A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Namelesss
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.

Post by Namelesss »

Sorry, but the more that I read your blithe reference to your 'law', and you just keep rolling on, gets funnier and funnier.
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!)
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: A view of the mind and the ego. Psychology and bit of Logic as well.

Post by Sy Borg »

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.
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
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.

Post by Tosen »

Namelesss wrote: March 31st, 2018, 2:55 am
Tosen wrote: March 30th, 2018, 9:26 pm The confusion is all due to the law of causation...
The what?!?
Really?
(thank you for the smile!)
Did you come up with that 'law'? *__-
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.
Namelesss
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.

Post by Namelesss »

Tosen wrote: March 31st, 2018, 10:31 pm
Namelesss wrote: March 31st, 2018, 2:55 am
The what?!?
Really?
(thank you for the smile!)
Did you come up with that 'law'? *__-
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.
There is no, nor has there ever been any 'proof/evidence' of causation, logically or scientifically.
There can be found 'correlation', but 'causation/creation' is not possible.

It is the impossibility of 'causation' coupled with 'law' that was so ironic. *__-
Gertie
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.

Post by Gertie »

Tamminen wrote: March 30th, 2018, 1:01 pm
Our language reflects ontology.
Simply reasserting this when I've pointed out the problems with the claim isn't very persuasive.
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.

Again, just reasserting your claim rather than addressing my counter-argument...
It has many meanings, but this is what I have learned on philosophy lessons 50 years ago.
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 ;).
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.
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.
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.
See above.
Gertie
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.

Post by Gertie »

Nameless
Namelesss wrote: March 30th, 2018, 2:49 pm
Gertie wrote: March 30th, 2018, 6:46 am Nameless


I'm afraid I'm very ignorant when it comes to QM, I'd appreciate an idiot's guide explanation (yourself or a link) of how QM shows this?
"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
I asked if you, or a link could walk me through your irrefutable argument, explaining it, That monist-based definition isn't an argument
Tamminen
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.

Post by Tamminen »

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 :)
Namelesss
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.

Post by Namelesss »

Gertie wrote: April 1st, 2018, 10:59 am Nameless
Namelesss 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
I asked if you, or a link could walk me through your irrefutable argument, explaining it, That monist-based definition isn't an argument
I gave you sufficient food for thought if you were hungry, and have teeth.
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!
Gertie
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.

Post by Gertie »

Tamminen 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 :)
Fair enough Tam :)

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.
Gertie
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.

Post by Gertie »

Tosen
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'.
This explanation is highly theoretical and resides in the speculative realm of neuroscience, the philosophical aspect of neuroscience.
Actually I'd say it's a lot less speculative than many explanations, because it's grounded in the observations of neuroscience.
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.
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. -

''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.
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.
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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.




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.
Right, hopefully it makes more sense now?
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.
Susan Greenfield has an intriguing take on how the mechanics of this could work if you're interested.
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.
Right.

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.
User avatar
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.

Post by SimpleGuy »

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.
Namelesss
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.

Post by Namelesss »

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.
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.
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...)
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021