Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
all that and no education... remarkable eh?
Education would only be a hindrance to your certainty.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 7, 2016 - 12:02pm PT
|
I would say: "The mind is located in the brain, and its function is altered by hormones from certain organs." I have absolutely no idea where the mind might lie if not there. Huge sciences are built on this premise.
If it doesn't lie in the brain, then where does the mind exist?
A simple question. PLEASE answer it. Thoughtfully.
-----
Problem is I'm jammed with work just now and have to go to Europe on Sunday. But a few thoughts.
The first thing I would point out is the assumption that the mind is some thing that resides someplace, like a pea lives in a pod. And that if the pea ain't in the pod, where is it? It has to physically BE located SOMEWHERE, right?
From my experience, the paradigm you present above is probable and is certainly a workable hypothesis per mechanical brain function. But the 1st person realm is not the same THING as mechanical brain functioning, and not simply because experience itself is not observable as a 3rd person phenomenon, unless you start wholesale conflating. That is NOT to say that consciousness is separate from brain, or that brain is separate from mind. Note that our discursive minds have no problem with the first proposal, but balks hard at the second, which challenges the notion of an objective, mind-independent physical reality. At least mine does.
The problem with wrangling this down is that to my knowledge, I can't approach the problem exclusively from either a material or experiential angle. Each one involves substantial work-arounds whenever I try. It seems that the worm hole in involves toggling between the two vantages, and this is accomplished by way of contrasting and looking at the differences and seeing how either the pure mind or the pure physical model both fall apart or become hugely muddled and incomprehensible when trying to cling exclusively to one or the other positions.
For instance, look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyV98zjjzLU
I'm not so much interested in what the speaker is talking about, but rather how divided the people are who are making comments below. This happens because a view from either 1st or 3rd person perspectives is incomplete. The question is: how to resolve the differences?
Scientist Gary Metcalf, in Systems and Design, put it this way:
"When a scientist in any system makes an observation, that observations is subject to peer review within that science - yet the observation is not typically submitted for review by scientists in other fields. Why not? The reason is sciences evolve to advance their discipline's consensual domain, and the language (symbols, numbers, schemas, etc.) used tends to converge upon the beliefs, tools, methods and prior understandings accumulated into that specific scientific discipline. Science becomes silos - they become specialized in viewing the world in accordance with the language with which they view the world. What happens when a subject transcends disciplinary silos?"
When we try and look at experience from scientific silos, we are asking science to explain what it normally tries to stay clear of, striving as it does after what it feels exists separate from subjectivity. And so 1st person experience gets translated into 3rd person modes, effectively excising experience once more. And when purely subjective modes are sought to probe the phenomenon, the physical world we live in goes missing. So the challenges are not simple, though there is every desire to dumb them down, from most anyone in either camp.
Anyhow, I started working up some thoughts about all of this and I'll post an installment later. I'll have to do this in phases because I don't have time to binge on it just now, but I can peck away at it as time allows.
And happy holidays to all.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Any living being can never be unconscious
Oh oh, swamp fumes syndrome.
The problem with wrangling this down is that to my knowledge, I can't approach the problem exclusively from either a material or experiential angle
A good summary of your position, JL. Happy Holidays in Europe.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 8, 2016 - 08:01am PT
|
Any living being can never be unconscious
Oh oh, swamp fumes syndrome.
John, this is a perspective offered from subjective silos, so to speak - from a 1st person point of view. It is interesting to contemplate.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
interesting quote:
"When a scientist in any system makes an observation, that observations is subject to peer review within that science - yet the observation is not typically submitted for review by scientists in other fields. Why not? The reason is sciences evolve to advance their discipline's consensual domain, and the language (symbols, numbers, schemas, etc.) used tends to converge upon the beliefs, tools, methods and prior understandings accumulated into that specific scientific discipline. Science becomes silos - they become specialized in viewing the world in accordance with the language with which they view the world. What happens when a subject transcends disciplinary silos?"
basically a typical criticism of someone outside the particular "discipline," that is, the people in the "discipline" cannot make decisions outside of their "self interest."
This way of thinking has a large number of people believing that climate scientists, for instance, can't be trusted in conducting climate science, they are self interested.
In terms of personal incentive, there is no larger incentive in any field of science than showing the consensus view is "incorrect." There is an equally large disincentive of being shown to be wrong, and the bigger the wrong, the more consequential the reaction. The balance of these drives a lot of science.
Disciplinary "silos" exist because the time to master a particular discipline can be long... there are no short cuts... it is interesting that Largo uses this very same argument in stating that you cannot "know" what he is talking about in his meditation without having "put the time in." It is the very same thing as Gary Metcalf is complaining about in scientific specialization.
Science strives to eliminate the subjective element of the object being studied. That's what it does. The "scientific" object we identify with "mind" is not the same thing that Largo is referring to when discussing "mind."
Largo's "mind" is not subject to scientific study, by construction (a construction that is largely literary).
One doesn't seek to "study" the science of some imagined phenomenon, for instance, how are the fighting armies in the Lord of the Rings sustained? Reading about the history of ancient warfare paints a very different narrative of what that is like. In my opinion LotR would have been a lot more interesting bringing that in... but then I'm a geek, not a writer of romantic fiction.
Largo's main complaint about the science of "mind" is that it has no place for those things he believes are most important about what he defines as "mind." His philosophical arguments are chosen to be supportive of his point of view, and he selects the science he feels is "right."
It is often the case that one moves from one discipline to another because of a feeling that you know what must be "right" in the other... and if you honestly engage in the process of understanding that other discipline, your righteousness will often dwindle to a grinding respect for having to "put the work" into understanding the issues there.
This spears the romantic notion of the single, brilliant investigator with the golden idea...
sorry.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
One doesn't seek to "study" the science of some imagined phenomenon, for instance, how are the fighting armies in the Lord of the Rings sustained? Reading about the history of ancient warfare paints a very different narrative of what that is like. In my opinion LotR would have been a lot more interesting bringing that in... but then I'm a geek, not a writer of romantic fiction.
Writing fiction normally entails trusting the reader, explicitly.This is especially true in the writing of short stories, in which the inclusion of too much supporting detail and the story suddenly becomes noticeably asymmetrical, as well as perhaps no longer being short. Such a situation can often result in somewhat of a dodgy predicament for the writer, especially in character development, when the storyteller must fight the temptation (or even ,obligation) to explain and describe in too much length and detail. This is crucial in the short story. Again, the solution is always to be found in trusting the reader.
This all can be thought of as pointing out the impressionistic element in much of fiction writing. Storytelling, in its general flow ,is intrinsically low definition, inviting the reader ,as it were, to complete the image by participating in some fundamental sensory way-- like old TV images or paintings by Renoir.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 8, 2016 - 11:54am PT
|
The problem, Ed, is that when you try and put words in my mouth, they are always yours, and almost always wrong per my actual views.
The quote about scientific silos (written BY a scientist) was not cited to try and put a limit on how far you can apply your personal quantifications, or those of your discipline, rather to point out the fact, in a general way, that all points of view necessity leave out other crucial points of view, and that that one pov cannot claim comprehensive knowledge of reality when they are looking are things from a proscribed perspective. Granted, we leave out what we think is needless or dead wood. Such as - a psycholoist is not going to start talking about atoms when the presenting problem is infidelity. So the issue is what gets left out, and the real trap of leaving out the crucial elements and not knowing as much, based on looking at reality from a given silos.
It is not lost on the subtle reader that you are implying special status to your personal field of expertise, citing examples of novels and fiction to insinuate that all others perspectives are imaginary. I'll leave that one for you to bicker over with others. your you to bicker with others might take that angle seriously. I no longer do. It simply adds nothing to the investigation of mind.
For my money, there really is one sticking point. There are two seemingly distinct realms - objective and subjective. I've learned that it does not and probably cannot lead to a comprehensive view of mind so long as someone is drawing from one well. In fact it is astonishing to think that I would, for instance, have some special knowledge per, say, biology, simply because I live in the physical world, or likewise, I would have penetrating insight into the 1st person realm simply because I live, like all of us, inside the subjective bubble.
What's more, and this is indisputable, attempts to posit reality in the round from one or the other perspective leads to the most pitiful mouthfuls of woo from the subjective camp, and the most jackass howlers from the objective camps - "You only think you have subjective experience." Or talking about Turing machines or space probes in terms of their "awareness."
But rather than argue these points, which doesn't lead to any new knowledge, I now concentrate on the things I believe that do.
I'll have something ready in this regards shortly.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
An example of scientists/engineers not looking at the whole picture.
Storage tanks for computer chip manufacturing storing MEK (methyl Ethel ketone) made out of metal buried in high groundwater tidal influenced area (san jose). Tanks corrode and MEK enters the groundwater. Where were the chemists who are involved with the MEK and the chip making? They would have recognized that metal tanks and salt water or any groundwater would be a bad idea. probably a mechanical engineer designed the manufacturing setup that included the tanks in groundwater.
It is difficult to see outside your expertise.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
For my money, there really is one sticking point. There are two seemingly distinct realms - objective and subjective. I've learned that it does not and probably cannot lead to a comprehensive view of mind so long as someone is drawing from one well
This is indeed the sticking point. Although I usually side with the scientists on this thread, JL has a point that no amount of existing argument has clarified. And a continued discourse amongst the various experts here will probably be fruitless. So here is my suggestion (which I have little faith will be accepted):
Instead of bantering back and forth between two ends of a spectrum, consider looking into a correspondence between these polar regions, rather than attempting to bring them together as a single path of investigation. A tool for this approach lies in elementary topology, a mathematical area characterized by the notion that one who practices therein cannot tell the difference between a coffee cup and a doughnut. JL’s Prodigies at one time wrongly described this subject as a study in geometry. In fact, topology is astoundingly universal and has little to do with geometrical objects.
Topology, in the elementary sense – beyond which I have no expertise – involves two sets of “objects”, a concept of an “open set”, and a continuous function or transformation relating a point in one set with a point in the other. Regarding the coffee cup, think of a doughnut made of a plastic deformable clay and manipulate this object until it becomes a coffee cup with a closed loop handle.
In the present discussion, “objects” in one set, say experiential adventures, “correspond” with “objects” in the second set, say electro-chemical processes. So that there is a correlation between JL’s experience of open awareness while meditating and certain brain processes. They are not the same and never will be, but if you slightly alter one, the other will be altered a bit. There is a mysterious continuous linkage between the two, so that in a sense the coupled entity exists as a kind of merging of the two areas of investigation.
The mysterious function becomes a focus of attention and conceptualization, rather than attempts to explain the subjective experience purely in terms of neuroscience. Both these areas continue to reveal themselves as scientists and psychologists and meditators continue their inquiries, but as the structure of the relating function materializes a meta-perspective may evolve.
One would start by defining “open sets” in such a way that any union of these would again be “open” and any finite intersection would be “open.” Also, the entire space of each set would be considered “open” as would the empty set. Once these preliminaries are in place, the notion of a bi-continuous function would be studied, one that would relate open sets to open sets.
Lots more, but that’s enough for now.
Or, subjective vs objective or first person vs third person will continue to be, as it has been, a delightful excursion into the void of the internet.
;>)
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Very intriguing, jgill. How would a correspondence compare to an isomorphism?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
From Wiki:
"In topology, where the morphisms are continuous functions, isomorphisms are also called homeomorphisms or bicontinuous functions."
I'm surprised this correspondence between sub and obj hasn't been explored before. Maybe it has? The main idea would be to concentrate on the relationship between the two categories rather than try to argue separately. Over time the meta-view via the homeomorphism might become key to understanding the whole kit and caboodle, opening up a new perspective.
Or we can go back to argueing first person vs third person, which seems like a never-ending philosophical discussion leading nowhere. This way both camps can continue their quests independently, but under the umbrella of a unifying principle.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Topology is sometimes called "mathematics without numbers" although this is misleading. In sub vs obj, the homeomorphism might be surprisingly data-free, requiring basically a notion that a small change in one set corresponds to a small change in the other.
This would open a door for JL and MikeL as well as Andy and Ed, with expertise on both sides of the "divide" providing suggestions.
Oh well, maybe swamp gas is a better way to go . . .
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
It seems to me there are implications in the subjective that science finds anathema to its method and likewise for any purely objective interpretation for philosophy.
But isn’t there some validity in both understandings of mind?
The efficacy of personal experience isn’t always ignored by science. A visit to the dentist with tooth pain in which the sufferer declares, “I am in pain.” Requires the scientist/dentist to recognize the validity of the “I” and the certainty of experience. The dentist rarely says I can’t believe your subjective experience of pain as its simply an interior literary device that is at best illusory.
On the other hand mind certainly seems to emanate from the corporeal structure of the brain. The curious questions for me are how/why is mind a product of a structured rule driven universe that allows and prohibits? Can/does mind exist in structures that are not what we would call brains? Does mind exist in varying degrees within different entities? What is the relationship of “Knowing” to mind?
Curious, mysterious stuff.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Can/does mind exist in structures that are not what we would call brains?
Yes. It exists, or once existed, as matter/energy constituents, albeit in an unassembled state.
Nature, in its "dumb cradles" put these constituents together.
Took a long,long time though.
The recipe instructions operated entirely free of this mind until relatively very recently.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
The recipe instructions operated entirely free of this mind until relatively very recently.
I agree completely and find the implications of such a notion mysterious and fascinating.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Short stories do not rely on symmetry,
Oh yes they do. A very tight symmetry. This is precisely what makes them short stories. They are like pro body builders , very low fat, a lot of muscle.
The Renoir comparison is apt. A short story is more like Renoir and less like Seurat.
I agree completely and find the implications of such a notion mysterious and fascinating.
So do I.
Hey, Sycorax, give us the "dumb cradles" line by Shakespeare.
What play was that?
Never mind I found it:
Is that a wonder?
The providence that's in a watchful state
Knows almost every grain of Plutus' gold,
Finds bottom in the uncomprehensive deeps,
Keeps place with thought and almost, like the gods,
Does thoughts unveil in their dumb cradles
SCENE III. The Grecian camp. Before Achilles' tent.
Troilus and Cressida
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 8, 2016 - 05:50pm PT
|
You're onto something, John. I hope you pursue it. I never got past numbers theory in "maths," as the English say, so I would only flub a formal presentation using set theory, which I barely brushed up against like 200 years ago.
I have found that a way forward is to contrast both camps in turn, sticking with the age old Socratic method. It is amazing what this turns up per basic assumptions and so forth. Like I said earlier, I'll have something to present in a bit.
And Ward, "symmetry" in its normal usage refers to harmonious proportion and balance. But you shouldn't think that a short story works more better if it is symmetrical as a Grecian urn or an equation. And the lack of suet on a short narrative is not the same chingadera as the symmetry you praise. That's just the art of ridding the clutter.
Superfluid tales read well but are often predictable. Maupassant is a good example, though "Ball of String" and the story about the faux pearl necklace are otherwise.
I think what you are driving at is thematic connections, that a story causally and logically and emotionally adds up. The problem is that experience (the subject of literary narratives) often does NOT add up or even make sense. It takes a genius to base a story on this principal, but some can, and few of such stories are symmetrical.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Well, let's not overstate the symmetrical thing. I originally brought up the idea of asymmetricality only in relation to the inclusion of too much supporting detail, which can often result in a feeling of disproportion and irrelevancy to the reader. This sort of asymmetrical distorting effect is never a good thing in a tightly written form like a short story.
Overall symmetry nevertheless is a beautiful thing, whether in music or literature. The reader is always drawn to the proper proportions -- a lot like the listener to a Bach SATB chorale piece; without necessarily understanding the underlying scaffolding to which the dynamic parts are in harmonious relationship. A story can appear as ragged as hell on the surface and yet still contain all the right things in all the right places.
It's no more complicated than that, themes and "suet" notwithstanding.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
The problem, Ed, is that when you try and put words in my mouth, they are always yours, and almost always wrong per my actual views.
I've noticed the same thing with you...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!