Exploring the Mind of Man: Beyond emergent properties

[El Hombre Invisible]

I don't know if it means the spirit of their friend came to say good-bye, but something really happened which cannot be dismissed as a coincidence or a fantasy. Clearly we still don't know what is going on in the world, and the old religious beliefs about souls and afterlife may not be entirely true, but they do have a basis in people's experiences. And the scientific-materialistic world view may not be entirely false, but it cannot possibly be the final truth about the mind and consciousness.

That's a good example to work on. Many people including myself have had similar experiences, and anyone who dismisses such events or plays down how amazing they are would be wrong to do so. But the divide between your view of it and other 'scientific-materialistic' people does not, or should not, lie in the event itself, but our rationalisation of such events.

First off, is it an inexplicable phenomenon? Can this event you describe legitimately happen in 'the scientific-materialistic world'? Yes, it can. It is overwhelmingly improbably that just by chance, at any given time, someone may die and two other people who know the deceased have similar dreams about someone coming and sitting on their bed. But it is also highly improbable that at any given time a man riding a bicycle will see a dog chasing its own tail while a fat man wearing a beret watches on unaware that his fly is undone. Does this warrant someone to search for a hitherto undefined force at work? No, because it is not the overwhelmingly unlikelihood of events that forces us to search for explanations, but seeming connections between them - the everyday, rather than scientific, definition of a coincidence.

Quite probably no-one has ever had the exact same startling experience you describe, and quite probably no-one will ever have it again. It is an overwhelmingly unlikely event to occur, but over the millions of years of human existence, unlikely events become less overwhelming. One could conceive of an infinite number of possible but highly unlikely events that could occur within the life of the human race. We don't and cannot even know what all of these infinite possibilities are, but we can put them all in one group. All such experiences as you described, all those spooky happenings, belong in this group. Now, if there are an infinite number of them, and each has a probability greater than zero, what is the chance of, within any given time, only ONE of them occurring. Or two, or ten, or a hundred?

Secondly, even if it were an inexplicable phenomenon, I don't think any reasonable person would dismiss it - it would simply remain unexplained. However people automatically rationalise such events for their own benefit. They can't help but invent explanations in the absence of existing ones, such as the deceased's 'spirit' coming to sit with them. For all I know, this may indeed be what happened, but what reason is there to assume this invented explanation above any other explanation, or to decide on an explanation at all?

Thirdly, by stating that "the scientific-materialistic world view cannot possibly be the final truth about the mind and consciousness", do you mean the current sum of scientific knowledge, or are you placing a limit on what science CAN ever explain? You seem to be asserting that some events MUST have a non-scientific explanation without knowing what that explanation might be, or even specifying the truths that cannot be scientifically explained, so without knowing whether it may be scientific. Choosing what can and cannot be explained to you by physical laws betrays your own need to have some things that cannot be explained by science, but must nonetheless be explained, therefore must be explained by non-scientific theories. I mean, can you explain WHY "the scientific-materialistic world view cannot possibly be the final truth about the mind and consciousness", other than that you feel this to be true?

I'm not having a go, or ruling anything out, but it is interesting that it is something that IS known about the human brain - the way it disconnects and reconnects stored information when processing new information - that is the probably cause for the need to look beyond the physical for explanations. The way I understand it, when we learn or experience something, we cannot help but try and fit this into our model of the world. We do this by connecting the information we carry to existing related information. We are constantly doing this. If two or more experiences should seem connected, but the connection is unknown, it is very likely the brain would find a best fit. That you yourself did not conceive of the idea of a spirit, but that it is information you have received and retained, may highlight the rationalisation process in action: the brain finds information, however dubious and unexplained itself, that would best fit the bill for the missing connection between two seemingly associated events. This happens with no help from us, so it cannot be avoided that it occurs to each and every one of us under such circumstances that there may, even must, be some grounds for such non-scientific notions as 'spirits' and 'souls'. The human brain simply does not handle unknowns very well, because at it's most basical level it is a machine for connecting knowns with other knowns.

A well known and universally experienced example of this is dreams. How often have you woken up from a dream, then tried to explain it to someone else, and found that during your explanation you find yourself describing events that you are a little hazy on and unsure of, but that must have happened in your dream to get from event A to event B. This isn't fibbing, or even overactive imagination, but is your brain at work trying to find connections between experiences without your say-so.

Or maybe that's all horseradish and there is something else at work. It pays to keep an open mind.

 

[Tournesol]

http://www.nightterrors.org/

 

[Royce]

This paragraph explains everything about why you can't abide the notion that human and other mammalian minds aren't different in ways other than biochemical. If you start with the notion that humans aren't animals, it will, in a rather self-fulfilling way, lead you to the conclusion that we have something non-physical that they don't. There's simply no arguing this because it's practically religious.

You presume too much. I firmly believe that Mankind is part of the animal kingdom at least physically, bodily. I just as firmly believe that we all are part of nature, the one nature here on this Earth as well as all of nature in the Universe which is the Universe.
I start with the observation that mankind has progressed far beyond that of any other animal here on Earth, that we are inventive and creative and build upon our knowledge and abilities as no other animal does. Yet we have many behaviors and properties in common and are all of the same life form.
We share much of the same DNA even that of bacteria. We can interchange human DNA with that of fungi, yeast, and it will produce insulin that can keep human diabetics alive for instance. Our brains are made of the same material and function in the same way.
Yet even with all of these commonalities, we are different. That there s a difference is obvious. What that difference is is not so obvious. We are human beings and they are animals and there does not seem to be anyone thing that we can point of and say; "Here, this is the difference."
So what is different? I say that it is the mind of man that make him different. The mind as opposed to the brain which is large than most but not all and more complex than most but not all. I say that there is something more than just increased brain size and complexity that makes us different.
It must be, at least to me, the mind, spirit and soul of man and again by spirit and soul I do not necessarily mean something supernatural or mystical, metaphysical, yes, even obviously but not necessarily of religious or mystical origin.
For one thing, I believe that if it happens, what ever it may be, and if it is real, it is then natural and of nature. I also believe in a God/Creator but not a God outside or beyond the Universe but a natural God that is nature and nature of him just as we all are. You may call this God the Universe or the universal consciousness or whatever. Neither God nor I care. I just believe that He is and that He is part of us of all that is and we and all that is are of Him.
Okay, I done preaching you all can wake up now.

 

[rune]

Yet even with all of these commonalities, we are different. That there s a difference is obvious. What that difference is is not so obvious. We are human beings and they are animals and there does not seem to be anyone thing that we can point of and say; "Here, this is the difference."
So what is different? I say that it is the mind of man that make him different. The mind as opposed to the brain which is large than most but not all and more complex than most but not all. I say that there is something more than just increased brain size and complexity that makes us different.
It must be, at least to me, the mind, spirit and soul of man and again by spirit and soul I do not necessarily mean something supernatural or mystical, metaphysical, yes, even obviously but not necessarily of religious or mystical origin.

Exactly what is it that makes you so certain about the conscious experience of being an animal of another kind? Have you tried it?

 

[Royce]

Exactly what is it that makes you so certain about the conscious experience of being an animal of another kind? Have you tried it?

No. I only study and observe. I am certain of very little, What's your point?

 

[rune]

I just think that while we are different from other animals, it might be that we aren't _that_ different, as it seems you have asserted to the contrary. I don't think the experience of being a dog or an ape is necessarily that much different from being a human, on a basic level (of course I don't know this either, but by observing dogs and apes I certainly see a lot more of myself in them than I do in a plant, and to me some of the ways they behave confirm the notion that they are not just soulless robots acting only on instinct).

I'm sorry if you took any kind of offense by my blunt reply, but it's actually a subject that matters to me. I just don't like the way some people treat animals like they where simply machines for producing meat, and every time I hear people say things like "but animals don't have real feelings" to try and justify this I get very ill-tempered, becuase like I said, how would they know.

 

[Royce]

rune, I'm not offended. I like animals too. They have emotions, self awareness and consciousness. They reason, solve problems, have a sense of humor. As I said earlier we are not only of the animal kingdom, we share many traits and behaviors. Having said this I also know that they do not have much of a technology, they are not very creative, they don't build on their knowledge. They haven't advanced or developed civilization or science.
While we are animals in the physical sense we are different from animals. This cannot be denied. What is it that makes us so different, if not our minds, spirit and soul? You tell me.

 

[Faustus]

Can this event you describe legitimately happen in 'the scientific-materialistic world'? Yes, it can.

I believe there's more to scientific materialism than what it can explain. Scientific materialism is not to be confused with reason; reason can find explanations for everything, worldviews are limited by their very nature since they require a basic set of assumptions.

Think of alchemy. Most goals of the alchemists have been achieved, but not through alchemy. As it evolved, alchemy became completely disfigured, so much so that it needed a new name - chemistry. Astronomy also evolved from astrology. Whatever science eventually explains those strange experiences, it will be rational, but it won't be called materialistic.

Quite probably no-one has ever had the exact same startling experience you describe, and quite probably no-one will ever have it again.

By that reasoning, no one has verified the same scientific experiment twice. Are we supposed to think all scientific truths are just extremely unlikely coincidences? I don't think so!

It is an overwhelmingly unlikely event to occur, but over the millions of years of human existence, unlikely events become less overwhelming. One could conceive of an infinite number of possible but highly unlikely events that could occur within the life of the human race.

This is like the story of monkeys hitting random keys at a keyboard and coming up with a Shakespeare novel. It can happen given enough time. What cannot happen is to have the same monkeys match Shakespeare in his ability to produce a more novels than gibberish. This whole notion of things happening by chance given enough time is, I think, misleading. It's how often it happens that matters, not the fact that it may happen.

people automatically rationalise such events for their own benefit. They can't help but invent explanations in the absence of existing ones, such as the deceased's 'spirit' coming to sit with them. For all I know, this may indeed be what happened, but what reason is there to assume this invented explanation above any other explanation, or to decide on an explanation at all?

There is a reason, and it has nothing to do with spirits themselves. The point is that if it looks like a spirit, walks like a spirit, bends mattresses like a spirit, then we are somewhat justified in calling it a spirit, even if it isn't. It may not be a true explanation but it is, in my opinion, the best one available.

It's just like atoms. For all our knowledge of physics, we know that atoms do not exist the way we think of them, but we also know that we can talk about atoms to describe phenomena thought to be caused by atoms.

It's a mistake to take an explanation literally. An explanation is just a story, a figment of our imaginatoin rather than the real phenomena.

Thirdly, by stating that "the scientific-materialistic world view cannot possibly be the final truth about the mind and consciousness", do you mean the current sum of scientific knowledge, or are you placing a limit on what science CAN ever explain?

I'm not placing limits on science, just saying those limits exist. They are known as the scientific method. Notice how I said that science cannot be used to prove that the Boston Red Sox won the last world series. It's true, but cannot be proved scientifically.

You seem to be asserting that some events MUST have a non-scientific explanation without knowing what that explanation might be

Actually, I know what the explanation is. It's what our grandmothers used to think about such things, which we have been told is superstition.

can you explain WHY "the scientific-materialistic world view cannot possibly be the final truth about the mind and consciousness", other than that you feel this to be true?

See my comment about the Red Sox. Some truths will forever lie beyond the reach of science.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

We are human beings and they are animals and there does not seem to be anyone thing that we can point of and say; "Here, this is the difference."

No, it seems I did not presume too much. You still think of the human race as non-animal. You divide the human species out of the animal kingdom, saying WE are humans but THEY are animals... and then ask why we are different? We are different simply because you separated us out from other animals. You don't even need the human race to observe diversity. Why is a piker different? Why is an elephant different?

Maybe somewhere there's an elephant observing us and other animals thinking: "Why are we elephants so different? Why are dogs, giraffes, zebra and humans all ANIMALS and we are ELEPHANTS?" Hopefully there's a second elephant trying to explain to him that elephants are animals too. ;o)

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

The point is that if it looks like a spirit, walks like a spirit, bends mattresses like a spirit, then we are somewhat justified in calling it a spirit, even if it isn't. It may not be a true explanation but it is, in my opinion, the best one available.

Ha ha! That's class! Hmmm... judging by the bend in the matress, I would say this could only be... A SPIRIT! Only spirits bend matresses this well, as discovered and confirmed in many, repeatable spirit matress-bending experiments. What?!?

"The best one available..." precisely what I was talking about. It's the nature of the human mind to find the best explanation possible where it deems an explanation MUST exist. It's also, though, an ability of the human mind to be able to tell when the former nature has manifest itself and so be able to quality control its reasoning.

 

[Tournesol]

So what is different? I say that it is the mind of man that make him different. The mind as opposed to the brain which is large than most but not all and more complex than most but not all. I say that there is something more than just increased brain size and complexity that makes us different.
It must be, at least to me, the mind, spirit and soul of man and again by spirit and soul I do not necessarily mean something supernatural or mystical, metaphysical, yes, even obviously but not necessarily of religious or mystical origin.

Don't leave us in supense. If the mind is neither the brain nor a supernatural spirit, what is it ?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

What is it that makes us so different, if not our minds, spirit and soul? You tell me.

Elongated pre-frontal lobes, opposable thumbs, unique (as is every life-forms's) evolutionary history, larger brain-to-body-mass ratio... probably countless more besides. I think you underestimate the astounding impact of small biological changes. The mammalian central nervous system is incredibly flexible. A part of the brain that serves one function can be trained to perform a different one. This is evident in people with spinal injuries. The spinal column is composed of fibres, each ended by the brain and some aggregate of nerves in the human body. When this column is severed, the fibres may heal at the wound by connecting to any other fibre end it can. This means that a part of the brain that used to send impulses to your left knee may now be connected to your right big toe. This leads to discoordination, but the brain has the ability to redistribute its functions so the 'left-knee' operator in the brain now becomes the 'right big toe' operator. Therefore any slight difference either in the brain itself or in anatomy can lead to differences in the mental capabilities of the animal.

If you are so sure that non-physical concepts, such as spirit or soul, DO account for these differences, then what insight do you have into the nature of the soul that leads you to believe it will account for what biology, biochemsitry and biophysics cannot? What do you know that you're not telling us? To make such a claim, one would need insight into both sides of the debate: the physical and the spiritual. You cannot claim the brain alone is not enough if you do not have some insight into the workings of the human brain. Likewise you cannot claim the soul is enough unless you have similar insight into the soul. Now I know what you're going to say - how, therefore, can I say the brain WILL account for such differences without such insight into the human brain? Some of the amazing aspects of the human mind you bring up I've read SOMETHING about, and those you mention that I haven't seem to follow on from more fundamental ones I have. I'm no expert... I wouldn't even say I'm familiar with these concepts, but I've maintained a layman's interest in developments in understanding the human mind to the extent that I can see there is SOME justification for believing the uniqueness of the physical human brain and our unique evolutionary history CAN account for human-specific behaviour and talents. I cannot see and you have not shown any justification for believing in a non-physical cause, mostly because no-one can define what this non-physical attribute actually is (i.e. how it works). It's akin to not knowing enough about cosmology and quantum theory to be able to explain the origin of the universe, but knowing enough about the expansion of the universe to see justification in the Big Bang model over divine creation, simply because the nature of God cannot be explained at all.

There is another crisis in your argument. To have a non-physical entity such as a soul that makes us who we are, you would need to account for personality-altering physical actions, such as taking drugs, or even learning. There would need to be some interface between the physical and non-physical. If it is your soul rather than your brain that advises your next response on this thread, then the light traveling from your monitor to your eye (physical), causing an electrical current to travel along your optic nerve (physical) causing activity in the brain (physical) which somehow 'updates' your soul (non-physical) which makes a decision (non-physical) which causes brain activity (physical) which causes electrical impulses to be carried along your nervous system (physical) which twitch your muscles which make your fingers move over your keyboard (physical). Not only would you require an insight into this non-physical entity itself, but also a set of laws by which the physical and non-physical can interact. How do the soul and the brain communicate?

This is the inherent problem with spiritual theories - you can no more explain the spirit than you can explain how the physical brain may account for the same phenomena. So why do people do it? Because, I would say, it leads otherwise unconnected questions to one unanswerable, and that's a heck of a lot easier for the mind to handle.

 

[Faustus]

Ha ha! That's class! Hmmm... judging by the bend in the matress, I would say this could only be... A SPIRIT! Only spirits bend matresses this well, as discovered and confirmed in many, repeatable spirit matress-bending experiments. What?!?

That was a good one, I liked it!

"The best one available..." precisely what I was talking about. It's the nature of the human mind to find the best explanation possible where it deems an explanation MUST exist.

I happen to have an unorthodox view of what an explanation is. For one thing, I would never say an explanation "exists". I think an explanation is just a story we make up to help communicate our experiences. From that perspective, it makes a lot more sense to talk of spirits than to talk of fancy materialistic theories which are, in all likelihood, just as false as the notion of spirits. That's really all I meant.

 

[Royce]

Don't leave us in supense. If the mind is neither the brain nor a supernatural spirit, what is it ?

I am not a physicalist nor am I a dualist. I am a realist, some would and do say a naive realist (though I dislike that term) in that I believe that rocks are hard and grass is green because rocks are hard when I touch them or get hit with one or kick one. Grass is green because when I look at grass I experience green. When I look at a red rose I see a red rose because it is a red rose. Yes I know the science and especially physics behind why and how I see a red rose. I also am familiar with the cognitive theories of how my brain builds a model of the red rose; but, none of that matters. It is not significant when I look at a red rose. In essence if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, its probably a duck and I will draw a tentative conclusion that it really is a duck and hold to that conclusion until it is proven otherwise. If I perceive a red rose it is because there exists in front of me a red rose and all of the physics and science and steps that it takes for me to perceive, see, that red rose are not significant at this time. I simply appreciate and enjoy its beauty. "A rose is a rose is a rose."
I hold that there is one reality and everything that happens and exist within this one reality is real and exists. Within this one reality there exists the physical world, universe, the mental realm and the spiritual realm. A rock exists and is real. An idea, thought or consciousness exists and though it is not material it is real. The spiritual or as you refer to it "supernatural" exists and is real. If it is, it is natural. What does not exist is un-natural. If there is a supernatural does this imply or necessitate a normal natural and a sub-natural?
So to answer your question the spirit of man is that Essenes of man that makes him creative, inventive, a builder, an explorer and discoverer. That immaterial property of his mentality that drives him onward and upward to better ways of life, of learning of knowing and of exploring and knowing the universe. I know of no animal that does this.
The soul of man is his consciousness and identity that lives on after physical body death. It is spiritual. I can't prove this. I can't even know this for sure. I can however observe and experience indications of this and know that there is indeed something more than the physicalist physical world.