brain that “feels no pain.”
5) In the case of identical twins and Siamese twins, each twin has a distinct sense of self: an ego, a mind. Why do two brains, sharing the same genes and the same body develop two separate identities when, in some cases, a single identity would have been more efficient and less awkward for survival purposes? In some cases, one twin is a complete person, while the other is very sketchy – as if a growth or extension of the one that is fully developed. Yet, again, both have separate egos and distinct personalities. Sometimes, they even hate each other! In every case we observe that each twin has a separate brain. This seems to reinforce the view that there is no Mind unless there is a Brain. There might be a mindless brain but no “brainless mind” has ever been found! But, then, in extreme cases, some Siamese twins are attached at the head or share internal organs. Why did two separate egos develop, creating problems of coordination, the possibility of conflict of wills, etc.? Wouldn’t it have been more economical, efficient or rational for a single, unified ego to emerge? Obviously, the emergence of the ego has nothing to do with such considerations. What then?
6) A major problem lies in defining what we mean by “Mind,” “a mind.” The meaning alternates as follows: a) Personality, and b) Functions: memory, logic, emotions, perception, self-awareness, dreaming, fantasizing, judging, language and expression, etc., and c) The soul, and d) The brain.
The modern tendency is to believe that all manifestations of Mind are productions of the brain. The question therefore becomes: “What is the brain?” How is it different from kidneys, glands or all the other organs? To say that it is “very complex” says nothing. To detail its bio-chemical functioning also says nothing. For how do enzymes, proteins, adrenaline or serotonin “become” thoughts, emotions, memories or dreams? None of the brain’s “productions” are materials, substantial – in any sense – except for brain waves, which have the most elementary feature of the substantial: they can be measured. Otherwise, none of the brain’s productions have mass or dimension and are not quantifiable. The fact that we say, “One thought,” or “a thought” does not imply, after all, that Thought is subject to numeration. Who knows if that “one” thought is really one in a million? “One thought” is a speech convention, not a factual Reality.
7) In the coinage “Collective Mind,” we find yet another variation on the mind-theme. Trying to analyze, exhaustively, the “contents” of such a notion would be like opening Pandora’s Box! For, who knows what bric-a-brac has been deposited in this “Collective Mind,” by psychologists, anthropologists, and even zoologists. Some see, for instance, the workings of a “Collective Mind” in the swarming of insects, birds and fish. They speak of signals and messages, of a rather mysterious nature, sometimes occult. In another instance, we are told that in human societies, this “Collective Mind” is capable of transmitting “atavic memories” and can determine historical directions, independently of any and all individuals within the collectivity. In this case we do have a disembodied Mind, in the nature of “Fate.”
8) Finally, one more observation – it regards the workings and mechanics of Growth. Looking at this old woman, sitting in the bus, I wonder what her mind was like at age 5, as a young lass of 18, as a 40-year old, etc, all the way up to this very moment in time, where she appears to be somewhere in her early 70’s. Am I to view the growth and ageing of her mind as one, linear continuum, from cause to effect? Or should I view the phenomenon in terms of personalities, in the plural, more or less holding together, like the layers of an onion? How many personalities could one develop, in some 70 years of living? Three, five or twelve? Are they all compatible with each other? Do they form an integrated whole or do they lie, side by side, more or less tolerating each other? When the 5 year-old craves a candy bar, does the 40 year-old remind her that “we” are on a diet? Does the 70 year-old over-rule them both and decides she should, rather, save the money for a rainy day?
Are we one personality or a community of personalities?
Which model is more likely to be the “natural” one?
The best fitted for adaptation and survival of the living organism, this woman, as we know her and we know ourselves? Obviously, the linear continuum is too rigid; too rationalistic. Also, far too difficult to manage, in the faces of paradoxes, contradictions and conundrums, as we find, daily, and repeatedly, the system could snap!
Part 5 to come…
Please read from the OLDEST post first.
Thank you for dropping in...
There lie the dangers of any social ideology, even Democracy. The purpose of any ideology being the maintenance of a status quo. Now, you may ask, “To whom does the crime profit?” – and I will leave you to figure out the answer for yourself!
For centuries, the old standbys of “instinct” and “reflex” have served as explicative principles for a myriad of behaviors. No one ever knew what they were really talking about until, in the 20th century, the phenomenon of “photosensitivity”, in unicellular organisms, gave us a bio-chemical foundation. However, to this day, I still do not know how photons could trigger motion. Too lazy to investigate further, I am satisfied with the thought that the idea is not so unlikely.
The big question I would like answered before I die is the possibility of experience being transmitted genetically. For this would explain many puzzles: the child genius; the idiot savant; extraordinary speed in learning and adaptation, and that so many people seem to know, subconsciously, a hell of a lot of things they never learnt or experienced.
It would, in many ways, reconcile Mind and Matter and end the dichotomy between them. I would not be surprised that such a mechanism does exist, for we have proof that some materials have “memory” of the initial molding in which they were cast; notably, alloys. Crystals too are very promising because they always rearrange themselves in specific patterns. Hence, the notion that Matter is endowed with the characteristics of Memory is not so far-fetched.
As all individual experiences are, really, collective experiences, it would explain that wave after wave of newborns seem to be more “advanced” then their predecessors.
Only the individual carries this ability to transmit his memories through his genes. However, his experiences carry the sum total of the experiences of the collective, within which he lived and was fashioned. Whatever our truly personal inner stirrings might be, they are “formatted” by our culture – culture being a system of inhibitions, generally speaking, only very few individuals go beyond the limitations set by the cultural norms. Otherwise, collectives would be ungovernable. If human nature was such (that individuality was unrestrained) there would have been no civilization.
Our individuality is largely a myth.
A White Lie.
A Mind Game.
A very short leash.
A very personal sense of reality would lead you to an insane asylum or a maximum security jail.
So, whatever experiences are genetically transmitted, they would be those consolidated by uniformity and repetition, as all cultures are, fundamentally, the same – or, to re-phrase, similar in fundamental structures. The result, over millennia, is the creation of a “Human Nature.” That has nothing much to do with Nature. As demonstrated by the cases of individuals who have never escaped enculturation, one way or another.
Since the very first man, who puzzled over the appearance of a straight branch being “bent” by the water, the debate has been raging over how much Reality we are “really” in touch with.
He must have experimented for hours, dipping the branch in a pond: now it appears bent; now it is straight! He must have wondered which of the appearances was ‘real.”
Eventually, by running his hands over the half-submerged branch – or by fixing the branch in the mud to have it cast a shadow – he convinced himself that, probably, the water was creating a “delusion.” The first instance of the mind correcting the senses.
However, our primitive friend had also a lot of trouble with his dreams – “If sleep is for resting, why do we dream? And how is it that these dreams are so detailed and so life-like?” For there was nothing in these dreams that he did not experience in his wake state. Often, he would be sexually aroused, solve a problem or have a change of heart, in those dreams. The dream solution would then prove to be workable in the real world. The sexual arousal would have produced very real gratification. The change of heart would persist in his wake state. What else was he to think but that dreams are also “real?”
He knew nothing of Psychology, or even that his brain was a lot more than something good to eat – when it was someone else’s brain! Now, these dream experiences were far more difficult to “correct.” For the Mind, involved with itself, could hardly “correct” itself. Furthermore, the Mind did not know of its own existence. Literally. Yes, it is obvious to me. The Mind, saying to itself: “I am a Mind,” is a relatively recent invention. For when he said “I,” he did not mean “my mind” – he meant his body, his name, his affiliation to clan, the record of his achievements…but not his mind.
“Those were innocent days,” you might say.
“Not so fast,” would I interrupt rudely.
Who is to say that we are not the ones who are naïve? Who says you could not exist without a Mind? What is “a mind,” come to think of it? And how is it that trillions of Earth creatures have existed and thrived, over billions of years, without even saying to themselves, “I have a mind, you know. A dinosaur mind, you know. A bacterial mind, you know.” Obviously, this “Mind” is not at all necessary for survival.
How is it that mention of Mind, within the written record, appears not earlier than 3,000 years ago? Even Aristotle only speaks of a “Universal Mind.” He never once speaks of his own mind. Didn’t he know he had a mind? Why should such a universal man, a great scholar, not have authored a book entitled, “The Mind”?
The ancient Greeks spoke of “Nous.” By that, they meant Awareness, Thought, Emotion, Will, and such. These are all “functions” or operations and were never thought of as embodied in some organ, a ghost organ, called, “The Mind.” Now, you might vehemently object and say that everyone knows the mind is nothing more than the brain’s “representation” of its own functions.
Then, I will, in turn, ask you to prove (or at least, to demonstrate) that what you believe is objectively and “scientifically” true. How do you propose to “prove” that?
If I remember well, Einstein’s brain was dissected and no “mathematical function” was found. No extra “bumps” or convolutions and no extra mass, either. Just a plain brain that could have been a dolphin’s or an ape’s. Even Dr. Penfield never said that he knew of some spot in the brain that is the “seat” of the mind. As much as tickled his patient’s brains, he never came upon a spot where at that point, the patient would say, “I am This Woman’s Mind.”
On the contrary, neurologists speak in terms of “charting” the brain: this area processes language and that one retains memories, or whatever. Where then, is this Mind, if it is located, produced or codified by the Brain?
For even software is something that exists, somewhere.
I never heard of software made of pure thought.
When we think of Mind, a number of problems arise:
I. If we think of it as a “fact”: our present culture does not recognize “facts” established by introspection or intuition. Even if each of the 7 billion people on Earth were to state, in one voice, “I am a Mind,” or “I have a Mind,” this kind of affirmative pronouncement of fact would not be considered a “fact.”
There is good reason for such an attitude, when you review, in a historical perspective, the beliefs held by people:
1) That the heart was the seat of all thoughts and emotions
2) That pregnancy was not related to the sexual act
3) That madness had to do with possession
4) That family resemblances were due to reincarnations
5) That dreams were memories of other lives, in other dimensions of Reality
6) That you became what you ate
7) That places and objects carried a type of elemental power that could heal or destroy the body
And the list could go on, for miles of writing.
Here and there, one could argue that that some of these beliefs were intuitive understandings of Radiation, multiple personalities, lector-magnetic belts, or the biochemistry involved in the interaction with some soluble minerals such as Lithium, dissolved in ponds. All of which may be true and fine. Nonetheless, the overall impression remains: people do not know about their own functioning. Furthermore, there is quite a distance separating intuitive understanding from exact knowledge.
II. Most analyses of Mind are built on some Analogy. Unavoidably, the prevalent analogies are always of the mechanical paradigm. In our times, we tend to erect our inventions into paradigms of Reality.
Our current favourite paradigm is the Computer; leading to analyses in terms of Hardware and Software.
We are, presently, stuck in this analogical rut.
The Mind, as “Software” was hailed as an inspired analogy, when, in fact, it is nothing more than labeling. Even by ordinary common sense, one should suspect that this Mind that invented the Computer must be a lot more than its creation.
Biblicism has left us scarred: it taught us to analyze the Creator trough his creation. It has become a habit of thought.
In fact, there might be no way of deducing the nature and functioning of the Mind from cars, water pumps, light bulbs or ATMs!
III. There is serious confusion, at the highest levels of understanding, between Mind and Brain:
1) Freud dealt with mental illness as “Spiritual” snags. He never spoke of “brain diseases” and did not suspect the importance of brain biochemistry.
2) The neurologists have been trying to “map” the brain, on the assumptions of “functions” located in “areas” of the brain. However, the neuropsychologist, on the other hand, does not believe that a brain dysfunction could be located in a specific area of the brain. He views the brain as a whole: where speech is affected, memory might also be affected – as well as perception, self-perception and a dozen other things. He also knows that if you remove half the brain, the other half will still function as a “whole.”
At every step of the road, the identification of Mind as Brain meets serious challenges.
It is, therefore, tempting to say, “There is no Mind” or that “Mind is self-representation, for functional purposes.” In other words, Mind is but a “ghost in the machine,” a virtual reality…which flies in the face of what all of humanity has believed all of the time: that “I” and “me” and “myself” are an absolute and Ultimate Reality! For even those who make such sensational, counter-cultural assertions, say, “I.”
What or who, then, is this “I?” A ghost saying that it is a ghost? A hologram? Furthermore, this “I,” supposedly a ghost, acts very oddly:
1) It often ends its own existence through suicide.
2) It longs to end its solitude through Love, Nationalism, Deism or Pantheism. In other words, to abrogate its autonomy, its sovereignty, by “melting” into some other “I.”
3) It often addresses itself as “you” or “we.” Is it confused about its existence? Is it unable to count? Does it think about itself as a collectivity? Does it adopt various perceptions of itself, at will, in a calculated fashion? Perhaps it simply does not care to count or label itself. It suffices that IT IS, in its own perception of its Reality. Are “I,” “You,” “Myself” or “We” indifferently used, by the Mind, as identifying clusters of various aspects of its Reality?” Now I am an “I” and now a “Them,” depending on the perspective that is required to solve a problem. That the psychiatrist sees signs of dysfunction in such richness of means and articulation does not say much about the psychiatrist!
4) It is a matter of fact that people in a coma, even over long periods of time, have re-emerged “whole,” with the same personality, getting into the act where they had left off. Were their minds “on hold” in some limbo? Neurosurgeons will tell you that the brain is insensitive to pain. No need to anesthetize it. What then, is a migraine or a headache? What is the difference between all the varieties of pain: despair, longing, boredom, tooth-ache or love sickness? That is a lot of pain, for a brain that “feels no pain.”
5) In the case of identical twins and Siamese twins, each twin has a distinct sense of self: an ego, a mind. Why do two brains, sharing the same genes and the same body develop two separate identities when, in some cases, a single identity would have been more efficient and less awkward for survival purposes? In some cases, one twin is a complete person, while the other is very sketchy – as if a growth or extension of the one that is fully developed. Yet, again, both have separate egos and distinct personalities. Sometimes, they even hate each other! In every case we observe that each twin has a separate brain. This seems to reinforce the view that there is no Mind unless there is a Brain. There might be a mindless brain but no “brainless mind” has ever been found! But, then, in extreme cases, some Siamese twins are attached at the head or share internal organs. Why did two separate egos develop, creating problems of coordination, the possibility of conflict of wills, etc.? Wouldn’t it have been more economical, efficient or rational for a single, unified ego to emerge? Obviously, the emergence of the ego has nothing to do with such considerations. What then?
6) A major problem lies in defining what we mean by “Mind,” “a mind.” The meaning alternates as follows: a) Personality, and b) Functions: memory, logic, emotions, perception, self-awareness, dreaming, fantasizing, judging, language and expression, etc., and c) The soul, and d) The brain.
The modern tendency is to believe that all manifestations of Mind are productions of the brain. The question therefore becomes: “What is the brain?” How is it different from kidneys, glands or all the other organs? To say that it is “very complex” says nothing. To detail its bio-chemical functioning also says nothing. For how do enzymes, proteins, adrenaline or serotonin “become” thoughts, emotions, memories or dreams? None of the brain’s “productions” are materials, substantial – in any sense – except for brain waves, which have the most elementary feature of the substantial: they can be measured. Otherwise, none of the brain’s productions have mass or dimension and are not quantifiable. The fact that we say, “One thought,” or “a thought” does not imply, after all, that Thought is subject to numeration. Who knows if that “one” thought is really one in a million? “One thought” is a speech convention, not a factual Reality.
7) In the coinage “Collective Mind,” we find yet another variation on the mind-theme. Trying to analyze, exhaustively, the “contents” of such a notion would be like opening Pandora’s Box! For, who knows what bric-a-brac has been deposited in this “Collective Mind,” by psychologists, anthropologists, and even zoologists. Some see, for instance, the workings of a “Collective Mind” in the swarming of insects, birds and fish. They speak of signals and messages, of a rather mysterious nature, sometimes occult. In another instance, we are told that in human societies, this “Collective Mind” is capable of transmitting “atavic memories” and can determine historical directions, independently of any and all individuals within the collectivity. In this case we do have a disembodied Mind, in the nature of “Fate.”
8) Finally, one more observation – it regards the workings and mechanics of Growth. Looking at this old woman, sitting in the bus, I wonder what her mind was like at age 5, as a young lass of 18, as a 40-year old, etc, all the way up to this very moment in time, where she appears to be somewhere in her early 70’s. Am I to view the growth and ageing of her mind as one, linear continuum, from cause to effect? Or should I view the phenomenon in terms of personalities, in the plural, more or less holding together, like the layers of an onion? How many personalities could one develop, in some 70 years of living? Three, five or twelve? Are they all compatible with each other? Do they form an integrated whole or do they lie, side by side, more or less tolerating each other? When the 5 year-old craves a candy bar, does the 40 year-old remind her that “we” are on a diet? Does the 70 year-old over-rule them both and decides she should, rather, save the money for a rainy day?
Are we one personality or a community of personalities?
Which model is more likely to be the “natural” one?
The best fitted for adaptation and survival of the living organism, this woman, as we know her and we know ourselves? Obviously, the linear continuum is too rigid; too rationalistic. Also, far too difficult to manage, in the faces of paradoxes, contradictions and conundrums, as we find, daily, and repeatedly, the system could snap!
Part 5 to come…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)