What is it to know?

lfen,Your thoughts are bordering on what I do and do not understand. So far, I think I understand OK. Investigation into language is an interesting one. ... Lots of thoughts, nothing exactly relevant, but if you want to continue this line, I'm cool with that. I think there's lots of literature about this. My own understanding would be that there's both. Almost certainly the "innate" biases of the nervous system are a prerequisite to learning any words. However, at some point, cultural understanding (through language and through other means) certainly biases our understanding, thoughts, and general divisions of how we see the world. "To what extent?" is another question. Well... I think this might get somewhere. One of the basic elements of linguistics and psycholinguistics is words and "the lexicon" (kind of a mental dictionary). I'm really not convinced of the "existence" of such a thing (i.e. i question it's explanatory power). I think something more along the lines of your statement is definitely an interesting line to look into.It's hard (for me) to talk about individual points without having an overall model, or structure. Can you think how to tie these things together, to make an overall proposal of mind that incorporates what we've talked about?Ben

Ben,Well that is why this exploration. We are poking around the edges of what we understand. I think this is a branch and I'm not sure how far to pursue it here. The starting notion is that there are only processes not things so I'm suspicious that either language and/or more primitive brain functions are distorting perception of and communication about what is out there. Ah! I just recalled something from Bio110! It amazes me how stuff sometimes surfaces from decades back. The way the retina increases contrast of edges. It's a distortion of the photon input but useful for us. I'm thinking that I probably shouldn't go to far with this at present other than to note that the brain does distort incoming information so the notion that our mental world and the outer world are one to one aspects of the same thing is not quite right. Good idea. For one I don't think I've been clear about mind and Mind.
I'm going to quote from an important Zen text:The Dharma of Mind Transmission: Zen Teachings of Huang-po. I'm doing this to demonstrate the gulf I'm trying to bridge and to point to the distinction Huang-Po makes between mind and Mind. So the eastern tradition is not science. And though it's usually held that words can't express the highest truth there is a lot of Buddhist philosophy and literature.Science on the other hand has to have a meaningful way to talk about the world. I was reading a site on the Big Bang today, one I that I believe Jar linked to in another thread and was struck by a quote attributed to Feynman that we don't know what energy is. We can measure it and the quote went on to say something about conservation of matter and energy. The ancedotal literature of non duality contains accounts contemporary such as Ken Wilbur's as well as dating back to the Buddha of a state of consciousness that is without an object. I've not experienced this state that the Hindu's call samadhi and the Buddhist, paranirvana (beyond nirvana). So we can't measure that.So what are we left with? I guess taking neuroscience as far as it will go and seeing if like Newtonian mechanics it reaches a limit and a whole new theory needs to emerge.So I guess I'm thinking that for the purposes of this discussion at least, I should drop the nondual stuff and look at ordinary functioning. I'm getting sleepy and I don't have a model. Do you want to suggest one?lfen

lfen,I would like to read more about the Buddhist teachings before discarding the idea. At this point, I basically no nothing. I have no understanding of the passage that you linked. I think it will take more related readings to really understand it. I'm willing, and I'm starting to have more time again. This position is close to mine, but I would still argue against yours. See my reply to Brad, where I tried to explain my position a bit more. I think it's .. MORE CORRECT to view the brain as an active generator of information, an active predictor, rather than to view it as a passive processor or a passive machine of representation.PLUS, I would say the following (which I didn't write in the response to Brad):To separate between an actual world and a mental representation of that world is meaningless. What is in the actual world? Objects? Objects are just our abstraction, a model to explain reality. There is nothing but bound molecular motion. Molecules? Molecules are just our abstraction, a model to explain reality. It's just bound atomic motion. Atoms? Atoms are just our abstraction, a model to explain reality. There is nothing but ... fundamental particles? Quantum fields? Quantum Chromodynamics? Maybe. But those are well beyond what is actually observable by any sensory system."Existence" of systems such as these are simply the constructions of our own to explain what we see. We generate 3D space ourselves. We generate objects, colors, time. It is within these things that we interpret (well, predict) sensory data. The sensory data does NOT dictate these things to us. It is like what I explained in my response to Brad's--our internal experience and representations, there IS some "hardness" to it.Now, there's an interesting chicken-egg question, which is, what came first? If we are constructed evolutionarily, then the external world DICTATED to us what kinds of internal constructs to make. I don't know the answer to this yet. I just think that it is clear that our minds, as they are NOW, are not representational.By the way, if this seems to diverge from previous positions I've described... that might be true. I'm not done thinking this through, by any means.Anyway, I'm going to cut myself off. I gotta really build a full picture. But this is where I'm at. The mind is active. The mind constructs it's own experience. That's where I'm going to stop for now.Ben

Ben,Brief comment and then I'm going to bed.The world we experience is one world we know. Added to that are various models we make of that world, either in myth, philosophy, or science. So we have the sensory model(s)[plural because I'm not sure but perhaps the visual, auditory, kinesthetic models seem to be different but we connect them] that are native brain functions and then the models that we acquire in our culture(s).I do think we need to get some definitions worked out such as brain and mind. I think I've been using then almost synonymously and I think I should be more careful.lfen

I'm TOTALLY out of order with these replies, and I'm completely piling them up on you. Feel free to condense posts, or to simply not reply to some.mental experience - the experience that gives us the ideas of: (1) self, (2) there is a world, (3) the world is regular and knowable.brain - in the world extracted from our mental experience, the thing that we believe to be producing the mind and mental experience.mind - in the world extracted from our mental experience, the term used to refer to the sum of our mental experience. I would definitely avoid using mind to refer to the "sum total" of mental experience--"mind" is a generalization and abstraction. I'd probably rather leave "mental experience" to something more immediate than "mind".How do these strike you? Maybe you can correct them as you see fit, and also add a definition for "Mind."Ben

quote:

---

Now, there's an interesting chicken-egg question, which is, what came first? If we are constructed evolutionarily, then the external world DICTATED to us what kinds of internal constructs to make. I don't know the answer to this yet. I just think that it is clear that our minds, as they are NOW, are not representational.

---

Back at the beginning of work on "neural networks" as a form of computing, a technique call "input clamping" was used to teach programmes how to formulate their own processes. The theory was that the machine will be able to optimise its decision paths best if it figures it out for itself.The way this works is that an output, like the number 2, is 'clamped' to the programme so that a feedback system only gives a green light when the output 2 is produced. Then it is give three inputs, two values and an operator. So if you give it 1 and 1 and the sign +, in producing 2 it will have taught itself to do addition. If given the inputs 3 and 2 and the sign -, it would have taught itself to do subtraction. If given 6 and 3 and /, it would have taught itself to do division. Once this is done you can take of the clamp and let it process outputs from inputs by itself.The freeky part about this process is that you have no idea what the actual code developed by the neural net would or does look like. Its a black box which magically produces answers.Now, this is an information system. IMO our brains are information systems. I think it makes sense to see our brains, and those of other animals, as the same type of system with natural selection dfoing the clamping - that is, only useful and survivability-improving conclusions carry on to develop further complexity.

Mental experience distinct from sensory experience. Good. Strictly speaking I can't define "Mind". For this reason I can't imagine a nondual science. Zen is perhaps the most striking example of the contortions that sages go through to point to something beyond language. Out of comapassion they do their best, Wittgenstein being only a philospher could say almost poetically "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence."Buddhism avoids the problems of Judeo Christian Muslim etc literalism but the result of that is it can only attempt to bring someone to an edge and have them peer over it. Almost all of us are so struck by the pointing finger that we never notice the moon it's pointing to.So I can only indicate what it might be I'm thinking about which is that which lies beyond language and definitions yet on which everything depends. Huang-po says of the absolute that is both exists and doesn't exist, so I can't even say "Mind is being itself" without limiting it. Mind can't be an object though here I am trying to make it one.lfen

quote:

---

Mind can't be an object though here I am trying to make it one.

---

But this notional "mind" is just that, a notion. It doesn't necessarily exist because some sage said so. It's obviously impossiblre to discuss what Mind might be if we cannot even be sure there is such a thing at all.

This is why I am interested in the brain research, I think it's very worthwhile to pursue this as far as we can, but I also for completeness of my position indicate I think there is something that can be indicated by language as lying outside what abstract symbolism can model. Mind is not a thing and yet it's something that is present for us in our functioning, in our experience that we exist. The word "Mind" is just a way of pointing to that.lfen

quote:

---

I think there is something that can be indicated by language as lying outside what abstract symbolism can model

---

Firstly, language is itself abstract symbolism. Secondly, merely because language can describe something does not imply that the thing described has any ontological validity.

quote:

---

Mind is not a thing and yet it's something that is present for us in our functioning, in our experience that we exist. The word "Mind" is just a way of pointing to that.

---

Let me respond like this: IMO, much of eastern "thought" is psychobabble designed to imply things without stating them, which allows the speaker to conceal their ignorance. So whether or not this "pointing" is in any way useful or meaningful is not celar to me - it may be pure obscurantism and nothing else.(fixed quotes by edit, AdminNosy)This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 12-23-2004 07:00 PM

psycobabble.......much like saying ...I do not understand eastern thought so I will brand it as stupidity and insult anyone who adheres to that phylosophy as ingnorant. Good Contra !! you gettin good at cutting people to the quick. Unfortunately I have to agree with some of what you say cuz I dont get it either.

Exactly. That is what I meant. Let me try a paraphrase, "I think there is something that can be indicated by language that lies beyond the realm of abstract symbolism (that is too say beyond language, language being abstract symbolism).And true description does not entail being. I was asserting something that I've no way of supporting so I don't expect to convince anyone. You would have to look and see for yourself if that was of interest to you. If not, you won't and that is that. To pick a specific example the claim of Buddhism is that there is a solution to suffering. Some people find the process of meditation useful and meaningful and some don't. That is entirely up to you.lfen

quote:

---

And true description does not entail being. I was asserting something that I've no way of supporting so I don't expect to convince anyone. You would have to look and see for yourself if that was of interest to you. If not, you won't and that is that.

---

Well its not quite that becuase we still have people peddling this stuff. What you appear to be conceding is that ,erely becuase someone once conceptualisd the idea of "Mind". So, you asked questions about this Mind - but we have no reason to think this Mind exists in any sense. Surely investigating this non-phenomenon is a waste of time?

quote:

---

To pick a specific example the claim of Buddhism is that there is a solution to suffering. Some people find the process of meditation useful and meaningful and some don't. That is entirely up to you.

---

Meditation is a practice, and as such is likely to entail or cinlude some physical phenomenon that is useful. I've done enough martial arts to appreciate the possibility anyway. But that is a process, not an obscurantist philosophy. Busshists may say THEY BELIEVE there is a solution to suffering, but why should we believe them? what evidence do they have to show?

quote:

---

psycobabble.......much like saying ...I do not understand eastern thought so I will brand it as stupidity and insult anyone who adheres to that phylosophy as ingnorant. Good Contra !! you gettin good at cutting people to the quick.

---

You, like too many people, are far to quick to impute insult and take offence. I meant what *I* said, not what *YOU* said.I specifically did NOT say it was stupidity. I said it was OBSCURANTISM. That means it actually has to be quite cleverly designed to imply things without actually stating them. Thats why I consider religion fraud, not merely erroneous thinking.