4 ms·

What the f* am I reading? The notion of mind is a delusion, caused by confused verbalized introspection in the first place. An observer (the awareness) misa

by lngnmn 10y ago

What the f* am I reading? The notion of mind is a delusion, caused by confused verbalized introspection in the first place. An observer (the awareness) misapprehends working of a set of semi-independent parts as a whole, like an observer of a large city from the top of a skyscraper could readily mistake it for a living organism. Some rather theoretical scientists are arguing that the notion of so-called [my] self is just an illusion of the same kind. (The Robert Wright's course on Coursera is a good starting point). Consciousness (but not necessarily self-consciousness, which is the notion available only to an abstract-thinking capable entity) or awareness is the property of all animals with a complex-enough brain. It definitely exist as one of many processes in a brain. The notion of an individual mind being a part of the universal mind (in which each individual mind is a drop in a waterfall on the river of Brahman) goes back a few millennia and nowadays is considered to be nothing but a beautiful abstraction. As a person who got The Society Of Mind and The Emotion Machine (among other titles) on my bookshelf I am very concerned about such lousy "science" being promoted on HN.

red75prime 10y ago
> Some rather theoretical scientists are arguing that the notion of so-called [my] self is just an illusion of the same kind. Illusion of mind, which is represented as activity of neural patterns in a brain, and therefore causes observable effects, stretches definition of illusion to the point of losing any sense.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  > [mind...] is represented as activity of neural patterns in a brain This is the stretch; accepting electrical activity (EEGs in particular) as a proof of mind. If electrical activity is a proof of mind, my radio has a mind.
  - red75prime 10y ago
    When radio mediates sounds of "I think, therefore I am", there's nothing more than sound and electrical currents correlated with waveform of that sound in it. Source: I can build simple radio. Why brain is probably not like that? Because there's no single experimental result pointing in this direction, while there's nothing contradicting the idea of brain producing mind. I know, philosophers are arguing both pro and contra, but they unlikely to come to agreement in nearest 100 years. Thus I need experimental results that brain is somehow communicates to something, to take this seriously.
stewbrew 10y ago
I don't think we know yet what the mind is. In every time, people have some theory about it that is informed by the major scientific breakthroughs and ideologies of that time that get generalized beyond recognition. One hundred years later, all that remains are memories of a faded fad.
mcguire 10y ago
"An observer (the awareness) misapprehends working of a set of semi-independent parts as a whole, like an observer of a large city from the top of a skyscraper could readily mistake it for a living organism." So you (and/or Robert Wright) would argue that a city doesn't exist as something worthy of a name in itself? In other words, "Albuquerque" doesn't denote anything; the only thing that exists is a loosely related collection of buildings, people, etc.?
- armitron 10y ago
  Of course his point of view also flies against systems theory and the last 60-70 years of radical progress that has been made in this domain. An ant colony is so much more than the sum of its parts. To call similar emergent systems "a delusion" is laughable. That he also mentions "Brahman" in the same post tells me that he's extremely confused and can't separate philosophy/mysticism from empiricism/science. lngmn writes: "The notion of mind is a delusion, caused by confused verbalized introspection in the first place. An observer (the awareness) misapprehends working of a set of semi-independent parts as a whole, like an observer of a large city from the top of a skyscraper could readily mistake it for a living organism." So, in his view, there exists an "awareness" that acts as an independent, objective "observer" that is in the position to misapprehend and it is this "awareness" that is deluded about the mind? How is that for circular reasoning. Even primitive Hindu mystics thousands of years ago when reflecting on the "awareness", what he calls Brahman, had the insight and reasoning ability to posit it as non-objective nothingness, non-dual, outside space and time, ineffable. Coming back to this reality, feedback loops and emergent properties are _everywhere_, and as the loops get shorter and shorter, system cohesion strengthens and the properties become more _obvious_. Arguments of the short that he put forth should be viewed with suspicion, if not outright dismissal and ridicule.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - lngnmn 10y ago
    > extremely confused and can't separate philosophy/mysticism from empiricism/science. That's rather bold generalization form a single term.) Nevertheless I would argue that I could easily hold a discussion on various branches of Eastern philosophy and modern sciences. My friend, awareness does not act, it exist. Other parts of the brain are responsible for actions. That is the point. Awareness is a process (processing of a sensory input, if you wish), one of many, not the whole. Awareness cannot be objective (or subjective) - this notion is inapplicable. Are camera and microphone in your phone objective? Observer is a metaphor used to give an oversimplified but familiar example. In philosophy of the mind an observer emerges as an abstract entity when awareness augmented with a language is directed toward itself in the process of verbalized introspection. A human language is a prerequisite for having such a notion. That is why modern science has no evidence that animals posses self-awareness. That "mind" or "I" or "myself" with which the verbalized introspection has been labeled what it think it sees is mere a linguistic construct. A label. A name for a reflection in the water of consciousness. The notion of Brahman is applicable to the nature of the universe and has nothing to do with awareness. The different notion - Atman - is used to convey fundamental idea, that what the nature of a Man is no different from the nature of the Universe - Man is mere a "product" of the Universe. This is the meaning of famous upanishadic "Atman is Brahman" and "I am that". There, perhaps, no subject other than what we call the philosophy of mind, on which the best minds of the humanity has been working since the beginning of time, and the ideas and notions they have developed, principles they have formulated still stands, even if they were realized as mere insights and intuitions. As for feedback loops and emergent properties - these are everywhere in biology. No one argues against systems biology or development. A brain has been emerged dues to accumulation of feedback and selection on "useful" patterns (I am oversimplifying for the sake of the argument). There is nothing to talk about. Actually, what is really ridiculous is trying to put in a few sentences the findings of evolutionary psychology, the notions of social and cultural conditioning, that a language is conditioned by a sensory experience (and hence by physical shared environment - this is how we got these apriori notions of time and space, described by Kant). What we call the mind is mere conditioning and memories of experiences, encoded using the very same conditioned linguistic forms and emotions (should I explain in what sense emotions are conditioned by the shared environment?). I think you should take the Robert Wright's course and read a book or two on the subject before trying to piss on a wrong tree.

by lngnmn 10y ago

red75prime 10y ago

> Some rather theoretical scientists are arguing that the notion of so-called [my] self is just an illusion of the same kind. Illusion of mind, which is represented as activity of neural patterns in a brain, and therefore causes observable effects, stretches definition of illusion to the point of losing any sense.

pessimizer 10y ago
> [mind...] is represented as activity of neural patterns in a brain This is the stretch; accepting electrical activity (EEGs in particular) as a proof of mind. If electrical activity is a proof of mind, my radio has a mind.
- red75prime 10y ago
  When radio mediates sounds of "I think, therefore I am", there's nothing more than sound and electrical currents correlated with waveform of that sound in it. Source: I can build simple radio. Why brain is probably not like that? Because there's no single experimental result pointing in this direction, while there's nothing contradicting the idea of brain producing mind. I know, philosophers are arguing both pro and contra, but they unlikely to come to agreement in nearest 100 years. Thus I need experimental results that brain is somehow communicates to something, to take this seriously.

stewbrew 10y ago

I don't think we know yet what the mind is. In every time, people have some theory about it that is informed by the major scientific breakthroughs and ideologies of that time that get generalized beyond recognition. One hundred years later, all that remains are memories of a faded fad.

mcguire 10y ago

"An observer (the awareness) misapprehends working of a set of semi-independent parts as a whole, like an observer of a large city from the top of a skyscraper could readily mistake it for a living organism." So you (and/or Robert Wright) would argue that a city doesn't exist as something worthy of a name in itself? In other words, "Albuquerque" doesn't denote anything; the only thing that exists is a loosely related collection of buildings, people, etc.?

armitron 10y ago
Of course his point of view also flies against systems theory and the last 60-70 years of radical progress that has been made in this domain. An ant colony is so much more than the sum of its parts. To call similar emergent systems "a delusion" is laughable. That he also mentions "Brahman" in the same post tells me that he's extremely confused and can't separate philosophy/mysticism from empiricism/science. lngmn writes: "The notion of mind is a delusion, caused by confused verbalized introspection in the first place. An observer (the awareness) misapprehends working of a set of semi-independent parts as a whole, like an observer of a large city from the top of a skyscraper could readily mistake it for a living organism." So, in his view, there exists an "awareness" that acts as an independent, objective "observer" that is in the position to misapprehend and it is this "awareness" that is deluded about the mind? How is that for circular reasoning. Even primitive Hindu mystics thousands of years ago when reflecting on the "awareness", what he calls Brahman, had the insight and reasoning ability to posit it as non-objective nothingness, non-dual, outside space and time, ineffable. Coming back to this reality, feedback loops and emergent properties are _everywhere_, and as the loops get shorter and shorter, system cohesion strengthens and the properties become more _obvious_. Arguments of the short that he put forth should be viewed with suspicion, if not outright dismissal and ridicule.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- lngnmn 10y ago
  > extremely confused and can't separate philosophy/mysticism from empiricism/science. That's rather bold generalization form a single term.) Nevertheless I would argue that I could easily hold a discussion on various branches of Eastern philosophy and modern sciences. My friend, awareness does not act, it exist. Other parts of the brain are responsible for actions. That is the point. Awareness is a process (processing of a sensory input, if you wish), one of many, not the whole. Awareness cannot be objective (or subjective) - this notion is inapplicable. Are camera and microphone in your phone objective? Observer is a metaphor used to give an oversimplified but familiar example. In philosophy of the mind an observer emerges as an abstract entity when awareness augmented with a language is directed toward itself in the process of verbalized introspection. A human language is a prerequisite for having such a notion. That is why modern science has no evidence that animals posses self-awareness. That "mind" or "I" or "myself" with which the verbalized introspection has been labeled what it think it sees is mere a linguistic construct. A label. A name for a reflection in the water of consciousness. The notion of Brahman is applicable to the nature of the universe and has nothing to do with awareness. The different notion - Atman - is used to convey fundamental idea, that what the nature of a Man is no different from the nature of the Universe - Man is mere a "product" of the Universe. This is the meaning of famous upanishadic "Atman is Brahman" and "I am that". There, perhaps, no subject other than what we call the philosophy of mind, on which the best minds of the humanity has been working since the beginning of time, and the ideas and notions they have developed, principles they have formulated still stands, even if they were realized as mere insights and intuitions. As for feedback loops and emergent properties - these are everywhere in biology. No one argues against systems biology or development. A brain has been emerged dues to accumulation of feedback and selection on "useful" patterns (I am oversimplifying for the sake of the argument). There is nothing to talk about. Actually, what is really ridiculous is trying to put in a few sentences the findings of evolutionary psychology, the notions of social and cultural conditioning, that a language is conditioned by a sensory experience (and hence by physical shared environment - this is how we got these apriori notions of time and space, described by Kant). What we call the mind is mere conditioning and memories of experiences, encoded using the very same conditioned linguistic forms and emotions (should I explain in what sense emotions are conditioned by the shared environment?). I think you should take the Robert Wright's course and read a book or two on the subject before trying to piss on a wrong tree.