What's the relationship between the brain and the mind?

[goldisheavy]

I think this story is pretty amazing. I found it on www.ted.com, but for some reason the youtube video seems to be of higher quality, so I am linking to the youtube version.

[Gerard]

This brings us to the following question:

 

Where is the mind's exact location?

 

 

 

I like the Buddha's response to this tricky issue:

 

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/Shurangama/locations.htm

[Marblehead]

Where is the mind's exact location?

 

 

 

 

Ha! I have tried answering this question a couple times but my answers were always very lacking. I just lump it all together. It's all part of our 'being'.

 

 

Excellent video Gold!

[RiverSnake]

Answer that question and i'm sure many prestigious scholarly awards will await you.

[Birch]

Remind me of the definition of mind again? Because depending on that then IMO the answers are different.

[forestofclarity]

Assuming for a moment there is a difference between awareness and objects of awareness, I would argue that awareness is primary and the brain secondary. Why? Because the brain is an object of awareness. Like other objects, it arises and passes. So we experience awareness with different objects, yet we never experience different awareness. Accordingly, awareness strikes me as primary and objects (including the brain) as secondary. I can imagine awareness without objects, but I cannot imagine an object without awareness.

 

Further, research in neuroplasticity shows that the mind can reshape the brain. Assuming that the mind is a product of the brain, this is like a movie changing the projector.

 

Further, assuming material objects are insentient (a big assumption), then we have a conundrum. I see objects arising in awareness all the time, but I never see awareness arising in objects. To say the brain creates awareness is to say that insentient, specific matter gives rise to something sentient and formless. Looking at physics, the subtle tends to precede the dense, as the material universe formed from energy, not the other way around.

 

One might even go so far as to say of the two hypothesis, it is more logical to conclude that the mind creates the brain rather than the brain creates the mind.

[Todd]

I can imagine awareness without objects,

 

 

How?

 

 

[Seth Ananda]

How?

Yes How?

 

I really liked your post Forest by the way, but in exploring awareness, the only thing i can find to say about it, is that it experiences stuff/objects.

 

So How can it be imagined without objects to experience?

 

Any quality we give it that we claim we experience as its nature, are experiences or objects within awareness. Thus not awareness itself.

 

Awareness is the greatest ? or mystery.

 

My little formula is

 

? -> O

 

which describes the 'seeming' perceptive direction of awareness [?] looking at [->] an object [O].

 

But even that is not really true. Awareness can never be removed from the act of perceiving. So maybe everything is awareness/mystery.

 

I feel safe saying that because I will never make awareness into a self. It is too mysterious and can not be clung too and it too seems new in each new moment.

 

Peace.

[goldisheavy]

How?

 

It's hard to imagine unless you've had a mystical experience of the same.

 

But a simple explanation is this. If you know what the presence of objects is like, you must know what their absence is like as well.

Edited August 5, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Todd]

It's hard to imagine unless you've had a mystical experience of the same.

 

But a simple explanation is this. If you know what the presence of objects is like, you must know what their absence is like as well.

 

 

How is that experience not another object?

 

 

[goldisheavy]

How is that experience not another object?

 

Do you know what an object is?

[Todd]

Do you know what an object is?

 

 

Not in an objective way.

 

I pretty much equate objects and experiences. I am not referring to an existent "out there" when I say object.

 

 

[goldisheavy]

Not in an objective way.

 

I pretty much equate objects and experiences. I am not referring to an existent "out there" when I say object.

 

OK, I think there are two different definitions of "object." One is to say that any experience is an object. In that case there is always some kind of experience. Another way is to talk about individually distinguishable objects, like grains of sand, pencils and pens, chairs and so on. The brain is an object like that. It's an object among objects when perceived. Or we can say objects with an obvious outline and abstract objects. Or concrete objects vs abstract ones.

 

It's possible to have an experience without any concrete objects in it.

 

So then you can imagine an awareness without concrete objects, but you cannot imagine concrete objects without awareness. Concretely apparent objects cannot give rise to awareness.

[Todd]

It's possible to have an experience without any concrete objects in it.

 

So then you can imagine an awareness without concrete objects, but you cannot imagine concrete objects without awareness. Concretely apparent objects cannot give rise to awareness.

 

I pretty much agree with this, though there is a continuum between abstract and concrete objects, where there is never really a separation, so no object is not abstract, and to the extent that any object is really concrete, then no abstract object is not to some degree concrete.

 

In terms of what gives rise to what, I don't think this can be known by the logic that you are presenting. If concrete objects give rise to an awareness that has no memory of its arising, then it would have no basis to know this, and if it then followed your line of reasoning, it would conclude that it gave rise to objects! The objects that give rise to it likely would not be easily available to awareness, and the processes by which this happens could only be teased out by inference, if at all.

 

This is more a comment on your logic than a metaphysical statement. Is there a more valid way of approaching this?

Edited August 5, 2011 by Todd

[goldisheavy]

I pretty much agree with this, though there is a continuum between abstract and concrete objects, where there is never really a separation, so no object is not abstract, and to the extent that any object is really concrete, then no abstract object is not to some degree concrete.

 

I agree. I was simplifying/caricaturing things.

 

In terms of what gives rise to what, I don't think this can be known by the logic that you are presenting. If concrete objects give rise to an awareness that has no memory of its arising,

 

This scenario can be logically refuted since it leads to unacceptable and absurd consequences when followed up.

 

then it would have no basis to know this, and if it then followed your line of reasoning, it would conclude that it gave rise to objects! The objects that give rise to it likely would not be easily available to awareness, and the processes by which this happens could only be teased out by inference, if at all.

 

This is more a comment on your logic than a metaphysical statement. Is there a more solid way of approaching this?

 

What do you mean by "solid"?

[Todd]

 

This scenario can be logically refuted since it leads to unacceptable and absurd consequences when followed up.

 

Please share.

 

What do you mean by "solid"?

 

 

"Valid". I edited my post when I looked over it and realized I wasn't conveying what I meant.

 

 

[doc benway]

I've come to feel that brain does not give rise to mind.

It remains a question as to whether mind gives rise to brain.

It seems so but that is a gratuitous assertion, how to be sure?

 

Could they arise dependently?

I have no answer.

 

But rather than looking at brain as giving rise to mind, it seems more along the lines of brain tuning into mind like an antenna.

Or perhaps brain permits a manifestation of mind in relative "form."

Perhaps brain channels mind.

Clearly, mind remains linked to brain in most instances.

Or does it?

If so, what is the link?

 

And where does thought fit in?

Is thought mind or brain?

[Todd]

I've come to feel that brain does not give rise to mind.

 

 

What inspired this shift, if you don't mind my asking?

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

It seems so but that is a gratuitous assertion, how to be sure?

Could they arise dependently?

Or does it?

If so, what is the link?

And where does thought fit in?

Is thought mind or brain?

 

Hey Steve! I was hoping for some answers, not more questions. I have enough questions of my own. Hehehe.

[goldisheavy]

If concrete objects give rise to an awareness that has no memory of its arising, then it would have no basis to know this, and if it then followed your line of reasoning, it would conclude that it gave rise to objects! The objects that give rise to it likely would not be easily available to awareness, and the processes by which this happens could only be teased out by inference, if at all.

 

First of all, think of every kind of concrete object you've ever experienced in your life, such as for example, pieces of lint, paper clips, sheets of paper, forks, socks, bottles, chewing gum, candy wrappers, tires, seat cushions, ground beef, bacon strips, chicken liver, and of course brains of various kinds, including human.

 

All the concrete objects have something in common. What is that? They are all meaningless in and of themselves. The meaning of all the concrete objects is derived from the informational context surrounding the object. So for example, a fork doesn't work well to cut sheets of steel. Why not? Because an object that cuts sheets of steel well is something like a pair of heavy duty sheers or some such. A fork is meant for eating. At the same time, you wouldn't want to eat baked potatoes with heavy duty sheers. So things have meanings, but all the meanings are external to the things themselves. So in other words, forks don't jump up and proclaim, "I am a fork!" We understand forks to be forks in comparison with all other kinds of possible utensils, functions and so on. A fork doesn't have its own "forkness" magically encoded into some kind of internal fork essence. What makes a fork be a fork is not in the fork itself.

 

What this means is that all concrete objects have meaning only within a functioning awareness. It is precisely the function of awareness to maintain a living informational context. This context is a state of mind. It's not a substance of any kind. A substance is something that's posited to be the way it is regardless of mind state. Of course there is nothing like that.

 

So without awareness, there is no talk of concrete objects. There is no way to consider concrete objects without living awareness. And all the concrete objects you've ever had the fortune or misfortune of considering were seemingly fragmentary aspects of your own awareness.

 

An example of this would be like an ocean and its waves. The waves arise out of the ocean. If the ocean is very calm, there are no waves. If the ocean is disturbed, waves appear. But waves cannot produce the ocean because the ocean is more fundamental than the waves for one. The waves are expressions of the ocean. The waves are seemingly fragmentary aspects of the ocean. The waves are perturbations of the ocean. Without the ocean to be perturbed all talk of waves would be senseless. Of course the ocean is not a perfect example and is not to be taken literally. The problem with the ocean example is that there are things outside the ocean (like the wind above its surface that helps to agitate the waves) and awareness is not like that.

 

Now the brain is like anything that appears within awareness. It's a fragmentary and temporary function of the state of awareness. By temporary I mean you don't experience brains more than a small amount of time. If you work in a biology lab, you may handle some brain tissue from time to time. If you don't work in a related field, you may go most of your life not seeing any brain tissue. In fact you may live out your entire life without actually seeing any real brain tissue, but just seeing it on TV and reading about it. When I say it's fragmentary I mean that every time you observe the brain you also observe other things. For example, if the brain is in a jar of formaldehyde then you observe the jar and probably the sticker on it. If the brain is in your hands, you observe your hands. If the brain is in a warm room, you observe the warmth of the room. If it's in the cold room, you observe the cold of the room. Like vast majority of concrete objects the brain appears in some context, never alone, never floating in the void, always surrounded by other shit that gives it meaning.

 

Just consider this sentence for example. You can't reasonably say that the preceding sentence arose from the word "consider." All the words in the sentence need to be where they are in order for: 1) the sentence to make the sense that it does and 2) in order for the individual words to retain the meaning that they do. If I start to use a word in a new way it will acquire a new meaning. It makes no sense to elevate any word above any other word. The brain is in that same position too. The only reason we elevate the brain is due to sentimentality, prejudice, beliefs, habits, but for no truly logical reason. The brain contributes as much meaning to the universe as does a shoe or any other concrete object. A brain is like a word in a large sentence. We need the word to be there for the sentence to make sense, and if we drop the word, the sentence stops being what it was with the word in it. The sentence might become senseless even. Imagine we drop the word "consider" from the first sentence in this paragraph. We get: "Just consider this sentence for example." What does this mean? It's a borderline meaningless expression in the English language. Or what if I drop another word, "Just consider this sentence for example." Now it's complete gibberish. Can we now conclude the meaning of the sentence issues forth from the word "example"? Of course not. This demonstrates that just because something can be crucial to the total meaning, it doesn't mean the total meaning is generated within that crucial something. So the brain as a concrete object can be crucial to our universe of meaning, but it doesn't mean the brain is the seat of all meaning simply because it's crucial to our peculiar and strange way of making sense of appearances.

 

It's only logical no one seemingly fragmentary perturbation of the state of awareness is the source of awareness. A gust of wind is not the source of the wind. A wave is not the source of the ocean. The smoke is not the source of fire.

 

The only reason to think otherwise is pure prejudice.

 

Now, let's assume "concrete objects" existed prior to awareness. Let's ignore the fact that we need a functioning awareness to even consider this possibility in the first place. Since these assumed concrete objects exist prior to functioning awareness, we know nothing of them. These objects then bounce around and interact with one another and awareness appears. When this happens, there is no reason to believe that the contents of this awareness will be related in any obvious way to the objects that are causing it. So for example, a movie projector looks nothing like the movies it projects. If you watch 1 million movies you cannot assume anything about the shape of the projector. No amount of movie watching gives you additional information about the projector. The projector may be digital. It may be analogue. It may be 35mm film, or 40mm. It may have any kind of light source. The projector may not even exist external to the movie screen. It could be built into the screen. In other words, watching movies tells you nothing about the projector. Nothing at all. If you believe in the projector that's projecting the movie, you have to take it on blind faith unless you built the projector yourself, etc. But basically if you knew nothing whatsoever about the projection technology, and if all you did was watch movies, then no matter how clever you were, you couldn't figure out a damn thing about the projector.

 

Similarly, perhaps the block of matter interacting and giving rise to awareness is the size of a galaxy. An entire galaxy-size machine is required to generate awareness of one person. In that awareness people seem to have brains which look nothing whatsoever like the galaxy-sized machine that's producing awareness.

 

So in other words, the state of awareness would have no direct relation to the concrete objects producing it if awareness was truly a product.

 

And finally, if awareness is produced by fundamentally unaware objects of some sort, there is nothing we can do to discover these objects. All we can discover is whatever appears within the state of awareness and not whatever is external to it. So stating that something produces awareness because you don't know or remember your birth or pre-birth experience is argument from ignorance.

 

If we allow that external-to-awareness realities produce awareness then what we are doing is dismantling all grounds for reasoning. It would imply that all meanings depend on something that's fundamentally and in principle unknowable (beyond even the potential of knowing).

Edited August 5, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Todd]

Ok, your argument begins from this: "Nothing can be known outside of awareness". I agree with this, and I believe that it is one of very few a priori statements that I can accept for the purposes of discussion.

 

 

Most of your argument was detailing the implications of "Nothing can be known outside of awareness".

 

My argument was that even with this being true, this argument alone tells us nothing of the source of awareness. Awareness could be the source and substance of all, or awareness could be interdependently originated with matter, or awareness could be produced by priorly existing non-awareness (let's just say matter for simplicity's sake), which remains outside of awareness.

 

 

This is not an argument from ignorance, since I never made a positive or negative statement. I denied that your positive statement that awareness is the source and substance is logically valid, at least based upon the arguments that you have presented, and I presented an alternative possibility that is equally logically valid. I said that we cannot know what you say we can know through the arguments that you have presented.

 

From the link that you generously provided (my emphasis added):

 

"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to satisfactorily prove the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).^[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof."

Your criticism of this stems from another assumption, which is more of an aesthetic position than anything else, that all things must in principle be knowable, or at least the fundamental source of our experience must be knowable, and hence any explanation that does not allow this is not acceptable to you. This is not a logically valid argument, and I was asking if you could provide another, actually logically valid argument for the statement that awareness is primary, or not produced from non-awareness by means that are unknown/potentially unknowable to us.

 

What I have shared above is the crux of this discussion. I want to explore a few of the implications below.

 

In the ocean and waves example, you assume for awareness the position of ocean, and this assumption is not supported by your argument.

 

With reference to the brain, which would be the most likely non-awareness source for awareness, it is not just like anything that appears in awareness, in that we are not able to perceive our own brains, the ones that putatively are producing our awarenesses, except by indirect means. Those means include recognizing their effects (i.e. our awarenesses), or using machines to image them, or pick up activity from them, or the testimony of others, or through a mirror if our skulls happen to be open, which would jeaprodize the continued operation of those brains. The brain is actually just like the unknowable source that you referenced toward the end of your post, so don't pretend that we can see our brains like any other object. We can only easily see other brains, and even this is relatively rare, especially while they are still producing awarenesses.

 

Your analogy with the word and the sentence is not valid. The brain is not like a word in the sentence, since it is not easily available to perception. The brain is like you typing the sentence, a not easily perceivable, but potentially inferrable source.

 

Your analogy with the movie projector is a good one. Except, imagine in the movie that there were images of a movie theater, which then traces the light back into the projection room and revealed a movie projector in all of its details. Lets say that in this movie, there were images of many movie theaters, and every time the light was traced back, and there was another movie projector. This would not tell us for certain that the movie we were watching was the result of a movie projector, but we would have a good reason to infer that perhaps our movie is indeed the projection of a movie projector.

 

This is not a good analogy in some ways, since we have no rays of light to trace back, but there are pieces of evidence that point to the brain as being the source of consciousness, such as changes to consciousness corresponding to changes in the brain.

 

Personally, I am not really predisposed to feel that consciousness, or awareness arises solely, or even necessarily at all from the brain. If I were to say that it arises from matter, I would give it a much less localized source, and I am not all that inclined to assume matter in the first place. I am just asking for a logically valid argument that supports this predisposition of mine, and apparently, yours. I want something that not only shows that something is possible, but that shows it is far and away the most likely explanation. If it can't be shown logically, I am fine with that, but we should not pretend that we have airtight arguments when we do not.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Todd

[goldisheavy]

Ok, your argument begins from this: "Nothing can be known outside of awareness". I agree with this, and I believe that it is one of very few a priori statements that I can accept for the purposes of discussion.

 

 

Most of your argument was detailing the implications of "Nothing can be known outside of awareness".

 

My argument was that even with this being true, this argument alone tells us nothing of the source of awareness.

 

Not true. It tells us that all the concrete objects of awareness are disqualified from being sources of awareness. I've explained why so, so I won't repeat anything.

 

Awareness could be the source and substance of all, or awareness could be interdependently originated with matter, or awareness could be produced by priorly existing non-awareness (let's just say matter for simplicity's sake), which remains outside of awareness.

 

This is not an argument from ignorance, since I never made a positive or negative statement. I denied that your positive statement that awareness is the source and substance is logically valid, at least based upon the arguments that you have presented, and I presented an alternative possibility that is equally logically valid. I said that we cannot know what you say we can know through the arguments that you have presented.

 

So your "argument" is that because we cannot know if matter is behind awareness or not, let's just assume that it is. That's not much of an argument. Like I pointed out, even if we go with this assumption, we discover that matter is logically disconnected from the contents of awareness. If matter is what generates awareness, then it's not matter that you're aware of, unless the matter is self-aware. If you claim that matter is self-aware, then we need to get rid of the word "matter" and just call it mind.

 

I don't make an argument from ignorance. I know awareness exists. I proceed from this knowledge forward, building from one known to another. I start with awareness, then I discover the nature of the concrete objects of awareness, then I conclude that such objects cannot be the source of awareness. At no point do I venture into an unknown or take something on faith. My own awareness is self-evident to me so no faith is necessary there. My only act of faith is to assume that you are as real as I am. I have no proof of this. Other than that, I make no assumptions.

 

From the link that you generously provided (my emphasis added):

 

"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to satisfactorily prove the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).^[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof."

Your criticism of this stems from another assumption, which is more of an aesthetic position than anything else, that all things must in principle be knowable,

 

It's not an assumption per se, it's what I refer to "this is what I am willing to consider." It's a pragmatic consideration. If something is fundamentally beyond knowing I 1) don't bother looking for it, 2) do not include it into my considerations and 3) do not base my life on it in any way and relate to it as irrelevant.

 

There are some things which are unknown right now, but which can in principle become known. These kinds of unknown are very important for me. The unknowns that are potential knowns are included into my consideration. Unknowns that cannot ever become known are not included. I don't operate on blind faith and don't recommend it to others.

 

or at least the fundamental source of our experience must be knowable,

 

No. My argument is this:

 

1. I know what concrete objects are like.

2. Because of 1, I know they can't be the source of awareness.

3. Case closed.

 

It actually makes no difference what the source of awareness is as long as I understand that whatever appears to awareness is not the source of it. From then on I am free. If the source of awareness is flurobompax or fetrof-complex, who cares? Simply understanding what happens within awareness is enough to lead a good life and to properly react to every possible occurrence with wisdom and fearlessness.

 

and hence any explanation that does not allow this is not acceptable to you. This is not a logically valid argument,

 

I disagree. Logicians routinely discard considerations which are irrelevant and which only bring needless complications without enhancing explanatory power. An example of this is when the physics scientific community discarded the notion of ether. After a number of experiments the physicists realized there was no way they could detect ether. Since they couldn't detect it, they omitted it as a notion from the field of physics. I am basically doing the same thing when I am omitting matter.

 

and I was asking if you could provide another, actually logically valid argument for the statement that awareness is primary, or not produced from non-awareness by means that are unknown/potentially unknowable to us.

 

What I have shared above is the crux of this discussion. I want to explore a few of the implications below.

 

In the ocean and waves example, you assume for awareness the position of ocean, and this assumption is not supported by your argument.

 

Concrete objects are waves because no concrete object is self-apparent. Instead all concrete objects are only apparent to the extent they are supported by a larger context. In other words, concrete objects are always smaller than the whole "thing."

 

With reference to the brain, which would be the most likely non-awareness source for awareness, it is not just like anything that appears in awareness, in that we are not able to perceive our own brains, the ones that putatively are producing our awarenesses, except by indirect means.

 

Awareness cannot perceive its own source. Awareness can only perceive objects. Objects are always related to awareness in the manner of slaves to masters, or children to parents, etc... objects are always smaller and always dependent on external-to-object context existing within awareness to be what they are. Because awareness can only perceive 1) smaller "things" than itself and 2) things awareness itself needs to be in a certain specific state to perceive, awareness cannot perceive its source.

 

The source of awareness could not be a result of the function of awareness. In other words, the effect of awareness cannot be its cause. Concrete objects are all, without exception, fundamentally, in principle, effects of awareness. So an example of this relationship is fire and smoke. The smoke is an effect of fire. The smoke cannot thus be the cause of fire. Being an effect is a subservient, weaker position.

 

Those means include recognizing their effects (i.e. our awarenesses), or using machines to image them, or pick up activity from them, or the testimony of others, or through a mirror if our skulls happen to be open, which would jeaprodize the continued operation of those brains. The brain is actually just like the unknowable source that you referenced toward the end of your post, so don't pretend that we can see our brains like any other object. We can only easily see other brains, and even this is relatively rare, especially while they are still producing awarenesses.

 

Your analogy with the word and the sentence is not valid. The brain is not like a word in the sentence, since it is not easily available to perception.

 

You don't really understand my usage. That analogy was to distinguish crucial from generative. I was pointing out how something can be crucial without being generative. Once you agree that something can be crucial and yet not generative, you need to prove that the brain is not merely crucial for the world-perception to be what it is, but that it is generative.

 

The brain is like you typing the sentence, a not easily perceivable, but potentially inferrable source.

 

You cannot infer the brain as a source at all. If you think you can, then go ahead and try to infer it. I'll be here laughing and watching you fail.

 

Your analogy with the movie projector is a good one. Except, imagine in the movie that there were images of a movie theater, which then traces the light back into the projection room and revealed a movie projector in all of its details.

 

Whatever you observed in the movie would not be indicative of the true nature of the movie projector. That was the whole point of my example there. You're praying for a lucky meaningless coincidence that the movie projector will miraculously project its own function onto the screen and not just the movies plugged into it. It's not going to happen.

 

Lets say that in this movie, there were images of many movie theaters, and every time the light was traced back, and there was another movie projector. This would not tell us for certain that the movie we were watching was the result of a movie projector, but we would have a good reason to infer that perhaps our movie is indeed the projection of a movie projector.

 

I fail to see it. Sounds like nonsense. I can't even understand what you're talking about at all. Tracing the light? Movie theaters? I have no idea what it all means. You're losing it.

 

This is not a good analogy in some ways, since we have no rays of light to trace back, but there are pieces of evidence that point to the brain as being the source of consciousness, such as changes to consciousness corresponding to changes in the brain.

 

Right, I knew you'd talk about that. This is why I differentiated crucial-to-meaning from generative. For us the brain needs to be the way it is for the world as we know it to make sense. That doesn't mean the brain actually generates awareness. If you still believe in generative ability of the brain, you pretty much have to assume that ability without any evidence. All the evidence you have is that the brain is crucial to the meaning of what it means to be a human being in this realm. There is an impossible to cross logical chasm between "crucial" and "generative."

 

I've had many dreams where I was shot straight into the brain, in the dream. Instead of permanently dying I simply woke up to find myself safe in bed. The physicalist explanation to this is that the "real" brain is in bed, while the dream brain is "fake". When the fake brain is shot in the dream, the real one is fine. Of course I can extend this line of thinking further. I can say this brain that's involved in typing this post is a fake brain. If you shoot me, my body will collapse from your point of view, but from my point of view, I will wake up safe in bed again. It all makes sense because during dreams we don't know our dream brains are fake. We only realize that after the fact.

 

Personally, I am not really predisposed to feel that consciousness, or awareness arises solely, or even necessarily at all from the brain. If I were to say that it arises from matter, I would give it a much less localized source, and I am not all that inclined to assume matter in the first place. I am just asking for a logically valid argument that supports this predisposition of mine, and apparently, yours. I want something that not only shows that something is possible, but that shows it is far and away the most likely explanation. If it can't be shown logically, I am fine with that, but we should not pretend that we have airtight arguments when we do not.

 

My arguments are as air tight as any on this Earth when it comes to awareness. I don't say this kind of thing often.

Edited August 5, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Todd]

It tells as that all the concrete objects of awareness are disqualified from being sources of awareness.

 

 

No, it says that awareness is necessary for objects to be known. You have not shown that non-awareness cannot be a source of awareness. You have only shown that if that were true, we would not be aware of this source as a source. I have left open the possibility that it could be inferred through various means, such as there being more than one non-awareness source of awareness, which we could observe and then by analogy consider to be like our own, or through using other means, such as mirrors, to reflect back on this non-awareness source.

 

So your "argument" is that because we cannot know if matter is behind awareness or not, let's just assume that it is.

 

No, it isn't. We must be very clear about this. I am not making a positive statement, except that your argument does not demonstrate what you say it demonstrates. All of the stuff about the brain is to show that there is another possible outcome from the assumption that we agree to. You make other assumptions that are unsupported, and I want to call awareness to those assumptions, so they can be understood, and other options using fewer assumptions might be developed.

 

If matter is what generates awareness, then it's not matter that you're aware of,

 

 

Just as we are not directly aware of our own brains.

 

unless the matter is self-aware. If you claim that matter is self-aware, then we need to get rid of the word "matter" and just call it mind.

Matter does not need to be self-aware to generate awareness. This is an assumption.

 

...

At no point do I venture into an unknown or take something on faith. My own awareness is self-evident to me so no faith is necessary there. My only act of faith is to assume that you are as real as I am. I have no proof of this. Other than that, I make no assumptions.

 

You also assume that everything is in principle directly knowable, that there is no unknown or unknowable factor influencing our experience.

 

It's not an assumption per se, it's what I refer to "this is what I am willing to consider." It's a pragmatic consideration. If something is fundamentally beyond knowing I 1) don't bother looking for it, 2) do not include it into my considerations and 3) do not base my life on it in any way and relate to it as irrelevant.

 

 

This is your right. Such a choice does not make a good argument, since the whole argument depends on this choice, which has no basis other than preference.

 

Knowing that there is something fundamentally beyond knowing, at least on the basis of verbal arguments, is quite valuable to me. It helps me to have more philosophical humility, and it inspires me to look for other means to knowledge. I am open to a better verbal argument, but what you are presenting is based on assumption and preference.

I don't operate on blind faith and don't recommend it to others.

 

Neither do I, but your assumptions have a quality of faith to them. Without this faith, then one must admit to an unknown.

 

It actually makes no difference what the source of awareness is as long as I understand that whatever appears to awareness is not the source of it. From then on I am free. If the source of awareness is flurobompax or fetrof-complex, who cares? Simply understanding what happens within awareness is enough to lead a good life and to properly react to every possible occurrence with wisdom and fearlessness.

 

This may be true, but it does not make a valid argument that awareness has no source outside of itself.

Concrete objects are waves because no concrete object is self-apparent. Instead all concrete objects are only apparent to the extent they are supported by a larger context. In other words, concrete objects are always smaller than the whole "thing."

 

Your argument does not show that awareness is this whole "thing" and is not a part of this whole "thing". If it is a part, then it could in turn arise from another part, and hence from an object in this whole "thing".

 

awareness cannot perceive its source.

 

 

If this is true, then based on awareness, we can make no definitive positive statements about its source.

The source of awareness could not be a result of the function of awareness. In other words, the effect of awareness cannot be its cause. Concrete objects are all, without exception, fundamentally, in principle, effects of awareness. So an example of this relationship is fire and smoke. The smoke is an effect of fire. The smoke cannot thus be the cause of fire. Being an effect is a subservient, weaker position.

 

You have once again assumed that awareness is the source, despite saying above that awareness cannot know its source.

 

You don't really understand my usage. That analogy was to distinguish crucial from generative. I was pointing out how something can be crucial without being generative. Once you agree that something can be crucial and yet not generative, you need to prove that the brain is not merely crucial for the world-perception to be what it is, but that it is generative.

 

The same argument applies to awareness itself.

 

You cannot infer the brain at all. If you think you can, then go ahead and try to infer it. I'll be here laughing and watching you fail.

 

How hard is it to infer a brain? I have seen brains in formaldehyde, pictures of brains and brain scans, videos of brains in open skulls, etc, and so I infer that brains exist. This does not mean that inference is true, but I do have some basis for making that inference. More than mere existence can be inferred about the brain. This is not a major interest of mine, so I won't go into it, but to claim that such inferences can't be made, is to be willfully ignorant.

 

Whatever you observed in the movie would not be indicative of the true nature of the movie projector. That was the whole point of my example there. You're praying for a lucky meaningless coincidence that the movie projector will miraculously project its own function onto the screen and not just the movies plugged into it. It's not going to happen.

 

 

And yet, you yourself have said that brains are observable. If we are going to make an analogy between a movie theater and our experience, and the putative projector is the brain, then we need to include them in the movie, since they are observable in our experience, even if we cannot observe our own brains except indirectly.

 

I fail to see it. Sounds like nonsense. I can't even understand what you're talking about at all. Tracing the light? Movie theaters? I have no idea what it all means. You're losing it.

 

 

Do you have anything to offer but an emotional reaction? What part is so difficult to understand? Tracing light is possible by blocking the light and seeing the direction that the shadow is cast and then extending back in line from the hand to the projector. Its not really that difficult.

Right, I know you'd talk about that. This is why I differentiated crucial-to-meaning from generative. For us the brain needs to be the way it is for the world as we know it to make sense. That doesn't mean the brain actually generates awareness. If you still believe in generative ability of the brain, you pretty much have to assume that ability without any evidence. All the evidence you have is that the brain is crucial to the meaning of what it means to be a human being in this realm. There is an impossible to cross logical chasm between "crucial" and "generative."

I assume nothing more than you. I am not arguing for the brain as the source of awareness. I am only showing that it is a logically valid as your description, if we start with the same assumptions. And thus we cannot claim to know either way based solely upon logic.

 

I've had many dreams where I was shot straight into the brain, in the dream. Instead of permanently dying I simply woke up to find myself safe in bed. The physicalist explanation to this is that the "real" brain is in bed, while the dream brain is "fake". When the fake brain is shot in the dream, the real one is fine. Of course I can extend this line of thinking further. I can say this brain that's involved in typing this post is a fake brain. If you shoot me, my body will collapse from your point of view, but from my point of view, I will wake up safe in bed again. It all makes sense because during dreams we don't know our dream brains are fake. We only realize that after the fact.

 

 

I do not deny this possibility. I only deny that it is logically supported by what you have presented. I ask if you have better arguments.

 

My arguments are as air tight as any on this Earth when it comes to awareness.

 

I'm afraid this might be true.

 

 

 

 

[goldisheavy]

No, it says that awareness is necessary for objects to be known. You have not shown that non-awareness cannot be a source of awareness. You have only shown that if that were true, we would not be aware of this source as a source.

 

This is wrong. I said that if awareness has a source that's fundamentally outside of awareness, such as fundamentally unaware matter interactions, then that must be taken on blind faith. Not only can you not be aware of the source as a source in that case, but you cannot be aware of the source as anything at all, neither as anything specific nor as anything general, nothing at all. So the right way to summarize one thing I said is to say that "You have only shown that if that were true, we would not be aware of this source, period. as a source."

 

Second thing I said was this. If something beyond awareness is creating awareness, then the relationships occurring within awareness become immune to reason, since the factors giving rise to those relationships are fundamentally beyond analysis. So the implication of an unaware substance causing awareness is arbitrariness of meaning, meaninglessness, nihilism, etc. At any point I can start talking nonsense and if you ask me why, I could just say, "whatever fundamentally unaware matter interaction that is causing my awareness is causing this sort of talk." The implication then is that gibberish talk is caused in the exact same way as non-gibberish talk, and non-gibberish only sounds intelligent either purely coincidentally or for reasons fundamentally beyond understanding.

 

I have left open the possibility that it could be inferred through various means, such as there being more than one non-awareness source of awareness, which we could observe and then by analogy consider to be like our own, or through using other means, such as mirrors, to reflect back on this non-awareness source.

 

So your "argument" is that because we cannot know if matter is behind awareness or not, let's just assume that it is.

 

No, it isn't.

 

When you play the devil's advocate in this discussion, yes, that's what you have to be doing because that's the position you're trying to explore. It doesn't mean you're assuming this in your private day to day life.

 

We must be very clear about this. I am not making a positive statement, except that your argument does not demonstrate what you say it demonstrates. All of the stuff about the brain is to show that there is another possible outcome from the assumption that we agree to. You make other assumptions that are unsupported, and I want to call awareness to those assumptions, so they can be understood, and other options using fewer assumptions might be developed.

 

If matter is what generates awareness, then it's not matter that you're aware of,

 

 

Just as we are not directly aware of our own brains.

 

unless the matter is self-aware. If you claim that matter is self-aware, then we need to get rid of the word "matter" and just call it mind.

Matter does not need to be self-aware to generate awareness. This is an assumption.

 

I don't assume it for myself. I am exploring various lines of reasoning for you. It's not necessary for you to talk like this when you know I just entertain this or that assumption in order to explore it.

 

Possibilities:

 

1. Matter is self-aware.

 

2. Matter is not self-aware but generates awareness.

 

I was simply saying that in case 1 we don't need the word "matter." We can just rename it. Words have meanings and it's possible to change the meaning of the word "matter" so profoundly that it no longer resembles its original materialistic meaning. At that point it's more honest to discard the word. That's how the word "ether" got discarded in physics.

 

...

At no point do I venture into an unknown or take something on faith. My own awareness is self-evident to me so no faith is necessary there. My only act of faith is to assume that you are as real as I am. I have no proof of this. Other than that, I make no assumptions.

 

You also assume that everything is in principle directly knowable, that there is no unknown or unknowable factor influencing our experience.

 

Not true. There are infinite unknown factors influencing our experience, but these unknown factors are not fundamentally and permanently unknown. These factors are merely deeply submerged well below the conscious level.

 

It's a shame you missed this nuance upon your first reading. I talked about it. I told you there are two kinds of unknowns. One kind I respect and one I don't.

 

1. Unknown that can potentially be known. -- respect

 

2. Unknown that is fundamentally unknown and can never under any circumstances be known -- no respect

 

It's not an assumption per se, it's what I refer to "this is what I am willing to consider." It's a pragmatic consideration. If something is fundamentally beyond knowing I 1) don't bother looking for it, 2) do not include it into my considerations and 3) do not base my life on it in any way and relate to it as irrelevant.

 

 

This is your right. Such a choice does not make a good argument, since the whole argument depends on this choice, which has no basis other than preference.

 

This is only partially true because while it is a preference, it's a conventional one. So it's not just me alone taking this pragmatic strategy, it's all the respected thinkers of this world. Still, it is a two-fold preference: mine and conventional. If this two-fold preference is not convincing for you, then nothing is. No one can ever convince you of anything.

 

If we discard the principle of seeking out more and more modest explanations, then we discard all of logic. Because if complex explanations are just as good as simpler ones, then I can get space aliens, pink elephants and magical faeries involved in explaining why and how I am typing this post. We reject all of those not because they are proven to be impossible, but because they complicate the story unnecessarily.

 

Knowing that there is something fundamentally beyond knowing, at least on the basis of verbal arguments, is quite valuable to me.

 

You don't in fact know anything like that. If you assume there is something fundamentally beyond knowing, then it's your blind faith at work. You certainly have no evidence for it. You can't say that you not knowing everything is proof that there is something fundamentally unknowable as that would be an argument from ignorance and is not acceptable in formal reasoning on this planet.

 

It helps me to have more philosophical humility, and it inspires me to look for other means to knowledge. I am open to a better verbal argument, but what you are presenting is based on assumption and preference.

I don't operate on blind faith and don't recommend it to others.

 

Neither do I, but your assumptions have a quality of faith to them. Without this faith, then one must admit to an unknown.

 

On the contrary. All my life I've experienced this or that knowns. I've also experienced unknowns becoming known and knowns reverting back to an unknown state. What I've never experienced though and what I have not the slightest shred of evidence for (by definition!) is something that's fundamentally unknowable, something unknowable even in principle.

 

I mean, if you could give me some evidence for something that's unknowable even in principle, I'll gladly accept it. Until then why don't you admit you take such things on blind faith.

 

It actually makes no difference what the source of awareness is as long as I understand that whatever appears to awareness is not the source of it. From then on I am free. If the source of awareness is flurobompax or fetrof-complex, who cares? Simply understanding what happens within awareness is enough to lead a good life and to properly react to every possible occurrence with wisdom and fearlessness.

 

This may be true, but it does not make a valid argument that awareness has no source outside of itself.

 

My argument is that we should believe and act as if awareness has no source outside of itself. If awareness does have a source outside itself, that source is utterly irrelevant, inscrutable, has no logical connection to any contents of awareness (or if it does, it renders all the contents meaningless and beyond reason) and changes nothing whatsoever from a hands-on point of view.

Edited August 5, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Shoot this down:

 

1. Awareness is intentional and infinitely contextual.

2. Concrete objects that appear to the conscious aspect of awareness are only meaningful within a context. Nothing concrete is inherently meaningful.

3. Brain is one such concrete object.

4. Because of 2, brain is not inherently meaningful and instead it relies on a specific state of awareness for its own meaning to be what it is (like any other concrete object).

5. Implication of 4 is that the brain is imaginary and subjective.

6. Imaginary cannot be a source of real.

 

Various sundry concrete objects and other specifics occurring within awareness are all imaginary (or visionary, if you prefer) insofar they all depend on the state of mind to be just so in order to be perceived. Awareness as a general fact that one or other kind of knowing is occurring at all times is self-evidently real. So the experience is real, but the suggestions inherent in the experience are imaginary, like in a movie (so an appearance that looks like a truck is not in fact a real truck, etc.).