MSK's Theory of the Mind's functioning

[Christopher]

What does it actually mean to cognition when we say the mind operates according to the rules of the universe? MSK started me thinking on this when he says things like - the mind is the stuff of the universe and therefore it acts in general accordance to those universal rules (correct or clarify if I am wrong).

Does this mean that the operations of the mind, that the actions of the cognition, are somehow bound by laws of nature such that the products of the mind are implicitly influenced by the laws governing the particles that are used to think? In other words, are those thoughts which humans deem true or logical somehow defined by the very nature of the laws governing the stuff (neurons, etc) that makes us think?

In matters of knowledge validity, volition is required. However, a successful argument for determinism must posit (although it cannot validate) that humans are compelled to believe those beliefs that accord with the universe. To be compelled to believe the laws of the universe, the circuits of the brain must be built such that those laws "feel right" precisely because those laws coincide with the operation of the matter responsible for consciousness.

When we think of a software program, the program does not know the laws of the machine. The program has those laws innately built into the operation of the program. When the program calls for addition, the computer returns the answer. In this sense, if the mind is a program in the machine of matter, then matter provides the answers that the mind finds true simply by processing information in certain patterns. (although this doesn't explain false beliefs)

Or, when a software program commits operations, those operations themselves exist within the machine, are defined and run by the laws of the machine. In this way, processing thoughts in the mind reveals truths about the laws of the universe because those processes are bound by the machine. Validity is therefore not so much required epistemologically since the fact that feelings and processes are compelled to think something is true precisely because the truth is implicit within the process that feels true (again, this doesn't explain crazy thoughts).

Additionally, to the degree that the operation of the mind is confined to the laws of matter, there exists the corollary that by simply observing thought patterns, truths about the nature of the universe unfold.

Thoughts, comments?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Christopher,

Have you thought about the alternative, that the mind is not made out of the same stuff as the rest of the universe?

That is called formal duality, mind-body dichotomy, ghosts, and a host of other names.

In any case, I think the idea of being weird in relation to the rest of the universe, er... well... weird...

Michael

[Christopher]

Christopher,

Have you thought about the alternative, that the mind is not made out of the same stuff as the rest of the universe?

That is called formal duality, mind-body dichotomy, ghosts, and a host of other names.

In any case, I think the idea of being weird in relation to the rest of the universe, er... well... weird...

Michael

Hey Michael,

It's not about whether or not the mind is seated in the matter of the brain... More, I'm interested to understand how having the mind seated in the material brain results in influences on thought processes (not by higher-level evolutionary pathways but by the very nature of neuron impulses, atomic forces, etc.)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Christopher,

There are a few of what I call "top-down" principles that operate in the universe and operate in an identical manner in our minds.

1. The sum of the parts of an existent is greater than the parts—it is an individual existent in its own right. Concepts and other mental integrations work like that.

2. Holons as an organizational principle, where a whole is made of parts, but it is a part of a greater whole, until you get to the extremes of the whole universe on one end and nothing on the other. Once again our concepts work like that, going to the singular axiom of existence and nothing.

3. The universe has been observed to be expanding. How about our consciousness?

4. This is going to sound a bit New-Agey, but there is a thing that is discussed a lot these days called the Law of Attraction. The idea is that you use a purified thought wedded to a strong emotion as a causal agent for attracting similar things to it (thus to you). The theory is that if you don't pruify the thought and weed out any focus on lack, you might attract the lack instead. Leaving aside the normal BS about imagining a lot of money and getting it, the more I think about this, the more I see it working up to a point. And outside the mind, there is gravity in the universe and other "attracting" factors that are part of whole existents. For example, planets spin and circle stars based on attraction. Ditto for subparticles, atoms and molecules.

If I keep thinking about it, I am sure I can come up with more parallels of organization.

Then there is the part that I believe we are possibly not aware of because we have not yet evolved the awareness organs...

(thunder... a dog barking in the distance... deep organ chords...)

Michael

[Christopher]

Christopher,

There are a few of what I call "top-down" principles that operate in the universe and operate in an identical manner in our minds.

1. The sum of the parts of an existent is greater than the parts—it is an individual existent in its own right. Concepts and other mental integrations work like that.

2. Holons as an organizational principle, where a whole is made of parts, but it is a part of a greater whole, until you get to the extremes of the whole universe on one end and nothing on the other. Once again our concepts work like that, going to the singular axiom of existence and nothing.

3. The universe has been observed to be expanding. How about our consciousness?

4. This is going to sound a bit New-Agey, but there is a thing that is discussed a lot these days called the Law of Attraction. The idea is that you use a purified thought wedded to a strong emotion as a causal agent for attracting similar things to it (thus to you). The theory is that if you don't pruify the thought and weed out any focus on lack, you might attract the lack instead. Leaving aside the normal BS about imagining a lot of money and getting it, the more I think about this, the more I see it working up to a point. And outside the mind, there is gravity in the universe and other "attracting" factors that are part of whole existents. For example, planets spin and circle stars based on attraction. Ditto for subparticles, atoms and molecules.

If I keep thinking about it, I am sure I can come up with more parallels of organization.

Then there is the part that I believe we are possibly not aware of because we have not yet evolved the awareness organs...

(thunder... a dog barking in the distance... deep organ chords...)

Michael

Michael,

I think I grasp your new-agey concepts here.

Definitely if we accept a systems view, we can apprehend the possibility that the brain (or mind) can have unique relationships with stuff outside the brain in holistic views that are not well-understood. Is this what you mean when you comment to always remember the brain is made of the stuff of the universe? I always thought you meant more on the relationship between perceiving the mechanics of the universe while using the stuff of the universe ruled by those mechanics in the act of perception. In this latter observation, it makes one wonder how the act of perception (or apprehension) is influenced by the rules of that which we are perceiving.

Chris

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In this latter observation, it makes one wonder how the act of perception (or apprehension) is influenced by the rules of that which we are perceiving.

Christopher,

In my view, they both observe the same rules because they both belong to the same thing. Top to down and down to top and everything in between. (Like a wise lady once said, "It's turtles all the way down..." )

And I also believe that this is the only condition possible that validates our perception as properly suited to the job of perceiving.

We just happen to know a lot more about other stuff that we do about knowing at this point. I have no doubt we will get there, though. And I am very confident that my formulation will be vindicated when we actually know about knowing like we know about subparticles.

Michael

[Christopher]

In my view, they both observe the same rules because they both belong to the same thing. Top to down and down to top and everything in between. (Like a wise lady once said, "It's turtles all the way down..." )

And I also believe that this is the only condition possible that validates our perception as properly suited to the job of perceiving.

We just happen to know a lot more about other stuff that we do about knowing at this point. I have no doubt we will get there, though. And I am very confident that my formulation will be vindicated when we actually know about knowing like we know about subparticles.

Michael

So you are basically saying that we are compelled to see the universe as it is because the vehicles of perception are defined by this universe?

Do these rules not extend to the conceptual realm in which we can imagine any universe, or are concepts themselves somehow bound into imaginations specific to this universe alone? In other words, do you think there are systems that we cannot imagine not for lack of perception but for lack of cognitive operation?

Finally, if I understand your assertion regarding perception, then a corollary to this statement would be that introspection and spirituality (apprehension through internal realms) may offer us truths about the universe of consciousness because, again, we are compelled to see things as they are given our equipment? If not, what are your thoughts on internal apprehensions and the relationship to the universal system in which those apprehensions exist?

Christopher

PS. I don't mean to turn this conversation at all spiritual, yet I believe that consciousness and matter represent two separate but interacting systems. For my own interest and thinking, I am extending your thoughts into the system of consciousness since your thoughts should theoretically hold for both systems.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Christopher,

I am limited by what I can know and do. Those are imposed on me by reality. Yet I strive to expand and even overcome my pre-wired biological destiny (decay and death).

Within this context, I don't know what the correspondence is between us being able to use our minds for imagining things that do not exist and the universe at large. On the surface, we can see evolution of different life forms and birth of new individuals in all species all the time. Those did not exist before they came into being. On a non-organic level, we see some really weird things like black holes, etc. Did the universe "imagine" these things, then make them happen? And is the universe "imagining" other things that do not exist, some of which will never happen?

It looks like that, but damned if I know.

I'm just a part of the universe, not the whole of it...

Michael

[Christopher]

In my view, they both observe the same rules because they both belong to the same thing. Top to down and down to top and everything in between. (Like a wise lady once said, "It's turtles all the way down..." )

And I also believe that this is the only condition possible that validates our perception as properly suited to the job of perceiving.

Hi Michael,

Rereading over the thread, I am still somewhat stuck on this piece here. You are asserting that the validity of our perceptions are premised upon the fact that we as perceivers are made of the same stuff that we are perceiving. In order to better understand your assertion, here is what I'm wondering: is this relationship between perceiver and perceived a product of evolution, or is this a product of the shared system between perceiver and perceived? Can these be divisible?

From an evolutionary standpoint, I think it makes sense that we evolve perceptual faculties that allow us to survive within the system in which we are evolving. I also recognize that since we are evolving within this system, we are essentially a product of the system... therefore, by deduction we can reason that evolving within the system correlates to both being of the system and evolving mechanisms to perceive that system... in other words, you have both one and the other by the very nature of things. Is this how you connect the dots?

Within your thinking on this subject, is it possible to not be of the system yet be able to perceive the system, discounting the mechanism of evolution and instead depending on some other mechanism such as random mutation?

Christopher

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rereading over the thread, I am still somewhat stuck on this piece here. You are asserting that the validity of our perceptions are premised upon the fact that we as perceivers are made of the same stuff that we are perceiving. In order to better understand your assertion, here is what I'm wondering: is this relationship between perceiver and perceived a product of evolution, or is this a product of the shared system between perceiver and perceived? Can these be divisible?

Christopher,

I'm not sure what you mean here. If we evolve and we are made of the same stuff as the universe, then the universe must be evolving in some respect, also.

Also, divisibility is part of the nature of everything. This is where I don't understand your question.

From an evolutionary standpoint, I think it makes sense that we evolve perceptual faculties that allow us to survive within the system in which we are evolving. I also recognize that since we are evolving within this system, we are essentially a product of the system... therefore, by deduction we can reason that evolving within the system correlates to both being of the system and evolving mechanisms to perceive that system... in other words, you have both one and the other by the very nature of things. Is this how you connect the dots?

I would not use these words, but this sums up my thinking pretty well, with one caveat: There is only one ultimate system, existence.

Within your thinking on this subject, is it possible to not be of the system yet be able to perceive the system, discounting the mechanism of evolution and instead depending on some other mechanism such as random mutation?

In other words, is it possible for randomness (within boundaries) to be a part of something's identity?

I don't see why not.

The only thing I can think of that depicts total randomness, though, applies only to living beings: death.

Michael