Mind is more than the brain?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Mind
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Hi everyone,

I came across this article by Rupert Sheldrake:

Rupert Sheldrake Online

In this paper, Sheldrake suggests two interesting concepts:

1) The brain can be considered analogous to a TV set that is receiving information. I would extend this to also being a transmitter.

2) The mind uses the brain to tap into a universal set of information and memories, similar to the Jung concept of collective unconscious.

This is a very interesting article, and I particularly like the analogy which I quote here. Any comments are welcome.

Rich

Quote:

THE ALLEGORY OF THE TELEVISION SET
The differences and connections between these two forms of heredity become easier to understand if we consider an analogy to television. Think of the pictures on the screen as the form that we are interested in. If you didn't know how the form arose, the most obvious explanation would be that there were little people inside the set whose shadows you were seeing on the screen. Children sometimes think in this manner. If you take the back off the set, however, and look inside, you find that there are no little people. Then you might get more subtle and speculate that the little people are microscopic and are actually inside the wires of the TV set. But if you look at the wires through a microscope, you can't find any little people there either.

You might get still more subtle and propose that the little people on the screen actually arise through "complex interactions among the parts of the set which are not yet fully understood." You might think this theory was proved if you chopped out a few transistors from the set. The people would disappear. If you put the transistors back, they would reappear. This might provide convincing evidence that they arose from within the set entirely on the basis of internal interaction.

Suppose that someone suggested that the pictures of little people come from outside the set, and the set picks up the pictures as a result of invisible vibrations to which the set is attuned. This would probably sound like a very occult and mystical explanation. You might deny that anything is coming into the set. You could even "prove it" by weighing the set switched off and switched on; it would weigh the same. Therefore, you could conclude that nothing is coming into the set.

I think that is the position of modern biology, trying to explain everything in terms of what happens inside. The more explanations for form are looked for inside, the more elusive the explanations prove to be, and the more they are ascribed to ever more subtle and complex interactions, which always elude investigation. As I am suggesting, the forms and patterns of behavior are actually being tuned into by invisible connections arising outside the organism.

....

In considering the morphic resonance theory of memory, we might ask: if we tune into our own memories, then why don't we tune into other people's as well? I think we do, and the whole basis of the approach I am suggesting is that there is a collective memory to which we are all tuned which forms a background against which our own experience develops and against which our own individual memories develop. This concept is very similar to the notion of the collective unconscious.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,978 • Replies: 83

No top replies

@richrf,

The concept of hyperdualism has been around for a while and there are many reasons why I, and others, reject it as a valid solution. I apologize for not being more specific but the explanations are rather time consuming. However, I will be making a new thread about it soon enough, so dont fret. Smile

2 Replies

@richrf,

Hello Rich,

Great stuff! If I might expound of this analogy a little. Think of the mind as a "univeral dynamo" in that there is the lower mind (memory) and the higher mind (signal) and their interaction. I first began toying with this idea from watching a movie call the "Magnificent Obsession" inspired from the book by Lloyd Douglas, and it referred to being plugged in to this "dyanamo" (god). I got to thinking how, IMO so very many people were running around with "their plugs hanging out" looking for a socket to plug into. Ha! Or plugged into the 'wrong' socket and getting a "bad signal". Or plugging into the right socket and because of the "resistors" in place impeded or distorted the signal as in many religious interpretations. Those resistors represented "fear" and because of that, noise or static ensued creating distortion. If there was just a way to jerk those 'resistors' out, it would strengthen the signal allowing the mind (god) and the memory (man) to connect.

Then I began to look for the root of fear and found this monstrous tree and realize how so complex the tree is in that there were so many fears to deal with. The reason this has had such an effect on me is because I have tinitus, really bad, or really good; it depends on how you let it affect you. My ears are constantly ringing and it doesn't bother me, not in the least.

Another gentleman I worked with at the time also had tinitus and it literally drove him crazy as I think it does many people. I have often wondered why I am an exception. I tired to tell this guy to just not think about it. Easier said than done, he couldn't and this is, I think, what disturbed him so. In all my research it is perceived this is an "ailment" that has yet to be "cured", or so it seems. I have often wondered if that has anything to do with the "signal strength" as it is not a bad thing but a very good one????????:perplexed:

Anyway, I thought I might toss this out there and see what you think? Perhaps Paul might know a little about where it comes from or thought to come from?

William

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;76870 wrote:

The concept of hyperdualism has been around for a while and there are many reasons why I, and others, reject it as a valid solution. I apologize for not being more specific but the explanations are rather time consuming. However, I will be making a new thread about it soon enough, so dont fret.

I thought his analogy was great. I like it when many separate ideas come together as a cohesive whole. I will be interested in your thread when you begin it.

Rich

---------- Post added 07-12-2009 at 07:19 PM ----------

William;76872 wrote:

Hello Rich,

Great stuff! If I might expound of this analogy a little.

Yes, I too loved the analogy. I always use to use the analogy that the brain/spin was a moving receiver/transceiver for the human being, that was exploring, learning and creating.

Quote:

Think of the mind as a "univeral dynamo" in that there is the lower mind (memory) and the higher mind (signal) and their interaction.

I think I would call the lower mind the soul. The soul carries memories of its past, via inherited skills and instincts.

Quote:

If there was just a way to jerk those 'resistors' out, it would strengthen the signal allowing the mind (god) and the memory (man) to connect.

Interesting thought.

Quote:

My ears are constantly ringing and it doesn't bother me, not in the least.

A testament to the adaptability of your mind.

Quote:

In all my research it is perceived this is an "ailment" that has yet to be "cured", or so it seems. I have often wondered if that has anything to do with the "signal strength" as it is not a bad thing but a very good one????????:perplexed:

I agree. These kinds of problems need to be treated in creative ways. I always look for analogies in life when treating my own mind/body.

Quote:

Anyway, I thought I might toss this out there and see what you think? Perhaps Paul might know a little about where it comes from or thought to come from?

William

Thanks for sharing. I am always interested in new creative thoughts. It helps me learn how to look at things differently and move forward with my own creative explorations and evolution.

Rich

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;76839 wrote:

In considering the morphic resonance theory of memory, we might ask: if we tune into our own memories, then why don't we tune into other people's as well? I think we do, and the whole basis of the approach I am suggesting is that there is a collective memory to which we are all tuned which forms a background against which our own experience develops and against which our own individual memories develop. This concept is very similar to the notion of the collective unconscious.

I think this occurred to me as a logical possibility when I was about 17, and I can remember quite clearly that it stemmed from an incredulity, at that time, of the apparently huge memory capacity of the human brain. (I mean, it's pretty crazy that I can even remember some parts of that day, seeing as it was many years ago now!).

But, like Kielecious, I just can't accept it, however my reason is very simple... there is no evidence. Not one bit, I'm afraid, to suggest that the brain "receives" or "produces" any signals that are formative of memory or consciousness. Humans can be locked under miles of rock deep beneath the surface, or put in massively strong magnetic fields in MRI scanners, but there is no effect on the mind (at least not as a result of detectable physical phenomena).

Interestingly, however, it is a common symptom of schizophrenics to believe in "thought broadcasting" or "thought receiving", which, to me, suggests not that it actually happens, but that it is a general condition of the human mind to explain why we "hear voices" from time to time. Most religious systems also explain this in terms of "God" or "angels".

1 Reply

@Hermes,

Hermes;76906 wrote:

I think this occurred to me as a logical possibility when I was about 17, and I can remember quite clearly that it stemmed from an incredulity, at that time, of the apparently huge memory capacity of the human brain. (I mean, it's pretty crazy that I can even remember some parts of that day, seeing as it was many years ago now!).

I think that tapping into the collective unconscious, as Jung calls it, is something we all do all the time, but we call it instincts. I think that we do evolve over multiple lives, but we just call it inherited characteristics.

What I love about the analogy, is it shows how as we become more aware of our surroundings, and start putting the pieces of the puzzle together (and it is a puzzle), then more and more we see the big picture as opposed to the small one.

Many people may intuit it, as you did. And then, it is suppressed in order to get along with the norm of a culture (different cultures have different norms). In the U.S., science seems to rule, because technology makes money. But all science has to offer is new words (e.g. genes, inherited, inate, instincts) to replace words like God. Not too many new ideas come out of the applied side of science, though some great ideas come out from the theoretical. It is just that the theoretical move at their own pace. Which is fine.

BTW, schizophrenics may just be highly tuned into the greater picture, and for this reason are unable to function in norm society. Nothing wrong with them, other than they are more evolved! :bigsmile:

Thanks for your comments.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

An observation. Ever been in a crowd and tried to estabish eye contact with people? Not easy to do. Yes it does occur but for some reason, people would rather not. Is this my imagination or what? When you do, it seems there is a mystifying communication established. Hmmm? I have no idea of why I just typed this. It just seemed appropriate somehow. Ha!

William

1 Reply

@William,

William;76918 wrote:

An observation. Ever been in a crowd and tried to estabish eye contact with people? Not easy to do. Yes it does occur but for some reason, people would rather not. Is this my imagination or what? When you do, it seems there is a mystifying communication established. Hmmm? I have no idea of why I just typed this. It just seemed appropriate somehow. Ha!

William

Yes. I think a clue lies in the saying: The eyes are a window into the soul.

Most of the time, eye contact is avoided. But sometimes, it is dead on target. It is interesting to observe what happens when one soul looks at another. Smile

:detective:

Rich

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;76912 wrote:

BTW, schizophrenics may just be highly tuned into the greater picture, and for this reason are unable to function in norm society. Nothing wrong with them, other than they are more evolved! :bigsmile:

Do you really know what on earth you are doing here with such a statement?!! I very seriously doubt you have any idea at all on what's wrong with SZ brain, and the seriousness of such, the consequences on society, family, and individual SZ patients.

Please do be more careful with such blantant ignorance, richrf.

2 Replies

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;76938 wrote:

Do you really know what on earth you are doing here with such a statement?!! I very seriously doubt you have any idea at all on what's wrong with SZ brain, and the seriousness of such, the consequences on society, family, and individual SZ patients.

Please do be more careful with such blantant ignorance, richrf.

Hey there KJ,

I understand your sentiments, and you are right to highlight the personal, familial and social problems that paranoid schizophrenia can cause, but in richrf's defence I'm sure he didn't mean to make light of the illness.

In fact, he would be in common agreement with many cultures throughout history that have interpreted schizophrenia as a "gift" or a "talent" ... and even more recent scientific thought that ascribes the "high" incidence of schizophrenia amongst humans to the selective pressure put on brains to produce smarter and more powerful minds (though according to what the incidence of schiz. is judged "high" I do not know, this is only something I remember reading in passing).

2 Replies

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;76938 wrote:

Do you really know what on earth you are doing here with such a statement?!! I very seriously doubt you have any idea at all on what's wrong with SZ brain, and the seriousness of such, the consequences on society, family, and individual SZ patients.

Please do be more careful with such blantant ignorance, richrf.

No one knows what is schizophrenia (at least I am respectful enough to spell out the word).

Hoopla, and Disappointment, in Schizophrenia Research - TierneyLab Blog - NYTimes.com

I knew a person, whose father was hospitalized, and who as borderline himself, who successfully kept himself out of hospitalization for several years (I have lost track of him) using deep, Chinese massage. He was very courageous.

Massage therapy research

Rich

---------- Post added 07-13-2009 at 09:24 AM ----------

Hermes;76972 wrote:

Hey there KJ,I'm sure he didn't mean to make light of the illness.

Of course, I wasn't. I have worked with and know people who have these problems in their lives. I consider them very courageous and am very respectful of their existences, as they work things out as best they can, given their circumstances. Everyone is having their life.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;76981 wrote:

No one knows what is schizophrenia (at least I am respectful enough to spell out the word).

LOL !! Good point there; and well taken--that is about my not taking the trouble to actually spell out the word. It is true, on the other hand, that in all papers, and many books, that deal specifically with this somewhat largely genetic disease, once the term schizophrenia is spelled out, it is immediately shown to be 'here after SZ,' and once the background information is given, it will almost always be SZ. That's just the style, and I personally don't pin any value judgements on it.

The part before the first parenthesis, however, needs to be quantified to degree. Schizophrenia is fairly well understood, but of course not enough to make it something of history accounts only. Also, if you did read that article most carefully, you'll note that the writer is especially complaining about some statements making it seem simplier than what it might be. The idea that the article presented is not new . . . I've come across it a number of times (and the community is largely aware of it, even though some do get carried away with press conferences....most sadly).

Hermes, thanks for your efforts there. Schizophrenia, however, is somewhat largely due to genetical error which results in neural misplacement of (especially ) pyramidal neurons in cortical layer III (I'll check that tomorrow) which in turn leads to signaling confusion. And we can rest assured that science does not see it as an evolutionary pressure to build more intelligent or 'powerful' brains.

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;76993 wrote:

Schizophrenia, however, is somewhat largely due to genetical error which results in neural misplacement of (especially ) pyramidal neurons in cortical layer III (I'll check that tomorrow) which in turn leads to signaling confusion. And we can rest assured that science does not see it as an evolutionary pressure to build more intelligent or 'powerful' brains.

As with any problem a human may encounter in life it is a combination of predisposition and what happens in one's life:

Schizophrenia Cause and Prevention

In fact experts now say that schizophrenia (and all other mental illness) is caused by a combination of biological, psychological and social factors, and this understanding of mental illness is called the bio-psycho-social model.

Schizophrenia Research Forum: Current Hypotheses

Second, however, it highlights the importance of viewing schizophrenia as a generalized brain disorder with involvement of sensory as well as higher order brain regions.

Rich

0 Replies

@richrf,

Yes, that is the case with many things, in various degrees, but not all things. No amount of life (and notice I said 'life') experience is gonna change my skin pigmentation, my DNA, or my blood type. In that very same way, we have to carefully watch the foundational cause of genetic mishap more closely... (do you still disagree that you are a 50/50 genetic material build from your parents?...just out of curiosity. )

In the event, however, that you may be inclined to argue that schizophrenia can be corrected, it should be kept in mind that at the moment we cannot correct genetic error so much at all. Also, as with just about everything, we have low functioning and high functioning cases, so not all is lost. The low functioning cases are truly tragic.

(ps...did you understand the detail of the over all summary on that forum page? . . . again, just out of curiosity...not as a way of challenge, at all) Oops...bed time.

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;77016 wrote:

YIn the event, however, that you may be inclined to argue that schizophrenia can be corrected, it should be kept in mind that at the moment we cannot correct genetic error so much at all.

Another point of view:

Schizophrenia Not Caused by Genes, Scientist Says

"There is no connection between schizophrenia and the genes most commonly believed to cause the condition, according to a study conducted by 23 researchers from Australia, France and the United States, and published in the American Journal of Psychiatry."

"Research has never shown any link between genes and schizophrenia," said Mary Boyle, emeritus professor of clinical psychology from the University of East London. "There has been a vast amount of time and money spent. Yet nothing has come from it. If people want to continue this research, good luck to them. But my worry is that they are being given public funding."

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

Hello, Rich, Kj and hermes.
This hits home with me in that I have a daughter with Schizoeffective disorder which host a multitude of subjects such as "obsessive/compulsive, anti-social, schizphrenia and the medical/psychiatric community does not have a clue as to what causes it. They only know how to immobilize and, to a degree, manage it with a variety of medications which changes all the time. Most of the stress is involve with those who are in contact with these individuals. It is, to say the least, demoralizing.

Now from my "layman"s" point of view in that I only know what the doctor's effort to to explain to me which is very little, many of us have the capacity to cope with the chaos, some do not have that luxury and they "escape" into a world that is not chaotic. At least not to them at any rate. I respect Kj's effort to explain it scientifically, but I don't think science is even close to discovering the cause "physically" in that is entirely mental and we don't have a clue what that means; only affect those receptors. IMO with strong psychotropic medications.

I think those who suffer don't have near problems, mentally, we think they have; it's only when we compare our reality with their's we get into trouble and they have "escaped" that reality making communication virtually impossible.

Somewhere, somehow, they snapped at which time they were no longer a part of reality as we know it, and became it's "BURDEN". As far my daughter's concern, I am not trying to escape my part in that reality in that I had no idea how deal with such a perfect, naive and beautiful girl that she once was. Naive and innocent can't touch the extreme she represented not only to me and her mother, but everyone she encountered. She was literally a "free spirit" when she was barely able to walk content in her own mind as she read, drew, played and interacted with an amazement that quite took others by surprise in her literal joy of life. It truly was a sight to behold as everywhere she went she was the center of attention. And that is what, i think, part and parcel, had something to do with her "downfall". She was perfection in every respect efforting to live in an imperfect world, IMO; and the world literally ate her up in that, like me, could not adapt to it. I was able to find my own way, she wasn't and I did not see the similarities we had in common. I should have, she is my daughter.

I could go on and on; I only thought it necessary to bring this up so others who have "gifted" children might learn to treat them with "kid gloves", though I am unsure if that would have made a difference because you just can't isolate them from the world and it's imperfections. If I am at all correct in my assumptions, then I am afraid these so called "mental disorders" will escalate such as that which is just beginning in those who are "diagnosed" to be suffering from attention deficiencies as they effort to ignore this imperfect world seeking measures of their own in order to 'cope' with it.

As Rich said, perhaps they are being protected in their own minds and at the same time causing stress in ours to usher in a need to perfect those imperfections that plague this world. What goes around, comes around! For what it's "worth".

William

1 Reply

@William,

Hi William,

Thank you very much for sharing with me your story and your insights.

My dad suffered from memory loss and inability to differentiate (e.g. Alzheimer's) in his final years of life. It just happened out of nowhere. However, this study which links fat in the belly in middle years to the development in Alzheimer's (possibly due to the accumulation of toxins in the fat that eventually migrate to the brain) is interesting because it brings more focus on environmental and social factors that may induce abrupt changes in the mind/body that may have a predispostion:

FOXNews.com - Study: Belly Fat Increases Risk of Alzheimer's - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News

Wishing you the very best, and my thoughts are with you and your daughter,

Warm regards,
Rich

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;76870 wrote:

The concept of hyperdualism has been around for a while and there are many reasons why I, and others, reject it as a valid solution. I apologize for not being more specific but the explanations are rather time consuming. However, I will be making a new thread about it soon enough, so dont fret.

[SIZE="3"]There is absolutely no reason Sheldrake's model has to be dualistic, it is a false dilemma. For example, let's say we live in a universe that is 100% H2O, existing in its "natural" state as a vapor. The variable of temperature makes the vapor temporarily appear as liquid water and a solid ice. Now, all of us are made out of ice and water. The ice is the solid part of our brain, and water is our mental aspect; further, that condition makes us unable to perceive the vapor. Some theorists claim all derives from ice, others claim all derives from water. The ice side says if you say all is water, then it's dualism because how can two substances (ice and water) of different natures interact, so water must be a derivative of ice. A third theorist comes along and proposes there is something even more basic than water and ice, of which both are forms; i.e., all are of the exact same nature, it's just the conditions they are found in which make them appear to have different natures. Only if we can know the most basic "stuff" (the ground state of vapor) will we see the common nature of all forms.

This "most basic" stuff is the basis of neutral substance monism; it is the line along which Sheldrake (IMO) is thinking with his model. And the "false dilemma" I mentioned is the physicalist's claim that our only choice with such models is between physicalistic monism or dualism. [/SIZE]

1 Reply

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth;77092 wrote:

There is absolutely no reason Sheldrake's model has to be dualistic, it is a false dilemma. For example, let's say we live in a universe that is 100% H2O, existing in its "natural" state as a vapor. The variable of temperature makes the vapor temporarily appear as liquid water and a solid ice. Now, all of us are made out of ice and water. The ice is the solid part of our brain, and water is our mental aspect; further, that condition makes us unable to perceive the vapor. Some theorists claim all derives from ice, others claim all derives from water. The ice side says if you say all is water, then it's dualism because how can two substances (ice and water) of different natures interact, so water must be a derivative of ice. A third theorist comes along and proposes there is something even more basic than water and ice, of which both are forms; i.e., all are of the exact same nature, it's just the conditions they are found in which make them appear to have different natures. Only if we can know the most basic "stuff" (the ground state of vapor) will we see the common nature of all forms.

This "most basic" stuff is the basis of neutral substance monism; it is the line along which Sheldrake (IMO) is thinking with his model. And the "false dilemma" I mentioned is the physicalist's claim that our only choice with such models is between physicalistic monism or dualism.

Hi Les,

I very much agree. In my own view of life, I use the Chinese concept of Qi (Chi), which would be the most ethereal form of matter. Let's say equivalent to elementary particles such as quanta. Qi, can then condense into tighter and tighter forms (e=mc**2), in order to form various forms of matter.

Now, the question is, from where does Qi derive its forms and movement. Again, I would borrow from Chinese metaphysics. The Spirit (or Universal Consciousness) provides the makes Direction and Will power for movement, the actual creations being performed by individual Hun (Souls) in their Po (physical life).

Whether or not one embraces Chinese metaphysics, your analogy is certainly one that can provide much understanding of how the most ethereal (Thought and Energy) can condense into Matter.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;77097 wrote:

Hi Les,

I very much agree. In my own view of life, I use the Chinese concept of Qi (Chi), which would be the most ethereal form of matter. Let's say equivalent to elementary particles such as quanta. Qi, can then condense into tighter and tighter forms (e=mc**2), in order to form various forms of matter.

Now, the question is, from where does Qi derive its forms and movement. Again, I would borrow from Chinese metaphysics. The Spirit (or Universal Consciousness) provides the makes Direction and Will power for movement, the actual creations being performed by individual Hun (Souls) in their Po (physical life).

Whether or not one embraces Chinese metaphysics, your analogy is certainly one that can provide much understanding of how the most ethereal (Thought and Energy) can condense into Matter.

Rich

Without getting into the specifics of your interpretations, I wholeheartedly like (love!) the idea of bringing more Chinese philosophy into Western thought. It seems when we search outside the West it is India we primarily look to for something "different." But Chinese yin-yang philosophy is a treasure of insights on polarity, and how to deal with various types of polarities we find ourselves caught up in.

In case you've not seen this book, let me recommend it:

Amazon.com: A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy: Wing-Tsit Chan: Books

It isn't exactly an objective work (the author's biases clearly show at times), but as a collection of the best of Chinese philosophy, there is no other like it.

1 Reply

Mind is more than the brain?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know