Rene Descartes’s distinction between the mind and body was that the mind is a non-extended, thinking thing; and the body is an extended thing which does not think. It is a distinction between the mind and the body that many people maintain; however it creates unavoidable problems, the main one perhaps being how an non-extended object can interact with an extended object?
The limitation of science in describing the relationship between body and mind does not outweigh its ability to identify mechanisms and relationships between the two constructs. There is no proof for a mind existing without a body. For the most part, any organism with a brain structure has a mind of some kind. It may also be safe to assume all organisms with a mind are having profoundly different experiences. But as biologically manifest phenomena in the same universe, we must all have a common factor to our existence, which is our functionality.
The impression of the external world is projected internally. The sense or result of chemical interactions, i.e. reactions in the body to stimulus, create a subjective experience that perceives events, this we identify by observing behavior we relate to that of an object possess of a subjective experience or a mind. Our complex structure of chemical interactions resulted with sensations, drives, and intelligence; none of which appear to be beyond the capacity of physics. Physics is a description of a kind of motion; sensations, drives, and intelligence are all known by a relationship to an object or behavior. All minds are known by their relationship to a body. We have never seen a mind that has no body (even ghost have a form or behavior which makes their presence known). If we have never seen a non-extended object, how can we say such a thing exist? All things known must exert some kind of observable force for us to identify its existence.
There is no physical law that claims nature can not create a thinking object. Why can’t the body think? A mind isn’t extended because it is an action or function; not an object in space, but rather a characteristic inferred by the behavior of an object, i.e. the body. People typically say we use our minds; as if it is a tool we use. And we do not say concepts such as eating or walking are objects, we say they are descriptions of actions, i.e. motions of objects. In both cases the mind is related to something it is external to and also subjected to, which is the body.
The mind must be a product of a tangible object; for a non-extended force can not interact with an extended force, only extended forces can interact. Extension would indicate a multitude of particles, which would appear as a mass of some magnitude. Whereas a non-extended force is no particles, or perhaps one or a few. And we know extension is merely a characteristic of space and time. Thought is a brain function, and a brain is a multitude of particles arranged in a specific manner. Though we don’t have a complete model of the motions of all the particles that make a brain, when can correlate specific parts to specific functions.
The distinction Descartes appears to be making is between agent and action. Consciousness isn’t producing the phenomena of having a body, it is a function of the biological machine, viz. an active brain structure, typically within a body. It can feel as if the mind is outside the body, because there are many body states which result in different mental states, one such state creates a feeling of distance from the body. Is this surprising, considering that various chemicals can manifest a variety of particular bodily, and consequently mental, states? Anything that can be considered to possess the characteristic of a mind must be in some way expressing this possession through the utilization of energy/matter.
Showing posts with label mind. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mind. Show all posts
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Saturday, April 11, 2015
On Consciousness
Our method for perceiving objects is to look upon them from the outside of them, though granted we may perceive the innards of an object, but even then we are outside the innards looking upon them. However, for ourselves, we appear to be an object inside our bodies looking outwards at phenomena. This is not only the case for physical phenomena, but also for mental phenomena; for when we utilize the mechanics of imagination, we still appear to be an internal object looking upon some external phenomena (inside ourselves). Is it possible that the object which is looking outwards is consciousness? What consequences follow if this object, which is something within us looking outwards, is consciousness?
If consciousness can look upon itself, then our inquiry is, at least, partially answered. One object that is never too far away from consciousness is the body. It is clear that we can perceive our own bodies by use of a mirror, but I’m reluctant to claim that the consciousness is perceiving itself when it looks upon the object that it appears to be within. But, if our own bodies aren’t considered to be consciousness, then what else can we consider consciousness to be? For physical objects always give the body more of a feeling of reality than mental objects, whenever the two are compared. If our own body is not the consciousness, though it appears to be as consistent in existence as consciousness itself, then how can we make any mental objects consciousness; for no mental object is as consistent as the consciousness or body, though they may appear before the mind frequently. Even if we gave a mental object that has appeared before us the label of consciousness, we would still be obliged to explain the reason why we identify the mental object as consciousness.
Let us return to the basic description of consciousness, which is “awareness of one’s own existence.” If the consciousness is an object that looks upon other objects from the inside of some object, how is it aware of its own existence? For consciousness appears to be aware of many objects, but none of them can firmly be considered consciousness. And consciousness doesn’t seem to possess the ability to look upon itself, and if it has, how will we know? We become aware of the existence of other objects, physical or mental, by a perception of them. However, we claim such a thing as consciousness exist, without having any perception of such a phenomena; for we can not perceive consciousness physically nor mentally. This presents a major threat to any conception of reality that would attempt to describe existence accurately. For whether we claim all things are mental or physical, we must explain how we came to such knowledge. If we say we observed such and such phenomena, but never observed the object which is observing the phenomena, how can we claim to know the information we are receiving is true?
My personal fix to this dilemma is to be rid of the concept of consciousness completely. Consciousness appears to be a failed attempt at discovering a feature of the body and brain that is somehow beyond them both (like the spirit or soul). If we know the interactions between body and brain are the cause of our personal experiences, and that the brain is the physical structure that causes most of our bodily motions and all of our mental events, then I see no reason not to assume it is the brain and body that perceives phenomena and interacts with objects. This, however, would require some alteration to one’s model of reality, particularly a will caused solely by the brain. For we would no longer be able to claim we were in control of our bodies unless when we use the term “we” or “I”, we are referring to our brain.
If consciousness can look upon itself, then our inquiry is, at least, partially answered. One object that is never too far away from consciousness is the body. It is clear that we can perceive our own bodies by use of a mirror, but I’m reluctant to claim that the consciousness is perceiving itself when it looks upon the object that it appears to be within. But, if our own bodies aren’t considered to be consciousness, then what else can we consider consciousness to be? For physical objects always give the body more of a feeling of reality than mental objects, whenever the two are compared. If our own body is not the consciousness, though it appears to be as consistent in existence as consciousness itself, then how can we make any mental objects consciousness; for no mental object is as consistent as the consciousness or body, though they may appear before the mind frequently. Even if we gave a mental object that has appeared before us the label of consciousness, we would still be obliged to explain the reason why we identify the mental object as consciousness.
Let us return to the basic description of consciousness, which is “awareness of one’s own existence.” If the consciousness is an object that looks upon other objects from the inside of some object, how is it aware of its own existence? For consciousness appears to be aware of many objects, but none of them can firmly be considered consciousness. And consciousness doesn’t seem to possess the ability to look upon itself, and if it has, how will we know? We become aware of the existence of other objects, physical or mental, by a perception of them. However, we claim such a thing as consciousness exist, without having any perception of such a phenomena; for we can not perceive consciousness physically nor mentally. This presents a major threat to any conception of reality that would attempt to describe existence accurately. For whether we claim all things are mental or physical, we must explain how we came to such knowledge. If we say we observed such and such phenomena, but never observed the object which is observing the phenomena, how can we claim to know the information we are receiving is true?
My personal fix to this dilemma is to be rid of the concept of consciousness completely. Consciousness appears to be a failed attempt at discovering a feature of the body and brain that is somehow beyond them both (like the spirit or soul). If we know the interactions between body and brain are the cause of our personal experiences, and that the brain is the physical structure that causes most of our bodily motions and all of our mental events, then I see no reason not to assume it is the brain and body that perceives phenomena and interacts with objects. This, however, would require some alteration to one’s model of reality, particularly a will caused solely by the brain. For we would no longer be able to claim we were in control of our bodies unless when we use the term “we” or “I”, we are referring to our brain.
Friday, June 1, 2012
A Perspective on Life
We perceive life as individuals by taking part in an universal experience from different positions in space, causing differences in perspective. These different perspectives cause conflicts and contradictions in our definition of the truth, i.e. the actual motion of the parts that compose the universe. The correct perspective to maintain is that which accurately describes the motion of the universe’s parts. However, due to physical and practical limitations, we must condense explanations to only relay significant information, or what we arbitrarily consider significant information. The substance of truth is usually lost when it is separated from the whole truth. And as the whole truth requires describing all events that have occurred, are occurring, and will occur, it is impossible to know. Granted our situation, we do not need to know every detail of the universe, only what is necessary. What is necessity or necessary is another question for a later time.
Personal beliefs are dependent on the nature of a particular perspective. The mind’s cognitive capabilities are not unlimited. We are able to focus on one matter at a time. For, to perform an action accurately and quickly, the whole course of motion must be seen as a single movement. But, since the process of actualizing an idea or goal requires forethought(granted we are speaking of a rational being actualizing an idea or goal), we can only think of known phenomena, and adapt ourselves to any anomalies. This causes a disharmony in the mind, because the mind must stop its initial mental movement, that which formulated a plan of action, to mend external disunity(i.e. disunity of the mental perception of the world and the world as it is in of itself). For an anomaly is just an unconsidered event. All anomalies than become known phenomena and are assimilated to known knowledge when they occur. But, dealing with them at the time of the occurrence requires we divert our attention from our main goal to a novel problem.
Personal beliefs are dependent on the nature of a particular perspective. The mind’s cognitive capabilities are not unlimited. We are able to focus on one matter at a time. For, to perform an action accurately and quickly, the whole course of motion must be seen as a single movement. But, since the process of actualizing an idea or goal requires forethought(granted we are speaking of a rational being actualizing an idea or goal), we can only think of known phenomena, and adapt ourselves to any anomalies. This causes a disharmony in the mind, because the mind must stop its initial mental movement, that which formulated a plan of action, to mend external disunity(i.e. disunity of the mental perception of the world and the world as it is in of itself). For an anomaly is just an unconsidered event. All anomalies than become known phenomena and are assimilated to known knowledge when they occur. But, dealing with them at the time of the occurrence requires we divert our attention from our main goal to a novel problem.
Monday, April 16, 2012
On the Mind
“Mind” is that which we consider the model of our world. Many people will describe this in various was. The few manners in which I have heard it described as is; that point from which we observer the world, the self, the ego, me/I, the spirit/soul, consciousness, awareness, life, human, and many other phases. For me, it is an action, or performance, or feeling, or reaction of some kind. It is something i do, something i have or am given or perceive, or know about. It has shown me many things, of which i think about, or contemplate, or make judgments about. That of which i judge or contemplate is the world, the universe, I/me, or God. What then is the problem? If one considers it all one thing, then one need not fall into disputes.
The problem may then be what ought we to do with it? These sets of mechanics, which are used to create, manifest, or actualize certain events, are what we utilized when forming our world model. Each model has its own particular explanation, but one is sufficient enough to continue. Conflict will always occur in the various descriptions of how mind is used exactly; whether it is physical phenomena, chemical reactions, biological manifestations, or psychological entities. And if God be the source of my power, then it only could control, or generate my movements and actions. The question still remains what ought we to do?
Regardless what we are there is a quantitative state to this existence we call the Mind. At the very least there is one thing, or nothing. But, frequently, there is more than one thing, i.e. something else is involved in the manifestation of the Mind. What ought we to do with the mind could depend on a multitude of objects. I describe it as an undeniable force from any object mentioned thus far.
I hope these arrangements of words can be of some practical use, though much contradiction exist amongst them. More or less could be said of this. One could understand the basic idea; the argument would be on particulars beyond this theoretical position.
The problem may then be what ought we to do with it? These sets of mechanics, which are used to create, manifest, or actualize certain events, are what we utilized when forming our world model. Each model has its own particular explanation, but one is sufficient enough to continue. Conflict will always occur in the various descriptions of how mind is used exactly; whether it is physical phenomena, chemical reactions, biological manifestations, or psychological entities. And if God be the source of my power, then it only could control, or generate my movements and actions. The question still remains what ought we to do?
Regardless what we are there is a quantitative state to this existence we call the Mind. At the very least there is one thing, or nothing. But, frequently, there is more than one thing, i.e. something else is involved in the manifestation of the Mind. What ought we to do with the mind could depend on a multitude of objects. I describe it as an undeniable force from any object mentioned thus far.
I hope these arrangements of words can be of some practical use, though much contradiction exist amongst them. More or less could be said of this. One could understand the basic idea; the argument would be on particulars beyond this theoretical position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)