Is Mind A Result Of Evolution? Can Mind Evolve From No-Mind?

[romansh]

In my mind there is no interpretation, it is an experience or state of being for lack of better words..

When we put our experiences (thoughts) into words, is this not an interpretation? If you see what I mean?

 

If one inheres in ones being where the ego is dead one loses all notions of oneself and the ego or of unity or duality for that matter.

Joseph

 

Egos are fine Joseph. They are just like colour - a useful illusion.

Edited July 25, 2012 by romansh

[JosephM]

[/font][/color]

When we put our experiences (thoughts) into words, is this not an interpretation? If you see what I mean?

 

Yes, i understand what you mean however in my experience, who I am in reality is not a thought, nor is it an experience that i can accurately put in words if you catch my drift. Therefor i have said i have no interpretation.

 

Egos are fine Joseph. They are just like colour - a useful illusion.

Ego is fine with me Rom. I have no enemies. To call it a useful illusion is agreeable with me. To call it real is also agreeable with me.

 

joseph

[glintofpewter]

Dutch

I find my perceptions agreeing with your point of view. (I think). Fools seldom differ?

The only thing I am unsure about is the "mental" states.

Either everything has a mental state (consciousness) to some degree. Or nothing does - hence the Blackmore essay.

thanks for the compliment.

either all or nothing, eh? Actually I agree. that sort of insistence led me here. As for the Blackmore essay - it's missing something IMO. Perhaps she is careless with the word consciousness.

 

 

Dutch

[romansh]

thanks for the compliment.

 

Shakespeare

A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

 

 

either all or nothing, eh? Actually I agree. that sort of insistence led me here. As for the Blackmore essay - it's missing something IMO. Perhaps she is careless with the word consciousness.

 

Dutch

Incomplete? Almost by definition. I suspect the years of meditation and introspection cannot be crammed into such a short essay.

But her central observation I find to be true for myself. And you Dutch?

 

I hope she has nor been careles with the word consciousness - in that she has written university entry level psychology textbooks on consciousness.

 

Joseph

Ego is fine with me Rom. I have no enemies. To call it a useful illusion is agreeable with me. To call it real is also agreeable with me.

 

Illusions are real - but they remain illusions.

[glintofpewter]

 

 

 

either all or nothing, eh? Actually I agree. that sort of insistence led me here. As for the Blackmore essay - it's missing something IMO. Perhaps she is careless with the word consciousness.

 

Dutch

Incomplete? Almost by definition. I suspect the years of meditation and introspection cannot be crammed into such a short essay.

But her central observation I find to be true for myself. And you Dutch?

 

 

Most of the time I am unconscious and inattentive. Mine was a rash judgmental statement but yes I disagree with the way in which she uses the term. Consciousness is how we ready ourselves for a series of moments so that our will can be free to make a choice and that we can pay attention as we experience the flow of the series of moments.

 

She adds to this essay ten other Zen questions which help one to realize the there is ultimately no dualism. I agree with that goal.

 

from her essay although there are others that more clearly show the mind games which have no place in experiencing "now". Talking about the experiencing is at least one abstract step away from the experience.

 

Some tell me they put stickers all over their house: “Are you conscious?” on the front door; “Am I conscious now?” on the toaster; “Conscious?” on the kettle; “Are you sure you’re conscious now?” on the pillow. Others get into pairs so that they can keep reminding each other – “Are you conscious now?”. Some take to special times and places; they ask the question every time they go to the loo, or always ask the question when going to bed, or always remember when they have a drink or food. Sometimes these tricks work; sometimes they don’t.

 

Elsewhere she asks the question "what was I conscious before now".doesn't all this thinking burden the moment unnecessarily. In this passage I believe that the better question is "am I attending and experiencing the moment?" What sensory stimulation am I aware of. Actually the better question is no question. Hushain(sp?) Bolt was asked about his mental state as he gets ready to once again prove he is the fastest human. I don't think the reporter anticipated his answer. I relax, he said. That, I think is preparing for experiencing the moment in its fullest rather than asking the question over and over again.

 

Perhaps our disagreement will be seen as semantics and methods.

 

Dutch

 

.

[JosephM]

i think one could say being conscious is a state rather than thinking "am i conscious now" i agree that talking about the experience is a step away from the experience and i would also add that thinking about the experience is also a step away. Perhaps it is necessary in practice to ask oneself questions for focus but it seems to me abiding more in the 'feeling' without the words or thinking is closer.

 

just my 2 cents.

Joseph

[romansh]

Dutch

How else are we going to examine our consciousness? Now I don't meditate so can't comment on the process or the various different types. But as koans go asking Am I conscious now? is a good as The sound of one hand clapping?

 

I suspect she is in the now as much you or I am. I know of no other place, even when I daydream of the future, past and other nows.

 

Again I am not agreeing with her conclusion, though I experience something similar to what she writes. At the very least this experience tells me that consciousness is not what it seems.

 

Joseph

You say - being conscious is a state

 

Being unconscious is also a state. And what I think is conscious when I examine it carefully seems more unconscious in reality.

 

 

But to go back to the is the mind a result of evolution? - evolution is a result of the greater environment. But then again so are stream beds, rocks and bricks.

[JosephM]

Being unconscious is also a state. And what I think is conscious when I examine it carefully seems more unconscious in reality.

Rom,

Perhaps unconscious is not a state at all but rather is the illusion you refer to in another post while being conscious is the natural state?

 

Joseph

[glintofpewter]

Dutch

How else are we going to examine our consciousness?

...

At the very least this experience tells me that consciousness is not what it seems.

Susan Blackmore has examined many human experiences scientifically to reveal that these experiences do not have the unity or permanence or reliability that we might claim in our stories.I understand that effort and appreciate the science.Susan believes that non-dualism is the best way to understand the universe and our experience of it and our place in it. I agree.

 

But what are we studying when we study consciousness? Are we asking when are we most aware of the self, of ego? Is consciousness when we are most aware of ourselves as separate from the universe, a necessary state of mind, much of the time? Asking our selves, "Am I conscious now?" Is consciousness when we are most aware of ourselves and our world? Or is consciousness when we are in the 'zone' and our body and mind working at a level below conscious awareness and control? As Olympic athletes often are? As a platoon of soldiers might experience? Again at a level below consciousness. Or is consciousness when we have a unitive experience? Again when we are most unaware of self? Which of these is the highest experience of consciousness?

 

 

Are we asking if our sense of unified continuous mental identity of self can be validated scientifically? Of course the answer is no.

Are we asking if I consciously ran the stop sign? Not often.

 

I don't understand the importance of showing that consciousness is not what it seems. I guess I haven't been in that field of study and don't know the specialized meaning that the word has.

 

Dutch

[glintofpewter]

I understand that Blackmore's scientific work is part of the debate among materialists, dualists and panexperientialists over the mind/body problem and that her position is probably closest to the materialist view. That the mind is wholly caused by the biochemical events in the brain.

[glintofpewter]

I think Blackmore, in a reductive process, sees that the existence of the self is an illusion. Both in her study of Zen and her scientific research.

That's not what I experience. Our mental self is not an illusion however fleeting, void of form occasionally, or difficult to master. the illusion which separates us from a rich life is the illusion that our self, our ego is separate from the rest of universe - its creatures and its worlds. For a brief moment my self, both material and mental or external and internal, gathers as a flock of birds and when I die the flock vanishes.

 

It is not an illusion that this mental self has evolved.

 

Dutch

[JosephM]

Dutch,

 

i think the self is an illusion only in the sense that it is not what it appears to be on the surface. I may experience the self as real but still is it not an erroneous perception of reality if i confuse my self with the story which is mostly the case? In the moment, the story disappears. I play a role here but am i that role (self) or the one experiencing the role and connected to the whole? To reside in self , separation exists. To reside in ones being, there appears nothing separate. Is there a difference? I think to reside in ones being, it doesn't matter as real and illusion lose any separation.

 

Joseph

[glintofpewter]

Dutch,

 

i think the self is an illusion only in the sense that it is not what it appears to be on the surface. I may experience the self as real but still is it not an erroneous perception of reality if i confuse my self with the story which is mostly the case? In the moment, the story disappears. I play a role here but am i that role (self) or the one experiencing the role and connected to the whole? To reside in self , separation exists. To reside in ones being, there appears nothing separate. Is there a difference? I think to reside in ones being, it doesn't matter as real and illusion lose any separation.

 

Joseph

 

Joseph,

I like the distinctions you make between self and being, role and experiencing.

 

Dutch

[NORM]

Folks,

 

I just finished reading a book on the subject of Immortality by Steven Cave http://www.stephenca...mmortality.html that may shed some light on this discussion.

 

In one chapter, he analyzes the concept of the soul found in many religions.

 

He concludes that a soul, independent of the body, would be impossible. Therefore, what we are imagining as a soul is really the mind. When the body dies, the mind ceases functioning and consciousness ceases.

 

One way we can test this theory is when one is rendered unconscious by a blow to the head or during anesthesia for surgery. If the soul were independent of the body, shouldn't we have awareness of what is happening to our body during these events?

 

I once experienced unconsciousness for two days following an automobile accident. I woke up and had no memory of the previous two days. Now, why didn't my soul "take over" during that time?

 

Interesting.

 

NORM

[glintofpewter]

Folks,

 

He concludes that a soul, independent of the body, would be impossible. Therefore, what we are imagining as a soul is really the mind. When the body dies, the mind ceases functioning and consciousness ceases.

 

NORM

 

I think the mind and body are interdependent so the mind not functioning when the body isn't is not a surprise. I think the mind in its complexity disperses after death as the entities, atoms and molecules disperse. There is a mental aspect, internal relations, connecting all such entities.

 

Dutch

[JosephM]

One way we can test this theory is when one is rendered unconscious by a blow to the head or during anesthesia for surgery. If the soul were independent of the body, shouldn't we have awareness of what is happening to our body during these events?

 

I once experienced unconsciousness for two days following an automobile accident. I woke up and had no memory of the previous two days. Now, why didn't my soul "take over" during that time?

 

NORM

 

Perhaps the soul did "take over" during that time and there was awareness and you merely have no recollection of it. Most people don't even remember 10% of their dreams so i would think that such an incident as you have expressed is inconclusive.

 

Joseph

[NORM]

Perhaps the soul did "take over" during that time and there was awareness and you merely have no recollection of it. Most people don't even remember 10% of their dreams so i would think that such an incident as you have expressed is inconclusive.

 

Joseph

 

Heh - it's not "awareness" if you are not, like; "aware." What would be the point of a soul that doesn't inform the body it's responsible for? No, to me, it's just another nail in the coffin of the supernatural.

 

NORM

[NORM]

BTW, you do have TOTAL recall of dreams. What you mean to say is that most people don't know how to "access" those dreams. I've learned how, and have total recall of my dreams. Sometimes, I can even direct them.

 

The brain is the most awesome analog recorder on the planet!

 

NORM

[glintofpewter]

What you mean to say is that most people don't know how to "access" those dreams. I've learned how, and have total recall of my dreams. Sometimes, I can even direct them.

I know one can direct them.

 

How do you know you have total recall? Susan Blackmore, I think, would say that total recall, as stream of consciousness (awareness), does not happen. It is illusive.

 

The Unknown

 

As we know,

There are known knowns.

There are things we know we know.

We also know

There are known unknowns.

That is to say

We know there are some things

We do not know.

But there are also unknown unknowns,

The ones we don't know

We don't know.

 

Donald Rumsfeld—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

See you in my/your dreams.

 

Dutch

[PaulS]

Just an aside, I know that I dream heaps more if I eat/drink dairy before bed. I've played with it and it works. Load up on some cheese and crackers and a few glasses of milk, and I am guaranteed some substantial dreaming. Either it's a chemical thing or my 'soul' just loves dairy!

[Inthedark]

Carl Jung wrote a lot about dreams and their hidden meanings. I have a couple of books on my reading list which I am yet to get to but it sounds fascinating. I personally very rarely recall any dreams, occasionally the odd bad one but that seems to occur close to waking up when I'm stirring, which might be why I recall those. You mention awareness and consciousness with regard to soul. I am a conscious being but when I sleep I am unconscious. I'm still alive and I am still me, but I am not "aware" of me in that state. After death, our physical (if there is such a thing) self returns to the universe, where it was all along, just reconfigured. I'm not sure a lack of awareness is indicative of the non existence of a soul though. We certainly have energy in our being, which is released back to the universe upon our death - which is silly actually because we are universe and our energy is the universes energy, it's all same same. I'm waffling again ;-)

[JosephM]

Heh - it's not "awareness" if you are not, like; "aware." What would be the point of a soul that doesn't inform the body it's responsible for? No, to me, it's just another nail in the coffin of the supernatural.

 

NORM

 

Norm,

Awareness and memory recall are not the same thing. Awareness is a state, not a recalled thought. I am aware in my dreams as i am aware while i am awake. However the two states are mostly separated from each other for most but not all people. A lack of recall from one to the other is not indicative of the non existence of the soul. Most consider the dream state a step back from reality, however , perhaps one will find in time that the dream state is actually a step closer to ultimate reality and a soul with many seemingly separate lives that are in reality one.

 

when I sleep I am unconscious. I'm still alive and I am still me, but I am not "aware" of me in that state.

 

That is to me in is a sense profound. The question one must ask is "who am i" (me). As long as the "i" (me) is limited to this story or role that is identified as "me" then the separation exists between the two seemingly 'states' yet in my experience, awareness has never left.

 

 

Joseph

[minsocal]

"Technically, awareness is attention plus working memory - ie. the ability to attend selectively among a range of perceived stimuli and a short term memory store into which several of these attended items can be 'loaded', held simultaneously, and combined. Awareness is a standard variable in psychological research, unproblematically measured in, for example, animal vision. It is studied by means such as measuring performance at memory tasks while monitoring gaze direction, delaying responses, and recording brain activity. When brain activity correlates exactly with performance of tasks then it can be assumed that that bit of brain is involved in that particular task. And the length of time which brain activity is sustained corresponds to an animals ability to 'hold in mind' information for immediate use. Researchers are therefore recording the operation of a temporary store.

Awareness is not therefore an aspect of social intelligence. Instead, awareness is a mechanism of integration

. Awareness is a way of converging and combining information, and it is a functional ability that is found in complex animals living in complex environments. Awareness therefore relates to the ability to cope with complexity or perception and behavior, and it is found not only in social animals, but also in solitary animals. While awareness is found in animals right across the animal kingdom; consciousness is of much more limited distribution. I suggest that consciousness is probably confined to a small number of recently-evolved social animals such as the great ape lineage - especially common chimpanzees and bonobos - and perhaps a few other recently-evolved social mammals such as elephants and dolphins (Charlton, B. 2000)."

 

Links: Charlton, B. (2000) Awareness, Consciouness, & Evolution. Cave, K., (1998). Awareness of Body States, Feelings

[JosephM]

Myron,

 

Interesting..... That may be one way that at least psychology looks at awareness.

 

 

Awareness to me is recognized more as a potential or state or ability to perceive existence, to feel, or to be conscious of events. Awareness in this sense is the source which brings attention to one's conditioning, which includes thoughts, emotions, memories, ideas, ideals, belief-systems, actions and reactions. However, conditioning or understanding or memory for that matter to me do not seem to be required for awareness which i believe is always present.

 

Joseph

[minsocal]

Myron,

 

Interesting..... That may be one way that at least psychology looks at awareness.

 

 

Awareness to me is recognized more as a potential or state or ability to perceive existence, to feel, or to be conscious of events. Awareness in this sense is the source which brings attention to one's conditioning, which includes thoughts, emotions, memories, ideas, ideals, belief-systems, actions and reactions. However, conditioning or understanding or memory for that matter to me do not seem to be required for awareness which i believe is always present.

 

Joseph

 

Joseph,

 

Without memory, everything would be novel and not familiar. That is the difference between perception and awareness. To be aware, one has to have several points in time. That is the basis of self awareness. That is why perception and awareness are defined differently.

 

Myron