A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.
You really have lightened the mood here! Thank you again!
(Only 50% sarcastic, the other 50% tongue in cheek, the other 50% is really funny!)
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15155
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.
Yes, The "I" would seem to be a moving feast. I like to think of everything as ordered perturbations in the fabric of reality. So, just as a carbon atom behaves like so, and water molecules will react in their own way, the self is also an entity that tends to do things in certain ways, despite the exponential differences in complexity.Tosen wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 9:26 pmThe confusion is all due to the law of causation that matter exhibits, it's deterministic. In this case, the causal-relations of neurological reactions in the brain, as backed up by neuroscience. Sam Harris saw the implications of this and concluded that this "ego" or the "I" is just an illusion. Because the brain can be reduced to "brain activity". Activity in the frontal cortex, temporal cortex, etc. This activity is not "sent" or to a specific, unitary part of the brain where the "self" resides. By this I mean that along all the intercommunication of neurons through the many locations of the brain, all of these chain reactions do not have a terminal point, all of the constant chain of events do not arrive at a common ending point, instead, they are just "constant". This excludes the possibility of materially locating the "I" in the brain, at least for now by the scientific method and it's technological advancements.
So, thoughts are determined by the complexity of causal-relations. This is what you said that thoughts are layered with controls, then the controls of the controls, ect. This is just the attempt of finding the underlying cause of all of those causes. But even how deterministic this is by this explanation, there still is a perceiver of thoughts. This almost places the "I" in a transcendental realm, as it cannot be empirically validated, as of yet. And rationally examining the phenomenology of mind ends up all being spooky. A serious philosophical problem indeed.
-
- Posts: 25
- Joined: March 25th, 2018, 12:06 pm
Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.
Well I guess I was wrong at using the world 'Law" as it denotes something absolute and irrefutable. Causation is mechanistic. It is a materialistic, deterministic way of looking at the world, and can be concluded by empirical experimentation. In neuroscience, brain phenomena can be reduced and even predicted to just a series of causes and effects that matter has in the brain. So it is a mechanistic position on matter, it just seems that way through observation, so I attributed the definition of "absoluteness" of causation by using the word "law". So sorry for the misconception.
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.
There is no, nor has there ever been any 'proof/evidence' of causation, logically or scientifically.Tosen wrote: ↑March 31st, 2018, 10:31 pmWell I guess I was wrong at using the world 'Law" as it denotes something absolute and irrefutable. Causation is mechanistic. It is a materialistic, deterministic way of looking at the world, and can be concluded by empirical experimentation. In neuroscience, brain phenomena can be reduced and even predicted to just a series of causes and effects that matter has in the brain. So it is a mechanistic position on matter, it just seems that way through observation, so I attributed the definition of "absoluteness" of causation by using the word "law". So sorry for the misconception.
There can be found 'correlation', but 'causation/creation' is not possible.
It is the impossibility of 'causation' coupled with 'law' that was so ironic. *__-
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.
Simply reasserting this when I've pointed out the problems with the claim isn't very persuasive.
Again, just reasserting your claim rather than addressing my counter-argument...The sense of self has evolved so much that Descartes could finally detect the self. And so can we. I am wondering why we want so desperately to get rid of ourselves. The sense of self is an experience, the self is not.
Ah sorry, if it's a term of art I'm afraid I'm not familiar with it - you're probably safe to assume that's usually the case .It has many meanings, but this is what I have learned on philosophy lessons 50 years ago.
Well you have a speculative hypothesis, which works on its own terms, but the problem is in finding grounds to make it more compelling than other speculative hypotheses, because as you say our usual methodologies for coming to agreement on theories isn't available.I have a theory, a metaphysical theory, which you can read in some of my posts. It cannot be a scientific theory because we do not seek empirical facts. The subject is not empirical.
See above.If it exists independently it will carry on when I'm dead, like it does while I'm asleep.It can carry on even if its being depends on the being of the subject. This is what seems to be so difficult to understand, and this is what I have tried to explain in my theory.
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.
I asked if you, or a link could walk me through your irrefutable argument, explaining it, That monist-based definition isn't an argumentNamelesss wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 2:49 pm"Consciousness is the ground of all being!" - Copenhagen interpretation of QM
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mind%20stuff
Definition of mind stuff
: the elemental material held to be the basis of reality and to consist internally of the constituent substance of mind and to appear externally in the form of matter — compare monism 1a
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.
I am afraid we cannot continue our discussion in a fruitful way at the moment. We simply see things in different ways. It is so difficult to reach another's horizon of thinking. I think I have given reasons why self-organizing of experiences cannot explain the being of the subject, and you have given your own arguments, which are rational but in my opinion miss something essential. Perhaps we should have a break and try again some other time, or with another topic.
As I have said elsewhere, philosophical "dialogues" are mostly monologues touching each other here and there. But agreement is not important as long as we have fun
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.
I gave you sufficient food for thought if you were hungry, and have teeth.Gertie wrote: ↑April 1st, 2018, 10:59 am NamelessI asked if you, or a link could walk me through your irrefutable argument, explaining it, That monist-based definition isn't an argumentNamelesss wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 2:49 pm
"Consciousness is the ground of all being!" - Copenhagen interpretation of QM
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mind%20stuff
Definition of mind stuff
: the elemental material held to be the basis of reality and to consist internally of the constituent substance of mind and to appear externally in the form of matter — compare monism 1a
If you cannot expand the offered foundation into your 'argument', then my going through it point by point would be a waste of time.
Unless you can refute the monist theory/experience/Knowledge, arrived at from various diverse paths (like QM as noted) (it is the convergence of all paths!), as yet irrefutable by evidence or logic, then, yes, it does put an end to the silly dualist insanity of a 'fracture' between the 'physical' and the 'mental/thought/Mind'.
Schizophrenia is the fragmentation of that which is One!
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.
Fair enough TamTamminen wrote: ↑April 1st, 2018, 4:31 pm Gertie:
I am afraid we cannot continue our discussion in a fruitful way at the moment. We simply see things in different ways. It is so difficult to reach another's horizon of thinking. I think I have given reasons why self-organizing of experiences cannot explain the being of the subject, and you have given your own arguments, which are rational but in my opinion miss something essential. Perhaps we should have a break and try again some other time, or with another topic.
As I have said elsewhere, philosophical "dialogues" are mostly monologues touching each other here and there. But agreement is not important as long as we have fun
And I do agree my arguments miss something, some more fundament explanation. I can create accounts which work up to a point, but then our usual methodologies hit a brick wall when it comes to the relationship between 'stuff' and experience, subject and object. And interactions of 'something' more fundamental could be part of it. The problem for me is how to establish which of many possible explanations is worth hanging my hat on, finding some criteria to test one against another.
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.
Actually I'd say it's a lot less speculative than many explanations, because it's grounded in the observations of neuroscience.This explanation is highly theoretical and resides in the speculative realm of neuroscience, the philosophical aspect of neuroscience.Right, the thinker ('I') is already assumed in the ''I think'' premise.
The way I see it, for Descartes to exclude all doubt, the initial premise would have to be - 'Experiential states (thoughts) exist'.
That a thinker is required for the thoughts to exist is an inference, which can be doubted. Perhaps partly a result of our natural/habitual grammar, which leads us to tend to conceptualise in a framework of Subject (I) --> Verb (Think) --> Object (Thought). That structure feels logical and works for us in our everyday lives of physical causation, but might not reflect the nature of experiential states.
I'd suggest a sense of self might simply be the result of how these experiential states manifest. If we look at brains they are highly complex interacting subsystems, no 'mini-me' homunculous or command and control centre has been discovered, where the Cartesian Theatre plays out and mini-me makes decisions and issues instructions to motor systems.
Which suggests that the sense of self might emerge from these subsystems as part of the process of creating usefully coherent narratives and models of the world from the otherwise cacophonous jumble of incoming perceptions, memories, sensations. The self as part of the experiencing, rather than the experiencer. No space between the two, the thinky reflective voice might just be the subsystem which creates the coherent contemporaneous narrative, including the sense of 'I'.
Yes I think that's a good, clear description, thanks. My only criticism is when he slides into conflating experiential states with the biology, such as here, assuming he means the experiential states of cognition and emotion. -I will add to the analysis, but I will first add a statement from the analysis of neuroscience.
"Consciousness is a product of neural states and recursive representations. Billions upon billions of molecular states in billions upon billions of neural cells interconnected by trillions of nodes of communication are presented in the brain as small isolated events and large inclusive events. Consciousness is the representation of large, inclusive events that become (or have the potential to become) memory that also exhibits temporal awareness." http://brainsource.com/?p=102#more-102.
This is an excellent read if you want to know the nature of the brain analyzed from an empirical, ultimately scientific standpoint. The article is from a neuropsychologist and university professor Dennis P. Swiercinsky, Ph.D.
''Behavioral, cognitive, and emotional responses also produce internally-generated stimuli that flow back into the brain.''
This sentence is also at odds with his claim that experiential states are epiphenomenal - how can eg emotional experiential states have a causal effect on brain states if they are epiphenomenal? So I think he gets a bit muddled when he steps outside the biology.
Well I'm not claiming to know the ins and outs of the specific neurobiology involved, and not one subsystem, but a process where-by all the inter-connected subsystems somehow create a coherent experiential ongoing model and narrative of the world and the self 'within' it. The 'thinky voice' is part of that process, I believe, that seems to be what it's for, what it does. Tho it must be a fairly late arrival necessitated by our species' growing neural complexity, and tailored to suit the discrete 'unified field' nature of consciousness, the specific first person pov located in a specific point moving through space and time, experiencing a body which correlates with having those experiences. And the neural correlates these umm... correlate to.Now, adding to your ideas by later applying Dennis's ones, you saying that the sense of self might emerge from one of these subsystems(accompanied by the "thinky" voice you say), for the purpose of creating a comprehensive narrative of the world that fits the current experiential state of the brain, is not wholly incorrect.
I'm suggesting all this adds up to a sense of a discrete, unified self, with the thinky voice narrator giving a running commentary, and answering specific questions when asked (internally as thought itself, and externally by someone else), which cohere with the overall model (rationalisations to follow if required). This is totally in line with Dennis's overall non-controversial point about the evolved tendency for utility-based self-organisation and cohesion. Dennis doesn't directly address the sense of self, but my claim is grounded in those neurobiological observations.
I'm trying to avoid terminology like 'ego' and 'mind', I think that framing itself implies a 'space'. I'm saying it's all just different ways that experiential states manifest, different 'flavours' of experience correlated to different neural processes. Seeing red is a different 'flavour' to seeing green, and a very different flavour to feeling pain, or hearing a song, or remembering hearing a song, or thinking thoughts. Thinking about an apple is a different flavour to thinking about thinking about an apple, or reflecting on the 'self', it's all just different flavours of experience, imo. Adding up to the totality of an experiential unified field. And the sense of self is just a part of the coherent overall experiential model, a construct emerging from the evolved utility of making a coherent model of the world 'out there' and the world 'in here' and how they relate.It seems you are not placing a space between the "self" and this "thinky" internal voice, instead, you include both in the equation. Self still is the ego and "thinky voice" as mind.
As I've hopefully clarified, the thinky narrative voice is an integral part of how the whole ongoing model comes together for such complex critters as ourselves. It's not sitting off somewhere watching the Cartesian Theatre play out, reporting back to a 'self' who then makes decisions, it's an integrated part of the picture. No space between it and the rest of the show, which combines to form the coherent model and ongoing story. Don't you think that's what Dennis's article implies? Simpler critters who get by without our incredibly complex interacting brain systems (such as our evolutionary ancestors) wouldn't need that narrative voice, but might still have something worth calling a sense of self, depending on what you want to define it as.According to your explanation, the thinky voice is a subsystem that is connected to the comprehension or "making sense" of the bombardment of neurological processes in relation to the current contemporary perception of external stimuli. This is precisely the mind (thinky voice, or the one who "speaks" to us) doing all of this, the producer of the thoughts. And the self being this "embodied specific point of view"(quoting you) that perceives the current EXPERIENTIAL STATE that the mind is EXPERIENCING. This is what I understood, yet you separated self and the thinky voice in the subsequent paragraph, evidencing how complex to rationally maintain your initial claim was.
Right, hopefully it makes more sense now?Though in this explanation it is purely speculative the purpose of this "self" and I believe you are coming from a biological standpoint. Trying to define purpose of "self" from a neurological standpoint. If you say that the thinky voice is necessarily accompanied with the sense of "self"(The self being the product of these subsystems), in other words, you are saying that mind and ego ARE part of the act of the "experiencing" of this comprehensive "narrative". So the ego is not the "experiencer" but part of the experience itself, of the current experiential state. I can't follow this at all.
Susan Greenfield has an intriguing take on how the mechanics of this could work if you're interested.It's like saying there are two minds that are divided yet conjoined, both experience things at the same time but one of them is the "self" and is aware of the other. I don't know if i'm missing something with my logic. This is really not saying anything but just a claim, a possibility. Denni's evidence can offer quite a few insights in general. Consciousness of thoughts is the the product of the complexity of all of these processes at a molecular level, that reach a large, mentally capable(By this I mean the mind is capable of creating an image of that processing) representative image of that same processing.
Right.Neurological processes that can be known to awareness. This clearly states the incomprehensible complexity when it comes to the formulation of any thought, and how unknown those processes are to us. But it doesn't explain why we have this sense of awareness, even if that explanation is grounded on a speculative evolutionary/biological standpoint. I can see why dualism of mind/body exists in philosophy.
And if we grant that experiential states evolved the way they did based on utility, as Dennis agrees, then it doesn't make sense that they're epiphenomenal. Why have an experience of burning your hand feeling bad and psychologically motivating you to withdraw it (an experiential reward system), if the 'feeling' experiential part has no causal role, and the physical nervous system would withdraw your hand anyway? This over-determinism doesn't make sense. So there's obviously (to me anyway) a more fundamental explanation required which explains the mind/body problem.
- SimpleGuy
- Posts: 338
- Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm
Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.
If the chimp is capable of perceiving 'thought/ego' then he has a (-n apparently individuated) 'me'. Such are concepts that exist in thought/ego.SimpleGuy wrote: ↑April 19th, 2018, 5:07 am The problem is, that the i has to be identfied via visual perception , accoustical perception and other senses. It is not clear that a chimpanzee can identify his own Picture of himself in a mirror , is this beeing capable of having an i ? If not only Logical inference in an Abstract analytical sense but as well , the inference according to the senses as well as the social behaviour according to the i do Play a role.
We are 'chimps' who perceive thought.
The moment we did become possessed by 'thought', we climbed down from the trees, invented Cadillacs and guns and drove off...
(And now, 300,000 years later, 'thought' (ego) is dying...)
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023