An attempt to construct the functional model of mind

Reply Sun 21 Jan, 2007 11:34 pm
Any comment or criticise welcome! I continue posting the series.

An attempt to construct the functional model of mind

--------The development and the test

(Please kindly noted: the model is not a final version, it's more like a trial version. I don't think I can dedicate a final version. I only express my thoughts on mind. Maybe, it's only a knock at the door of mind, but I still want to TRY. Everyone interested in such topic please think in the way.


The goal is to try to construct the general model of all of physically normal persons. But I can only know parts of me; I can only suppose the knowledge of others, for I'm not others.

The first step is to construct a general functional structure of mind. (But this article is not about everything of mind. It can only be restricted in the known parts of the phenomena of mind.)

Step by step construction

Step 1

If we regard a person as a living system in its environment, the person should survive in the environment. The system and the relationship between the person and environment should be:

If we think a larger system, which includes life and the environment, and if the system is a closed one, the energy and material should keep constant, i.e. neither plus, nor minus. What has changed is the form of existing. Life, at this point, is some form of existing. What life struggles for is to keep such a form of existing. It consumes material and energy. The life, i.e. the existing form, should have some ability to supply for consuming to keep the form of existing, i.e. to survive. An atom is not a life, for it cannot response to the environment to get what its "life" needs. If conditions satisfied, the atom exists, if conditions unsatisfied, the atom is changed to another form of existing. If a cell is called a life, the cell SHOULD HAVE the ability to response to the environment and response to its needs to keep its existing as a cell. I.e., it should be some initiative or positive. Not purely passive "if conditions, then status". So the development of lives, at some point, is the development of the ability of response to the environment to get more stable existing. A cell responses to environment for it has the chemical or physical reaction on the environment and the needs of its existing. It cannot know what's the Sun, cannot know what's pain either. But if a life has a neural system, the response to needs and environment would base on another form, it is not the directly chemical or physical reaction. Another part should be added on the procedure. It's the state of neural. It's a mediator between needs and environment. Therefore, the above system is not enough to illustrate a life, which has a neural system. We should start the second step to construct the model of life. (Please wait for the Step 2.)

******** Is this one written clearly enough to be easily understood? ********
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,491 • Replies: 10
No top replies

Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 02:42 am
@Nates Mind,

You are a multicellular animal,what makes you think you are not the collective will of that multicellular community--a construct. If you were not, how then would it get its needs met.Is it an accident that when you eat the community gets fed?
0 Replies
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 10:07 am
@Nates Mind,
The self is what the self has incommon within itself, else it would not be itself. Hence an atom can feel pain and happiness, since what's incommon within the self is only the force between particles, and that an atom has.
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 10:24 am
Hi Refus!

I think we are saying pretty much the same thing here,the concept of self is a totlality,its extent unknown.What I was wondering with Nate is,does he believe that the mind is totally incased and between the ears.If so,I think he needs to reframe his research or fall short in perspective.
0 Replies
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 02:14 pm
@Nates Mind,
It feels like one should thank all your posts boagie. Yes he would have to do that.
Nates Mind
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 07:27 pm
Step 2

Now the life develops. It has a neural system or a neural-brain system without mind. What happen to the life then?

The neural system changes the form of needs expression. When life has no neural system, its needs are chemical or physical unbalances. When life has a neural system, it has another unbalance. I give it the name of neural unbalance. The needs of life change to another form.

Obviously, it makes the body more complicated for life to have a neural system or neural-brain system.

Is it valuable for life to have more complicated body? Whether can it help to increase surviving ability or possibility?

If life has a neural system, life has the possibility to develop its functional parts. We call them organs or functional systems. Such organs or functional systems cannot be imagined if life only has chemical or physical unbalance to express it needs and states, for life cannot effectively control its organs or functional systems to work well. Also, a neural system makes it possible to develop its own functional parts, such as eyes, pressure detectors, temperature detectors, etc. Such development widens the ability of detecting in the environment.

Now we compare a fly to a cell or a multi-cells. A fly has eyes and other detectors, while a cell has none of them. The eyes can help a fly to find food or dangerous objects from a longer distance than a cell can. The muscles and wings help a fly to reach the position of food or escape from the dangerous objects quickly, while a cell cannot.

The supremacy is obvious for life to have neural system or neural-brain system without mind.

In this case, the model should be,


Then, how to judge whether a life has its mind or not when it has a brain? What's the criterion of the existence of mind? I have no precise criteria. Approximately, if a life can be taught lessons, can raid its preys by hiding its presence, the life has mind. If a life is taught the same lessons repeatedly and has no signal to change its behaviors, the life has no mind. (Please wait for the Step 3.)
0 Replies
Nates Mind
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 07:38 pm
@Nates Mind,
I'm an atheist. My opinion is that we create the God to satisfy us, while not the God creates us(For what the God creates everything in the world?).
I have no any intention to offend anyone here.
Nates Mind
Reply Wed 24 Jan, 2007 03:17 am
@Nates Mind,
Step 3

The most basic mind

If a mind exists, what does a mind can do while a brain-nerve system cannot do?

I had ever watched flies colliding windows repeatedly. Something outside of the windows attracts them, they response to the stimulation. They fly under the control of brain-nerve system. But unfortunately, their brain-nerve system is too simple to know that windows are obstacles for them to reach the object outside of the windows. They actually cannot know anything. They purely response to their needs and those stimulating them, via their born behaviors. Therefore, they have no ability to adjust their behaviors or to go out of the windows in another way (for example, to fly through the opened door). So, we can suppose a fly cannot know anything, it's only a reflex system with its born behaviors; such perception can match more facts.

Then I suppose the most basic mind, which can help a life to do what a fly cannot do.

The life should be able to record what happens to it.

The life should be able to record what it is doing. The life can record the result, whether it's successful or failed.

The life should be able to record how it is doing.

The life should have a standard to measure or value its behaviors.

The life can make choices.

The life should be able to judge whether its behavior is successful to meet its needs.

The choice, i.e. one of the attitudes, can affect its behaviors. Its behaviors can be started, stopped, changed or tried in another way by its attitudes.

I call such functional part mind.

Obviously, the lives, which have minds, are superior to those who have no minds. Even the most basic mind can be taught lessons, and can try complicated way to solve its problems.

It should not be a pure reflex system with its born behaviors. It can affect its behaviors to make it more possible to satisfy its needs.

Such mind at least should have three parts, the recorder, mediator, and behaviors. The mediator does the matching job. Basing on the set of behaviors and the set of recordings, the mediator finds the ways to meet the needs of life.


Such model of mind cannot illustrate the phenomena of human mind. It's too simple. A developed or advanced mind should illustrate more phenomena of mind. (Please wait for the Step 4.)
0 Replies
Nates Mind
Reply Wed 24 Jan, 2007 05:21 am
@Nates Mind,
Step 4

How a neural or brain-nerve system works?

1. There are born behaviors.

2. When the information or needs stimulate the neural or brain-nerve system, life reacts with its born behaviors.


How the most basic mind works?

1. When the life is newborn, it acts more like a life without mind.

2. When the life grows, it adds records and behaviors from its experiences or playing.

3. It can find some principles from the records, and adjust its behaviors, or create its behaviors.

4. The records give it chances to find some principles of objects; the developed behaviors give it more chance to choose proper behavior to meet its needs.

5. It can form "if conditions, then behaviors" in its mind. And it can adjust the "if, then" to meet its needs.

6. When it is stimulated by its needs or information, the mediator (under the pressure of its needs) can partly intervene the behaviors with the "if conditions, then behaviors"

0 Replies
Nates Mind
Reply Wed 24 Jan, 2007 11:28 pm
@Nates Mind,
Step 5

The most advanced mind

It should be true to suppose that environment and life itself have components, structure, phenomena, and principles. Otherwise, mind is valueless. The truth of the assumption makes it possible to use the principles of the objects to control the objects, to control the life and environment both sides to mediate the needs of life and the environment. For a normal life, it should have the possibility to meet its needs in environment.

The most advanced mind should have such functions,
it can know the phenomena,
and know the components, structure, and principles basing on the phenomena,,
and it can create and control its behaviors to take advantage of the knowledge.
It should be able to know parts of itself and control itself to be more powerful.

Apparently, if a mind can know all of the phenomena of all of the objects, know all about its body and brain-nerve system, and know all about itself, and can create or control all of its behaviors freely, and can control itself effectively, the mind is a super one. I have no chance to know the mind super than mine. So I limit my research range that it's only a normal human mind.

Then, how to construct the normal human mind and illustrate it to some degree? (Please wait for the Step 6.)
0 Replies
Nates Mind
Reply Sun 28 Jan, 2007 01:57 am
@Nates Mind,
Step 6

Constructing the relationship between the normal human mind and its environment

One of the phenomena:
I have experienced dreaming. When I was dreaming, as if the environment I was in and my actions in the environment were true. In my dream, I would walk on a road, see somebody I know or don't know, I have opinion on what I see, I would be astonished, I would looking for water to drink, or even I find I'm in a battle field.


If I know the dream is false, I would be not astonished in dreams or would not look for water to drink, i.e., at least, sometimes, I cannot know I'm dreaming when I dream.

What does it tell me about mind then?

I found an assumption could help me to perceive this phenomenon. The assumption is that we suppose there are not only brain-nerve system and mind, there should be brain-nerve system + an illusory world, the mind is only part of the illusory world. The mind only directly links to the illusory world, while not to brain. the relationship among brain-nerve system, mind, and illusory world should be:

Then we can illustrate that why we can walk on a road while we lie in bed dreaming. But we also can really see a real river when we are awake, and we cannot really perform as we act in dreams while we can have some of the behaviors if we are awake. It means that the illusory world does not always link to the brain-nerve system; there are interfaces between them. If they combine, the illusory world runs basing on the real instant information, and the person can move really. If they part, the illusory world would runs without basing on the real instant information, and the person can run in dreams without his/her legs really running. These two interfaces are like clutches. Then, the model of human mind should be adjusted to be:

I suppose that the information from brain-nerve system is stronger than the information saved in the direct mapping world, i.e., once the clutch IM combines, I cannot dream anymore. The same assumption to IMM. Then I feel reasonable to illustrate dreaming, waking up, and being awake.

If the information from the direct mapping world is stronger than that from the brain-nerve system, we can find that the person is a mental abnormal one, who would walk on road speaking or shouting as if he/she was talking to others. (To some degree, the stronger side is can be shifted by those experience with unbalanced strong feelings.)

The direct mapping of the real world is more like a recorder, it records any information from the brain-nerve system if approved by mind under the needs of life. But the mapping world has some creative ability too. Unlike the imaginary world, its creative ability is limited to illusion or dream.

Another characteristic of the mapping world is that it only records those information approved by mind under the needs of life. For example, when I look at a crowd and see somebody I love, the image of all of the persons in my vision is sent into my mapping world, but many of those persons are not been seen, for the information from them does not stimulate my needs or desire in my mind. The mapping world only records needs-related information.

For us, the mapping world is the "real world". Once it is active, we have no ability to distinct whether the information from it true or false. It is the cause why we could have some kind of mental disorder. Without it, some of the mental disorder would disappear.

Certainly, not only can I receive information from the outside of my illusory world, but also I can imagine something in my mind. But we can know it's only our imagination. It means that there should be another world give us the imaginary service for us. I call it the copy of the DMORW or creative world. All of our constructing of models or theories, engineering designs, fashion designs, music, novel, or any other imaginary things are created here. Another phenomenon is that, when we operate some machine intensively, we cannot imagine well or cannot imagine at all. Thus, it is proper to suppose there's interface between the mapping world and the creative world. I call it IC. I also can imagine and design behaviors. For the same reason as the IC, it is proper to suppose a interface between the creative controlled behaviors and the mapping of the real controlled behaviors. Then, the model of mind should be adjusted to be

We cannot know any needs of body if we have no ability to gain any feeling or sense. There should be a part of mind to be the mapping of the needs of body. I call it FB.

There are feelings when driving forces colliding in the mind. Unlike the FB, some of the feelings created in mind can be erased without any consequence, and other feelings can be solved in the different ways from those FB solved in. These problems of feelings are some of the main mental problems. But how to solve those problems, how to have a proper opinion on them, how to treat them, and how to wish the solved results, this model can be a guide to restrict the solutions in a facts-basing way, though this model is only the one knocking at the door of mind.

According to the model, obviously, it more meets the facts to suppose that the God is created by us to satisfy us, while not the so-called God creates everything in the world.
If we drive car skillfully, we response to the environment before we know the response. And we can get trained to be skillful. Thus, the model should be adjusted to be

I consider 5 sorts of responses from life to the environment.

1. Reflex. Mind doesn't have to involve in the process.

2. Skillful response. Mind knows the response after the response.

3. The response is being trained. How to response is always done, while the response is not so skillful. Mind should intervene the process of response.

4. Response hasn't been formed. Mind is thinking how to solve the problem and how to form the effective response. Maybe trying.

5. Mind does not know how to solve the problem, like that a lost child doesn't know how to survive by his/herself.

The structure and the process is,


Some conclusions from the model,

1. We cannot know everything true or false if no tests, including our thoughts.

2. Truth is created in mind, but it can only come from the objects themselves.

3. The most scientific method is applying test repeatedly.

4. Mind gives us more power to survive, while it gives us more misguides too. We have to distinct what's true, what's false, what's from real world, what's purely created in our mind.

5. Information and needs from outside of mind is more powerful than those created in mind. And a normal mind should be such a mind, or, the mind is abnormal.

6. We should take more responsibility of our body lives, even it is necessary for us to pursue mental pleasure or mentally easy.


I can know some characteristics of consciousness, but I cannot construct the consciousness. It's another topic to discuss consciousness, feelings, mental disorders, mind rebuilding, the limitation on mind power, morality, proper personality, normal values, normal attitudes, behaviors, manners, happy life, integrity, dignity, society, supremacy, etc. (the end)
0 Replies

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
  1. Forums
  2. » An attempt to construct the functional model of mind
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/08/2021 at 07:37:01