Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 07:47am PT
|
...perhaps, but I know a lot about bosons, and physical theories... if you are asking me about experiences it isn't at all clear what physical question you are asking, if you are asking one at all.
The question is really simple: what is it like to be anything? What is mind where that experience of what it is to be any individual/thing exists? This is a question that presently confounds science and yet has infinite potential ramifications for our place and meaning in the universe.The question itself dissuades me from the notion of humanity's accidental and insignificant role in the structure of existence and may, as well, be the single most important question we can possibly ask. The source of consciousness, like life, must be written in to the very structure of the universe, a universe that reveals itself as an elegant structured thing, and has manifested itself in us and that's a damned mysterious and strange affair. Who wouldn't wonder about/question it? Maybe, not certainly, but just maybe, all this stuff we're doing here with our consciousness on planet Earth is meaningful in a way we don't quite grasp yet.
As for grammar shaming, I only mentioned the apostrophe in response to the citation
shaming. I thought it was ironic and funny: apparently it wasn't.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 08:23am PT
|
I hadn't noticed your comment regarding grammar... citations allow all of us to consider the source.
What is mind where that experience of what it is to be any individua/thingl [sic] exists? This is a question that presently confounds science...
why is this a question for science? One can easily ask all sorts of questions and claim they are "irresolvable" by science, and in fact, scientists do it all the time.
Current scientific theories of life do not depend on élan vital, what is this thing called life then? where does it reside? what is it?
Similarly, we can make the statement that "mind" is what the brain does... there is no thing of mind independent of brain, the set of behaviors that we recognize and bundle under the definition for "mind" are not the same thing that we perceive to be the monolithic experience of life, that experience being an approximation to what is...
and then "what is"?
On that we can get together to agree, in consensus, but not just through testimony of our individual witness, but by measuring and predicting in such a manner that anyone could do the same.
Clearly the meaning of it all, our role in the universe, our "purpose" are not scientific questions to be answered. Your answer could be different from mine, and both are our testimony of what we have witnessed, but they are not science.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 08:48am PT
|
Somehow the “What is Mind?” thread gets entangled with the “Science versus Religion” thread.
Supposedly the three pillars of wisdom (what is true? what is beautiful? what is right?) need to be integrated or connected to one another, lest we become groundless, biased, alienated, lost, disconnected from one another, life, and reality (as impossible as that really sounds). Saying that “it’s not science,” or “it’s not meaningful,” or “it’s not aesthetically pleasing or elegant,” “it’s not human” or the like ignore the other pillars of wisdom and tend to elevate / dominate one view over another. Somehow we tend to miss the bigger pictures in our discussions and arguments about what’s what, what’s happening, and the meaning of it all.
Kaplan wrote of economics: “Economics has its place—just not the whole place, please.” The same could be said for any of the pillars of wisdom.
I was trying to make a similar point when I distinguished between what could be described or labelled as “spiritual” versus “soul,” the mundane versus the supra-mundane. Zen, more than most traditions IMO, seems to have found an integration between spirit and soul with its penchant for simply “chopping wood and carrying water.” “Just work. Just be. There’s nothing special going on.” One of Zen’s defining characteristics could be its apparent distain for conceptual analysis and talking about things.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 09:13am PT
|
Similarly, we can make the statement that "mind" is what the brain does... there is no thing of mind independent of brain, the set of behaviors that we recognize and bundle under the definition for "mind" are not the same thing that we perceive to be the monolithic experience of life, that experience being an approximation to what is...
Yes, mind is what the brain does in the same manner that light is what the light bulb does, but light has properties disassociated from the structure of the bulb and mind seems to manifest itself in a variety of forms in a variety of life forms and there are those in science who see/ have postulated consciousness as an underlying characteristic of the universe.
That mind experience stands outside the purview of science seems a little silly. The issue is that understanding what that experience is may change the viewpoint of those like some who see humanity as essentially a bit of evolutionary mold on a tiny dust speck in a vast and violent universe.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 09:27am PT
|
Good one DMT!
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 30, 2016 - 01:01pm PT
|
ah yes, but witnessing is not the same thing as observing or measuring, certainly not used in the same way.
Witnessing brings in a person who sees something happen, and similarly, the testimony of someone who saw something happen... in both cases, the veracity of the witness depends on their reliability, their trustworthiness.
In that sense, "witness" has a lot to do with our experience, and the description of that experience, and our oath that it is truthful.
Not so, Ed. For instance, in meditation, witnessing and observing are used in the same way. The stuff or content of consciousness is considered by all esoteric schools to be illusory insofar that it has no independent or stand alone nature. That includes whatever you may think or feel or sense about any thing. All of these feeling etc. are ephemeral and impermanent.
You are using witnessing in the sense that through this action a person is trying to do science without instruments, meaning the purpose of your witnessing is to answer a functional question. And in that regards, your instruments are a more reliable measuring tool then trying to do without them. And through this process of observing and noting qualitative results arrived at through instrumentation (there is no "data" sans observing), you are able to make a prediction.
Of course none of this process is done sans observer, so the idea that what is "out there," which you come to know through observation, is somehow sans observer, is a nonsense answer. You have simply arrived at a method of avoiding subjective content from coloring your view of whatever you are observing, but in no way have you eliminated the observer from the exercise. The fact that an observer can predict the movement of energy "out there" in a very circumscribed way does not somehow disprove or eliminate the observer. The instruments don't make the predictions, the observer does, or something programmed by the observer, and what that serves up is not data till it is observed.
And this: The set of behaviors that we recognize and bundle under the definition for "mind."
This is a strictly functionalistic take on mind. Mind as a function of brain. In that limited sense Ed is implying that the strictly functional aspects of mind must at bottom be entirely mechanical and predictable, that is: 3rd person phenomenon. You have attempted to excise out the "what is it like" aspect claiming that we cannot or you cannot talk about that (your own words). What you really mean is that you cannot measure it by traditional methods. But you are entirely mistaken in the claim that we cannot talk about mind in intelligent ways that are universally real.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 01:24pm PT
|
"Witnessing" from a Buddhist perspective requires letting go of your attachment to all things so you have no distraction and from that comes no separation with the moment. You are completely there. similar if not the same thing as mindfulness. If you have attachment to anger or desire it is not possible to fully witness (be there) till you let them go. that is where the practice comes in. Seeing the attachments and then letting them go. Here is a quick snippet about witnessing retreats per Bernie glassman. http://www.elephantjournal.com/2012/04/what-isembearing-witnessemfrom-a-buddhist-perspective/
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 03:46pm PT
|
Paul, I suppose this has a little to do with mind:
Metamorphosis
What do you think of this? I'm not able to appreciate modern art, I know, but the practice described here seems atrocious to me. The original paintings are delightful, but slapping paint haphazardly over them seems criminal. Just curious.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 04:03pm PT
|
Regarding Metamorphosis: I'm reminded of a moment back in the 1950s when the stylistic dominance of Willem de Kooning was inescapable in the art world and a then very young Robert Rauschenberg went to de Kooning's studio and requested a small drawing which de Kooning, in an effort to support young artists, agreed to. Rauschenberg took the drawing back to his studio and erased it except for de Kooning's signature and then displayed the erased but signed drawing with the title of Erased drawing by Willem de Kooning by Robert Rauschenberg. As a declaration of freedom from stylistic dominance it was a remarkably ironic and brilliant move. This other stuff just seems ridiculous to me, at least at first glance.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 06:36pm PT
|
I like the paintovers.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 06:54pm PT
|
Thanks, JL.
I have new respect for your interest in mind and brain.
I wish the writing project well and you have the chops.
If this kind of thing comes about:
Implants digitize thoughts and affect, routing them through the worldwide web. All knowledge is instantly accessible, every person a thought away. Speaking becomes optional.
it sounds like individual personality could become obsolete.
Could you find yourself in a situation where individual minds merge into a whole, rather like the cells of your body cooperating and doing things and having capabilities which none of the individual cells are aware of or capable of?
You may be aware of Michael Swanick's Vaccuum Flowers from 1987.
Here is part of a Michael Swanick answer to a question about the book:
On the whole, the book was my response to a lot of thinking in the cognitive sciences at the time, particularly Minsky's "society of the mind," suggesting that the self doesn't exist and that identity is a lot more fluid than previously thought. But I'm afraid I can't give you citations for any of it.
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/auth/squalidansw.html
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 08:01pm PT
|
I read about the Blue Brain Project and it seems like a respectable effort, if a bit far-fetched. I still cannot find any info on the Meta Mind Project which apparently is proceeding shrouded in great secrecy.
Computer scientists, neuroscientists, bio-engineers, biophysicists, experimental psychologists and other similar experts have the greatest chance of unraveling the mysteries of mind and consciousness. I don't think philosophy is a promising approach.
This leaves Dennett in the impossible position of accepting the experiential verity of 1st person phenomenon, but denying the "reality" of same because it is not a 3rd person phenomenon
And I wonder about statements like this. If Dennett is so vulnerable in his basic tenet how is it he still has followers and still produces philosophical publications? Do philosophers have no shame?
I like the paintovers
Big surprise.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 10:34pm PT
|
The question is really simple: what is it like to be anything?
Tchooo.
As a man of action and not an armchair speculator, I have of course tied on a blindfold and run around catching moths in my mouth once I tuned in to the little noises they make. And I slept hanging by my feet.
Now I learn that trying to know what it is like to be a bat is only the beginning.
|
|
i-b-goB
Social climber
Wise Acres
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 10:46pm PT
|
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Jgill: Big surprise [that MikeL liked the paintovers]. . . slapping paint haphazardly over [other artists’ paintings] seems criminal.
“slapping,” . . . “haphazardly,” . . . “criminal”: I’d say your sense of values, correctness, and right and wrong will run into difficulties among circles of contemporary artists. Sure, it's probably fine for long dead art, but new expressions will probably need a lot of time to work on you.
Why the "big surprise?" What is it that you think you know?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
au contraire, Largo, the verb observe, and noun observer, are much more likely to be used to describe the function in an objective sense... witness and witnessing are used in a subjective sense.
The distinction being that a witness affirms by oath the truthfulness of their testimony. Nothing else is required.
When we talk about what our experiences are, relate them to others, we can come to some agreement on what is common and what is not. Writ large, this sort of formal study becomes cultural anthropology. Without to much "violence" to your aversion to measurement, a simple count of who shares what descriptions can lead to categorization and to the recognition that groups of people share somethings in common that that group doesn't share with other groups.
You can expand that and ask why it might be so, looking at relationships, both as a sociological study, but now with increasing frequency, aided by genetic associations. Human memory of the past being limited, the genetic associations uncover a much deeper set of relationships that are pre-historic. This starts to intrude on your measurement aversion, not only because the information is no longer about personal and group narratives, but because of the presumed association of our genetic material with our cultures.
While genetics, and gene dynamics (which is what evolution explains) cannot explain in step-by-step process how and what culture will be, it is a hypothesis of modern biology that all extant organisms are a part of the evolutionary process, in toto, and this includes humans and the human opinion that humans are remarkable.
And it is important to keep the idea of "hypothesis" here, as it is a term that implies a quantitative prediction from a physical theory.
Yes, "quantifying the mind" is difficult, and to date, incomplete, and producing a quantitative model of how it works to produce what we perceive lags even further behind. But it is something that will continue to be a scientific focus, even though philosophers can't agree whether or not it is possible. Scientists, by and large, do not depend on the proclamations of philosophers to conduct their research.
The excursions of some into "experimental philosophy" (which may be a subfield of psychology as some here have suggested) has lead to a very interesting challenges to the validity of the philosophical presumptions of "common sense."
And finally, our predictive "theory of mind" which we have learned over the course of our life, is central to any discussion of mind, not the least in that we believe there is something of commonality to discuss. We "know" that our minds all work in similar ways, that other humans have minds, and that those minds are similar to our own. In modern times, we even ascribe this to people who do not share our culture, which is a significant breakthrough.
From biology, and the understanding of evolution, we have also learned of our amazing similarity, when not too long ago we ranked cultures from "advanced" to "primitive" and presumed the quality of the humans to correlate to those rankings.
How the gene does this is not a matter of speculation, but connecting the dots from gene function to the Sistine Chapel ceiling may still have some missing pieces...
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
While genetics, and gene dynamics (which is what evolution explains) cannot explain in step-by-step process how and what culture will be, it is a hypothesis of modern biology that all extant organisms are a part of the evolutionary process, in toto, and this includes humans and the human opinion that humans are remarkable.
The development of the scientific method itself is evidence of the remarkable nature of human thought and activity. Insofar as science reveals the structure of the universe to humanity, humanity becomes the repository of knowing and what that knowing is, well, that would be nice to know.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Ed: From biology, and the understanding of evolution, we have also learned of our amazing similarity, when not too long ago we ranked cultures from "advanced" to "primitive" and presumed the quality of the humans to correlate to those rankings.
I’d advise against this. It seems like an expression of a kind of hegemony and elitism. The distinction bores down into the issue that Paul is bringing up: What is the very quality / the essence / the defining characteristics of human life? Being further down the evolutionary path? Primitives aren’t as wonderful as we moderns are? How would you propose to measure that?
I'd think you want to express your thoughts a little differently on this topic. You aren't really saying that there are differing qualities to humans (and ranking cultures), are you?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Thanks. I was unclear about the stand. You know Ed better than I.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!