New Technology Opening Old Doors To Theories of the Mind

Lola

I'm waiting, ready and willing......................I'm fairly certain that was not Ethel speaking just then)))))).

JLNobody,
I hope you're not leaving us. If you are, I hope it's not because you're annoyed. If you're no longer interested, then it's been fun.

I want to try one more time to tell you that I agree with you about us being our experiences, all of them. We are our feelings and thoughts. Thoughts are always a part of feelings. You can't have a feeling without a thought, because with no thought, there is nothing to have a feeling about. You can have sensations without thoughts, but a feeling is a sensation about an idea (thought). So I agree, we are our experiences.

And I also agree that the experience of self is an experience, as other experiences are. But I don't think I agree with you that it's just another experience. It is special in significant ways. It's a highly complex experience which serves a special function.

Perception,

Yes, that was Ethel speaking. That's the way she is because Ethel and Lola are/have been me. I know you know this. It's just that Ethel was a bit more inhibited than Lola has been lately.

Well put JLNobody. We are our experiences, not the experiencer.



Lola

"I am my feelings"......I agree.

I am my feelings, feelings are in the body, the body and the feelings are in the mind as the entire manifestation is,( although "in" is probably not the best word), and the mind which cannot be distinguished from its contents is observed by the awareness. But apart from the awareness there are no experiences, nothing ever happens.

What I see as the main differences is that you think the "feelings" constitute a "real" self. Is that correct?

And, what about awareness ?




perception wrote:



I agree with what you said until you got to the navel.

Why would one form of inquirer be navel gazing and another not?

It simply is not the case.

Lola

That's exactly what I meant----Ethel was always a bit more inhibited than Lola.

Twyvel

Could it be that you are attempting to give ethereal qualities to a state of mind that I consider extremely valuable for anyone who desires to examine their own thoughts---this word is introspection. It is simply an attempt to examine the self for what ever reason. I think that during this process one can actually imagine being detached from the body and looking down on that somebody you consider your self. Is this the situation you were attempting to describe?

If this is the case I can assure you it is quite a normal process for any thinking person and we all are. Introspection in my opinion is the process of examining such thought concepts as motives when making a complex decision, desires that we don't sometimes understand, defense mechanisms that we suspect have been activated, etc. Think of the brain as a complete "THINKING SYSTEM" and every facet of this marvelous system is completely contained in the neurons of the brain. The simple process of just sitting here thinking and typing my thoughts on this subject, making typos,hitting the backspace bar and perhaps thinking to myself how humorous this all sounds requires millions and millions of synapse firings in the brain and of course there is awareness of the peripheral vision and perhaps some outside sounds adding to the activity of the brain. Is it any wonder that we must sleep to cut out the sensory organ contribution to the brain so that it can catch up- the billions of bits of information fed to the brain through the sensory organs would fill a 2000 GB hard drive in about 30 minutes. Then when you add the formation of concepts, feelings of guilt, feelings of remorse, feelings of happiness etc. all taking place simultaneously----whewwwww.

BTW--the word " awareness" that you brought up, is just part of the definition of "consciousness if there is such a thing. Well here we are back to square "one".

Sorry if I have been a pain in the neck but philosophical "mumbo jumbo" makes my head hurt.

I hope you good people will continue to participate in the discussion because it is truly gratifying to hear Lola as she speaks of her profession---psychoanalysis.

mind
Pseudo-scientific "mumbo jumbo" makes my head hurt--especially when it is expressed with such condecension. I congratulate Twyvel on his patience, but mine has run out.

Terrific thread here which I just stumbled on and wanted to ask Lola -- and anyone else who's interested -- whether you have seen Damasio's book Looking For Spinoza. It was so interestingly reviewed (NYT I guess) that I added it to my Amazon wish list but of course haven't read it. My reading in the area of discussion here has been fairly extensive but scattershot and largely subjective.

I'm particularly interested in the interplay of experience, imagination and memory. They have connections to my work as an artist but also as someone who has explored both TM and deep hypnosis. We are indeed our experiences, but we also choose/reject/suppress experiences. Ah, some say, but the suppressed or repressed experience is no less part of the self. I believe that less than I used to! Hypnosis and TM (and other disciplines) can reveal the rejections in interesting ways, but they also reveal ways in which we can manipulate experience (and imagination and memory). All of this makes sense to me or I wouldn't hazard typing it in here, but I won't take the slightest offense if someone responds with a HUH??!

Wanted to throw a mention of this book in but couldn't remember the author's last name... The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes

Tartarin

It appears you have read some or most of the thread---I am certainly interested in your collection of thoughts regarding the subject of the thread. Perhaps we can find some common ground away from the emotion of the political forum.

out tonight, back tomorrow............

JL

After going back and reading my post to Twyvel---you've misunderstood my honest intentions which were not in the slightest meant to be condecending. In all my posting here I have admitted to being a reductionist ----because it is my firm belief that one must attempt to understand the very basics of any complex system before moving on to other levels. The brain is a living breathing biological organism---not something mystical---and as such will someday be understood ----at least to a much greater extent than it is now. Now if in that process it pops a lot of philosophical balloons then so be it---it may however go the other way---whatever the outcome it will be interesting and challenging. What Lola and I are trying to examine here is just a tiny fraction of the enormous complexity of the human brain. What I always try to guard against is to stay clear of any philosophical quagmire that inevitably develops to distort and cloud the issues---as we have all just witnessed. I remain firmly convinced that if we are to make any real progress in understanding the complexities of the brain, it will be through an honest and sincere collaboration and sharing of the data collected from cognitive psychology, neuroscience and philosophy.

You were contributing substantually to the thread----don't just pick up your marbles and go home.

Tartarin

You mentioned hynosis----I have only witnessed a truly hynotised person one time and a long time ago but the possibilities opened up in my mind have remained. I have questioned Lola about it as a tool for psychoanalysis and she does not use it primarily because a fairly large perentage of people can not be hynotized. If you know anything about it, I would certainly be a good listener. If not here perhaps on another thread.

Welcome Tartarin,

I don't use hypnosis because it by-passes the defenses. In psychoanalysis, the goal is to understand the way your "mind" works. One very important aspect of the mind is the methods we use to defend against self knowledge. And if defenses are bypassed, no learning about them takes place. Psychoanalysis takes place, not because someone wants or needs to be found out by the analyst. It takes place at the request of the patient and in cooperation with her/him. It is not a task accomplished by the analyst alone. Hypnosis is an excellent technique for altering symptoms. It works in many ways as medications do. But it doesn't really facilitate self knowledge. Freud's first method was hypnosis. He was trying to work with hysterical patients. Many people in his day had somatic symptoms like feeling paralyzed, or parts of their bodies feeling paralyzed. We see much less of this symptom now, but in the early 1900s it was very common. Freud first set out to find a cure by the use of hypnosis. He quickly abandoned the technique however because for those who could not be hypnotized, the technique obviously didn't work. But also, in his work with one of his first patients, known as Anna O, the patient began to just talk to Freud, just saying whatever came to her mind. She called it the "talking cure" and it was the beginning of the technique we now call psychoanalysis. Freud learned through this experience that hypnosis wasn't necessary. Later, as psychoanalytic investigation has developed, we've discovered more about defenses (Anna Freud) and how important their functions are for the functioning of the psyche.

I want to say just a word about the term the "mind." I may have already said this, but if I have it bears repeating. The mind is a term we use as short hand to mean our experience of our brain function. It's a figure of speech, obviously there is no "place" that is the mind or the self.

twyvel,

I agree with you. And about awareness, perception is right. Awareness is a word I use with the concept of consciousness. I have more to say about this, but I have to do something else right now. I'll be back with more soon.

perception

I agree with JLNobody (and I can certainly understand his frustration), your attitude is condescending and even Lola would be able see it. Now you see the above sentence is condescending to Lola. But my intention was not to be so, (I think Lola can see it), but rather to point out what you apparently cannot see, but which almost anyone can, your demeaning attitude,




I am using the words "awareness"' and "consciousness" synonymously as nouns, as in, Consciousness is the subject, is the entity. It is not an attribute. It is precisely the other way around, probably the opposite of your understanding, but certainly in line with eastern philosophies.

We call it "consciousness" but what is it? Consciousness is just a word and as you say it might not even exist. And it's not even an it, or a thing so we cannot put is on a table or in a petri dish and examine it. It's ungraspable yet it is right here looking at this screen.

And I suspect at this point I am starting to lose you. But I think it is important to keep the above in mind while we are studying the complexities and apparent affects of the brain. That is, what we are using to examine the brain with (consciousness) is not what we are examining.


Now instead of confusing the issue by going off "mombo jumboing", which frankly I think is a cop out, why don't you make an honest effort to focus on what you are aware of in terms of the contents of your brain, just for one minute. We all know we are not aware of our brain functions, but only the end results blossoming in thoughts and mental images. But it is also blatantly clear that we are not aware of percepts, i.e. this monitor/screen as a visual image, the sights and sounds outside, sensations of the body etc., to be located and occurring in the brain. They're simply not there. They are not known to be in the brain. Yet they have to be an aspect of your mind (in your mind) in order for you to be aware of them.

I know the idea that a thought can exist outside your brain puts a serious dent in your belief but at least try to muster up whatever it takes to consider it, based on your own observations.

From a materialist perception the eyes are essentially light or photon detectors. So lets say you are looking at an object. The photons enter the eyes and an image is formed on the retina and a signal travels through the optic nerve up to the occipital lobe in the brain and voila the object appears, and we know the object. Apart from the question of how the signal becomes a thought, the photon, image and signal travelled in one direction; >>into your eyes,>> into your brain, so the image of the object has to be in your brain. It is a mental image or contruct. But it is not observed to be in your brain. We are aware of it as occurring "out there" As a matter of fact the observed object can potentially be anywhere and everywhere EXCEPT in the brain.

The same with sound of a barking dog or any other percept, they are not observed to be located in the brain but rather "out there".

I am not saying the brain isn't involved in creating what we perceive.

But I am raising the question.... if all that we are aware of is mental, and has to occur >>in the brain<< how is it that all of the so called objects of perception are observed to occur outside the brain?

And how is it that we cannot answer this apparently simple questions of perception?

If you believe that the material world exists these questions among others, are a serious challenge to your belief.

We are ignorant about how we acquirer knowledge

And this barely begins to address the awareness that observes it all, and that cannot itself be observed.

And I guess we have a different understanding of what is fundamental

Twyvel

I'm truly sorry I have caused such an emotional display and I therefore assure you I will give great care and consideration to my next reply to you regarding this subject. For the moment I must study your post more thoroughly so that I may more accurately determine whether it's my lack of understanding of your theory or my lack of ability to communicate my answer to you.

twyvel: building from your "From a materialist perception the eyes are essentially light or photon detectors. So lets say you are looking at an object. The photons enter the eyes and an image is formed on the retina and a signal travels through the optic nerve up to the occipital lobe in the brain and voila the object appears, and we know the object. Apart from the question of how the signal becomes a thought, the photon, image and signal travelled in one direction; >>into your eyes,>> into your brain, so the image of the object has to be in your brain.
let me toss this in, simple optics tells us the physical image is inverted, but something (mind-consciousness) interprets that image into a more utile vision. this is a learned phenoma and can be unlearned as well and exists independently from "brain".

Being phenominally lazy, I haven't taken the time to read all posts here, so I hope I do not produce repetitive ideas;

The discussion re: conciousness is interesting, but, not productive. I think the answer is too simple for the scientific disciplines to consider.

My take on the "mind" aspect of psycho/neural function is simply it "is"; there is nothing amazing about consciousness, it is merely necessary for the animal to function, and as such is a chance mutation that has been fully retained as providing value far beyond simple survival.
I think consciousness as an aspect of brain function probably occurred very early (as a mutation in the neural system), for without it the higher animals could not handle their environment in a the very sophisticated manner that they do.
I realize that I am ignoring the fascinating (but largely unknown) details of how consciousness functions, but that is rather unimportant to a discussion of brain function in general, we can simply observe its existence.

Following on to the discussion of psycho/neural function, my observations dictate to me that one must examine the early hominids, to understand the current function of humans; unfortunately we still function on the basis of the needs of the savage (e.g. G.W.B.) and the overlay of civilization is so far ineffective in controlling the mindless urges of the distant past.

Twyvel

After studying your post I am reluctant to respond for fear of portraying a "demeaning attitude" again but I feel compelled to attempt yet again to communicate.

You make such statements as: "Consciousness is the subject-is the entity" Yes---you are correct ---how could I think other wise?
Let me give my short definition of consciousness. "It is the Awareness of objects and activities within our range of stimuli reception i.e., visual, audio, smell, touch, taste. Awareness is the key here and as you say is roughly synonomous with consciousness.

Then you make the statement: "We are simply not aware of percepts, i.e., this monitor/screen as a visual image, sights and sounds outside, sensations of the body, to be located and occurring in the brain. They are not there. They are not known to be in the brain." I must ask you a question because this statement is somewhat confusing to me. Can you prove that the image is not in the brain or are you saying something else. More later.

Twyvel

You asked the basic question---"How is it that all the so called objects of perception are observed to occur outside the brain"


Apparently you just do not believe that the "Brain" is the entity that forms the mental image after receiving all the stimuli through the sensory organs. The "Brain" stores these mental images in the form of memory and through the "Process" of thinking forms concepts which in turn are stored in the memory for constant comparison with fresh information.

Unless someone can prove other wise to me-----the "IMAGE" is in the brain and not outside the brain as you seem to believe.

perception wrote:

You make such statements as: "Consciousness is the subject-is the entity" Yes---you are correct ---how could I think other wise?

Well many/most people think/believe they are their body and thoughts. They identify with the body/thoughts and believe that awareness and thought are some kind of gas given off by matter, i.e. the brain.


To clarify I am making a distinction between the idea that the subject is the thoughts and body, as opposed to being the awareness of them. Once that distinction is made, consciousness, because it is not a percept cannot be said to exist as such, you cannot be aware of awareness, it isn't anywhere or anything its object is not. Consciousness is one with whatever arises. As you have stated it doesn't exist. ( or might not exist) In a similar way sensations don't exist, i.e. we can't sense sensing; smell smell, or hear hearing.




I am not talking about memory.

I am talking about, in the immediacy of this moment, right here right now, this monitor/screen is not given to you twice. It doesn't occur <out there> and >in here< in the act of perceiving.

The awareness of this phenomena monitor/screen is observed to be located in ONE PLACE, "<out there>". We have vague or duller memories of it afterwards and even while perceiving it. But there is only one actual percept, that is this monitor.

You cannot prove you exist let alone prove this point. I can only speak for myself and extrapolate from those experiences as we all do. And of course many others have pointed this out in various ways; mystics, sages, philosophers, psychologists, etc. throughout human history over the past few thousand years at least.

With an opened mind, and paying close attention to what I am aware of and where it appears to be located that there is only one monitor that I perceive is blatantly clear.

If the percept was observed to be located only in the brain it would be the same thing as if it were located only <out there>.

I am not saying the brain doesn't form the image, ( that's another issue) I am saying the image/percept occurs <out there>.

If the brain forms the image or percept and the percept is observed to be located <out there> how does it get <out there> ?




There is no <out there> or >in here<.