mind the mind

There are possibly as many opinions about mind, as there are users – yet, most of them agree that mind plays a central role in their life.

There are possibly as many opinions about mind, as there are users – yet, most of them agree that mind plays a central role in their life.
Actually it is a mindless (subconscious) control mechanism of the brain that plays a central role in staying alive. We have absolutely no conscious awareness or control of our bodily functions, except when something goes wrong. Example: We don't experience digesting food, except when we experience nausea, as one among other symptoms that something is wrong with food we ate or when our digestive system is malfunctioning. Check out a more detailed explanation in this excellent presentation. https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality

Recommend reading:
The discourse on Prajna (Mind essence) - by Hui-Neng
https://terebess.hu/zen/HuinengCleary.pdf

There are possibly as many opinions about mind, as there are users – yet, most of them agree that mind plays a central role in their life.
Actually it is a mindless (subconscious) control mechanism of the brain that plays a central role in staying alive. We have absolutely no conscious awareness or control of our bodily functions, except when something goes wrong. Example: We don't experience digesting food, except when we experience nausea, as one among other symptoms that something is wrong with food we ate or when our digestive system is malfunctioning. Mind relates subjective & objective, biological & phenomenological, inner & outer experiences (quite a task for a "mindless control mechanism!)
There are possibly as many opinions about mind, as there are users – yet, most of them agree that mind plays a central role in their life.
Actually it is a mindless (subconscious) control mechanism of the brain that plays a central role in staying alive. We have absolutely no conscious awareness or control of our bodily functions, except when something goes wrong. Example: We don't experience digesting food, except when we experience nausea, as one among other symptoms that something is wrong with food we ate or when our digestive system is malfunctioning.
Mind relates subjective & objective, biological & phenomenological, inner & outer experiences (quite a task for a "mindless control mechanism!)
There are possibly as many opinions about mind, as there are users – yet, most of them agree that mind plays a central role in their life.
Actually it is a mindless (subconscious) control mechanism of the brain that plays a central role in staying alive. We have absolutely no conscious awareness or control of our bodily functions, except when something goes wrong. Example: We don't experience digesting food, except when we experience nausea, as one among other symptoms that something is wrong with food we ate or when our digestive system is malfunctioning. Mind relates subjective & objective, biological & phenomenological, inner & outer experiences (quite a task for a "mindless control mechanism!) Yes, that was poorly worded. I meant that the process is electro/chemical and that is in accordance with the mathematical properties (values) of the electro/chemical process. The result of all this produces an inner experience of cognition. If we don't recognize an event, we call it a miracle, which just means our "best guess" is based on insufficient information. The problem stems from the fact that while we have some 3 billion neurons in the brain, the incoming bits of information is in the trillions upon trillions. From this stream of secondary information, the brain is able to form an inner "best guess" of what the information represents. This result presents an inner hologram (mind) which in turn produces an emotional response which shapes our beliefs of our cognitive best guesses. This timeless optical illusion demonstrates this selective process of the brain very clearly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CEr2GfGilw

Mind is the mother of arts, religions and philosophies
…and quite a few sciences :slight_smile:

The mind is generally considered to have awareness of it’s respective environment and has the intentionality to respond to the surroundings. Also possessing the ability of consciousness and feelings.

The mind invokes the universe – the universe nourishes the mind.

The mind invokes the universe – the universe nourishes the mind.
There isn't mind, there is brain. Consciousness is an illusion.

Or the other side in that mind is a product of the brain.

Either way your comment is just plain false.

From these posts it seems the mind is not the strong suit of this group.

Interested parties must see this interesting lecture by Anil Seth, who explains and demonstrates that brain makes a “best guess” of second hand translation of sensory information

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo&t=8s

A split-off from the thread; “Why did you choose Atheism” in sub-forum; Religion and Secularism

This lecture will explain that what we perceive as reality is just a small part of reality that our senses and the brain select to aid us in survival. We see, hear, smell, taste only that what we need to survive, but there is so much more that is unnecessary for our survival.

We don’t see atoms, even as there are trillions of atoms whirling in front of us at very small scales. But they don’t threaten our existence unless they are released by an atom bomb.

In fact, if we could see everything that makes up reality, we’d go instantly mad.
Our brains use only that information which is conducive to our survival.

Watch this really easy-to-follow informative lecture on how we predict our relationship with reality in a way that allows us to avoid disaster.

Let’s explore this fascinating subject a little more and consider the expanding knowledge of how our brain works and creates our reality.

And a reference to the lecture in "Why did you choose Atheism.

Did we evolve to see reality as it exists? - Big Think?
Do we see reality as it is? | Donald Hoffman - YouTube

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:76, topic:8245”]

Only real difference is that one originates from a very egocentric, ego-shackled Abrahamic outlook on the creation around it.

I’ll wager that if you took some time to think about it, you’d acknowledge that on a fundamental level the Abrahamic religions are all about self-centeredness - ours as well as God’s .

Oh, I agree with that, but I do not agree that all ego-centricity is about religion.

Mine, comes from an Earth Centrist, evolutionary, materialist perspective.

But still ego-centric, no? Your brain can only be ego-centric. It is isolated from the exterior reality and only receives information from the environment via secondary neural electro-chemical data transmissions, from which it has to make a best guess.

Your ego-centric brain creates your personal self-centered experience of reality.
It cannot do otherwise! Ok, there is “empathy”, but that is another story.

Interesting, I see your projection exactly in the reverse. Admitting that the mind only makes a best guess about what the incoming electro-chemical information represents is admitting our limited observational abilities, where as you seem to profess that what we experience is all there is, which is obviously egocentric and demonstrably false.

I really believe that you place too much trust in your brain’s ability to analyze everything that makes up your reality instead of just a tiny little nook that is contained in your environment, the same as everyone else. There is no hard consensus about what we observe. We have a consensus about what our instruments tell us, but our brains are not nearly as accurate as our measuring instruments in the applied sciences.

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:85, topic:8245”]

I am certainly ready to look at anything you offer and learn some new lessons, or explain why I don’t buy it. But you still owe it to yourself to read [Damasio’s “Self Comes to Mind”]

(Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain - YouTube) and then Solms “The Hidden Spring”

Here is a cute mind bender.

In this one, you cannot not make her spin both ways.

The bottom clip is more difficult. Can you make her spin both ways without the cues?

That’s not what I said. I said all Abrahamic religions are about ego-centricity, and that luggage has followed us into western philosophy and our scientific tradition.

And I don’t get the fascination with injecting optical illusions with metaphysical significance. They have a lot to tell us about the hardware of the brain, but offering a key to consciousness they don’t.

Here is where the ego-centric comes in because so many don’t want to look for our consciousness within the depths of our evolution and biology, but within the lofty height of human intellectualizing.

cheers, and good night.

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:14, topic:6005”]
That’s not what I said. I said all Abrahamic religions are about ego-centricity, and that luggage has followed us into western philosophy and our scientific tradition.

I agree.
As to the transfer, I hope you don’t mind. I just wanted to bring the thread into a more psychological context and remove it from religious speculations.

Do watch the Panel on Reality (post # 12) It is very informative.

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:14, topic:6005”]

Here is where the ego-centric comes in because so many don’t want to look for our consciousness within the depths of our evolution and biology, but within the lofty height of human intellectualizing.

The intent of all these examples is to illustrate that brain is trained to “predict”, to make a best guess as to what is coming next. This is a most efficient survival mechanism , the ability to anticipate.
And that is why Seth speaks of “controlled hallicunations”, the internalization of what comes next.

IMO, all this is an evolved survival mechanism that started with the fundamental “fight or flight” response, anticipation!

I really don’t see where we are that far apart and why the scientists I recommended are to be seen as hucksters, a pretty harsh judgement.

Please I’ve listen to these talks, Hoffman is the worst, still what conclusion am I supposed to draw from people waxing lyrically about the utterly “intractable Mind Body problem” that needs to be solved by going outside the bounds of our Physical Reality?

Especially when you’ll never hear these same people discussing the amazing insights that the likes Damasio and Solms and others have achieved over the past couple decades?
Why is that? Because it would take the WOW out of their presentations, is what I suspect.

Why make optical illusions the center of one’s consciousness studies?
Can you explain the justification?
Yes our minds makes calculations and assumptions. But Hallucinations is something else!

Why be so oblivious of our evolutionary roots?
Why not make some declaratory statement about the state of the physical world we find ourselves embedded within. Instead one is more likely to hear a Matrix what-if analogy.

Lost within their love affair with their own brilliant Mindscapes, might be a better description, if ‘hucksters’ feels too rough.

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:17, topic:6005”]

Yes our minds makes calculations and assumptions. But Hallucinations is something else

Why be so oblivious of our evolutionary roots.

Wait, all these “minds” talk about the way the mind works and that thought is the result mental computation of data and primarily occupied with survival in a world full of dangers and opportunities, starting with fight or flight response, billions of years ago. They cover all the terrain. Unfortunately the brain can only create an internal map.

One thing must be understood clearly. The brain has no access to the exterior except by electro-chemical data streams The brain does not see or hear anything! It creates the experience of seeing and hearing from the date stream emitted by the senses which can see and hear.

Why not make some declaratory statement about the state of the physical world we find ourselves embedded within. Instead one is more likely to hear a Matrix what-if analogy.

They do! And explain that what the mind perceives is not necessarily reality, because reality would not be conducive to survival. You have to be receptive in order to hear!

I have not heard the word Matrix from any of them. But I have heard them say that colors and smells are a product of our mind. and that all the information we get from the environment is never a direct observation by the brain. It’s all vie electro-chemical signals that the brain must translate. The brain can only translate EC data if it can recognize the data and compare it with memory.

All this is done physically, but the result of your brain’s understanding of what is out there is purely imaginary.

You must understand that the brain as an organ that tries to make sense of what’s out there and what it means is completely isolated from the real world. It’s a prisoner inside a closed area. It gets every bit of data, from secondary sensory inputs.

The only direct communication the brain has is with its body, via interception. And interestigly that process is subconscious. The brain doesn’t need to know where your kidneys are. All it needs to know if they are functioning correctly and this does not require thought, it is a purely electro-chemical process.

Ask yourself, as a brain what would be your main concern?

I see a parallel with being physically locked up in a sensory deprivation chamber. My first goal would be to gain access to information from the outside world. I can drill a hole in the wall with a camera, so I can see. Then drill ahole in the wall with a microphone, so I can hear, etc.

That is the best the brain can do, gain access and store information so that it can make “considered” decisions.

This is so clear to me that I can’t think of any other possible way the brain could function effectively and have “imagination” (ability to produce controlled hallucinations).

How did Beethoven compose the 5th? He “heard” it first in his brain, he hallucinated it.
He did not plink around to see what sounded good. He had internalized the entire symphony inside his brain, before he committed a single note to paper.
Moreover… HE WAS DEAF! All he had for sound was hallucinatory!

Everything the mind does is for survival. The human mind is so far advanced that it has time for play, such as these abstract discussions that are purely mental in communication, as well as considering and trying to understand the meaning of the communication.

What’s with the absolutely? It’s very dualistic limited way of perceiving our interaction with our stomach and the outside world. On or Off. When in reality the real physical world is complex and interconnected in ways we’re just figuring out, and plenty we’ve learned about.

"Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality | Anil Seth

If he said your brain “perceives” your conscious reality, I’d have nothing to complain about, but that isn’t what he’s saying. His job should be to clarify, not confuse.

Oh yeah, that panel. I watched this a year ago or so. In fact, it’s one of the videos that drove me to actually work on my Hoffman project. Which became a place to focus and explicate my intellectual outrage at the showmanship and omissions of this line of rhetoric. Which to me seems all about sexing up their story so it sells. From that angle it makes sense, since it’s only the sensational folks are interested in. Perhaps sometime when I can get away and focus I’ll listen to it again and point out the red flags.

And your mind can either be aware of having its own biases, or oblivious of them altogether, therein lies the key.

Here we start getting to what really makes me feel squirrelly. We are embedded within a real environment that exerts its presence onto us creatures on all sorts of levels.
For starters where do we get off dismissing photons and pressure waves and neural transmitters as though they were meta-physical nothings?
Really think about that fundament judgement call they’ve made.

That stuff is physical contact. We are not “isolated” from exterior reality!
Seth also uses a limited mathematical construct to suppose atoms are almost all empty space - when in physical fact they are spheres of spinning energy, and solid as can be (think of energies needed to smash one).

I do no such thing.
I’m upset with the false weighting of the description, in particular, its lack of acknowledgement of that outside reality that really is there, no matter how limited our perception of it.

There’s nothing wrong (well except for the silly notion that the brain is “hallucinating” - our brain does IMAGING, to the best of its abilities!) how you all are describing the mind process, it’s the short shrift to physical reality that I want to point out.
It’s also the disregard of our human brand of consciousness is a thing evolved out of hundreds of millions, even billions, of years in the making.

That is the heart of this problem.

This has nothing to do with how objective or observant I might or might not be, this is about acknowledging that we are embedded in this dynamic physical reality that Earth created.

It is our job to understand IT to the best of our abilities, each to their own skills, knowledge, experience. That each has a slightly different image is irrelevant to the superseding truth that we are observing the same physical reality - no matter how we individually happen to perceive it.
No matter how many of its folds within folds of cumulative harmonic complexity is outside of our awareness.

Does that make any sense to you?

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:19, topic:6005”]

Here we start getting the real that makes me feel squirrelly.

Get used to it! It is really weird, but that is the reality of the situation.

We are embedded within a real environment that exerts its presence onto us creatures on all sorts of levels.

No, you are not embedded in the exterior environment. You are embedded in liquid inside your skull, that’s where you reside. You are a brain in a vat. Your body is the vat.

The vat resides in and is subject to pressures from the exterior environment and you, the captain of the vat, is trying to keep the vat afloat and navigate the ocean of danger and/or opportunities.

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:19, topic:6005”]

I’m upset with the false weighting of the description, in particular, its lack of acknowledgement of that outside reality that really is there, no matter how limited our perception of it.

But no one denies reality, everyone stipulates that if you stand in front of a train, you die. But that is nor where it ends.

When we are crossing the railroad and we see the train in the distance, the brain needs to calculate how long it will take the train to pass your crossing and if you have time to cross ahead of the train or should wait until the train has passed.

Before any action is taken, the brain must make a best guess of what the senses are telling , so it can make an “informed” prediction and act in accordance to best response.

It is absolutely clear that many times different individuals arrives at a different conclusions and predictions while “considering” the incoming data. This proves that brains are not just computing machines based on a specific OS.

IMO, Hoffman’s analogy of the brain as an interface is spot on . The brain has no direct experience of incoming data. It must process streams of electrochemical “bits” and “bites” and integrate them into a comprehensive “prediction” of reality.

Damasio’s “somatic marker” hypothesis that the brain and body are intimately connected in decision making is very succinctly addressed by Seth, in his remark that the brain is primarily concerned with bodily survival. It is stipulated to by all except perhaps Tegmark, who sees everything in context of mathematical functions, although decision making is already a mathematical function, so…

But what Damasio does not address the senses are only approximately correct in sensing for each individual.

And what about a animals that use survival strategies completely different from human senses which a merely adequate at best and only approximate reality according to our sensory abilities. Somatic markers are different for each person, which falsifies Damasio’s hypothesis that it applies equally to each species in general.

Somatic markers is nothing special, it is stipulated by all alike. But it is not the single definitive quality of the brain and its functions. It is not its abilities but the focus and context that determines the brain’s decision making process.

Damasio’s somatic markers does not address is the subconscious control process of homeostasis. The brain does not consciously decide how to maintain internal chemical control. It just reacts just like a fire sprinkler gets activated when a fire breaks out in the room. No decision is made, the reaction is purely electro-chemically based in maintaining a “normal” homeostatic balance.