Mind over matter

‘Into Me See’ series of essays

By Graham Little

These essays summarise and extend the conclusions from the intellectual position in the book The Origin of Consciousness. Excluding this work, there is no general theory of psychology, no general theory of knowledge integrated with a general theory of psychology, no general theory of cause. This means that all historical lines of thinking have failed. Our options are to seek to revise what has been previously offered, or find a new start point. Near forty years ago my research lead me to conclude that everything able to be said had been said, every wrinkle possible had been explored.  I judged further re-treading the historical lines of thinking would prove fruitless.

We need a new start point if we are to fully understand who we are, where we came from, what is religion, what moves us, is there a God, do we have a spirit, what is science, what is truth, do ideas exist, and the other ‘big’ questions. I began by building a new social science methodology, applied it to the system ‘person in their environment’ then interpreted the resulting theory.

I do not have opinions on intellectual issues, what is offered is not ‘opinion’ but conclusions. I believe that truth and verisimilitude are not found in opinion or belief, but in methodology and argument. Where I do apply a judgement unsupported by method or argument, making it an ‘opinion’ or a ‘belief’, I aim to make that clear.

After reading these essays I hope you will then read the book The Origin of Consciousness to fully understand yourself and others, why you are here, why you are as you are, and how to find spiritual fulfilment.

Titles of the essays are listed in the menu to the right. The print copy of the book is here, print.  

 

Do we have a mind and how do we understand it in relation to the brain? An interesting question. In my book, ‘Origin’, I show that we do, and further, that we are a spirit within a mind within a brain within a body ... and to really complete the sequence, within an environment.

Why is it an interesting question? For a kick off, our understanding of ourselves depends on the answer. Government policy on mental health and mental illness is derived from the answer to the question.  Social influence arises from the answer, for example, the social authority and prestige of psychiatrists depends on the answer... what if the intellectual foundations of psychiatry are wrong...? Not saying they are, but how do we know without an answer to the question? What then the power of psychiatrists to place people in institutions, and what of the very idea of insanity and temporary insanity used as legal mitigation. So depending on the answer one arrives at different theories of who and what we are, which in turn leads to personal, social and political actions and policy. Of all the consequences I think the most significant one is what we think of ourselves, the personal consequences.

In ‘Origin’ I build a theory of psychology that shows three fundamental factors shape what we do. First, our thoughts, called our world view, second, the emotions that give living force to the thoughts, finally our habits, the encoding in our brain of past lines of action that reflect our historical choices. Our spirit is the core of this psychic structure, the thoughts and feelings we have about ourselves, all intertwined with the habits we have in relation to ourselves, some of those habits of course go back to our earliest childhood, the deepest ‘sense’ of ourselves. This deep spiritual structure is very easy to understand intellectually, but it is without thoughts, we did not ‘think’ as a baby, we merely ‘experienced’, which means we are not able to directly and deliberately access those feelings about ourselves, they just arise within us. Our problem is managing this aspect of our experience of our life, are those feelings still valid, no matter how deeply and passionately held, are they correct in our modern world and in regards our goals and desires?

Another important aspect of ‘Origin’ is the dominating effect of knowledge on our development as a person and as a species, including our experience of our existence. I show that the seat of consciousness lies in our knowledge, not in our brain per se, but in the electrical workings of our brain, in our knowledge (this is a simplification, but close enough for current purposes).

Before continuing, we need to examine the other solution to the body-mind problem as it is called. In the seventeenth century Rene Descartes famously determined “I think therefore I am” and launched Western philosophical concern with the mind-body problem. Descartes’ solution was called dualism which is the solution in ‘Origin’, so I follow Descartes, with some qualifications. The other option is called monism. Now today, with the historically heavy influence of the physical scientists for the last couple of centuries, a particular form of monism is prevalent, namely that the mind can be scientifically reduced to the brain, so to understand ourselves we need understand the brain.

The question from the point of view of the physical scientists is that an idea (mind) is insubstantial, so how can it have any effect on neurons of our brain, which is substantial. To sort of grasp this problem think of Mount Everest, now imagine aiming to move it two meters to the right by blowing on it. I can hear you chuckle, exactly, but it precisely puts in perspective the body-mind issue from the point of view of the physical scientists. The monistic solution has compelling support in relation to how an insubstantial thing, ideas, moves substantial things, like mountains.  To support any form of dualism we must resolve this issue.

The monistic solution also assumes that to understand us we need understand the brain, that all we are is scientifically reducible to the operations of neurons, nothing more than a bundle of bio-electrical circuits etc. Spiritually I am not thrilled with that point of view, but being thrilled or not is not the point, can it be proved we are more than that? Yes, it can be proved, the full answer in ‘Origin’.

I say I follow Descartes with some qualifications, and here is a major one: Ideas do not and never can move physical things. Full stop, huge full stop! So how can we have dualism?

Let’s do a quick social science experiment. Please raise your left arm seven inches. Assuming you have a left arm, and assuming all parts of you are functioning then no doubt you very easily raised your left arm seven inches. 

Now tell me how you did it? Well... you may think, I lifted my arm... okay, how...? I will not draw it out, you do not know how, as a species we learn how to move our body, but the brain has no nerves providing feedback on its own operation, therefore we do not know and can never know from within ourselves how we move our body. We just know we can! The fact that the brain has no feedback on its own operation was determined by evolution... we evolved that way, I speculate that there were some species that did have such feedback and we are here they are not... I rest my case.

Now, to drive home the point, sit back, relaxed, and think of moving your left arm, think really hard of that damn arm moving up seven inches, visualise it. Did it move? No of course not, you have to move it, your mind does not move it. Ideas in themselves have absolutely no direct impact on objects. But, that does not mean we do not have a mind, it just means we need be very clear about how our mind shapes us and shapes our actions.

There is a very real limitation, we cannot do that which we cannot do. So I can imagine myself jumping over a twenty story building, and landing safely on the other side... can’t do it. Or I can see myself jumping from thirty feet landing very heavily on concrete and picking myself and walking away unharmed... yea right! Happens on TV.  The closer the gap between what we can do and what we can’t we need be more careful in our judgements. So the gap is just 22 feet, but if you can only jump 21 feet it could be a very painful fall. I can score the points, they think, don’t need to pass, and don’t, and don’t score, the team loses by that amount, and the fans hate them until five games later when they redeem themselves. Physically we have certain capacities, some more than others. The physical capacities of the body determine what we can and cannot do. The judgement as to our capacity is made in mind.

So okay, that sorts the action side of the body-mind problem. What about the thinking side, what is mind, how does it work, and if it is in the brain, how exactly is mind not able to be reduced to the operation of the brain?

This is where it gets a bit intellectual and quite difficult, and where my line of thinking diverges a very long way from Descartes, and in fact diverges completely from any other line of thinking I am aware of.  The line of thinking establishes that knowledge is not continuous, that it exists in domains, each domain of knowledge defined by a special sort of variable, called a coherent variable (see ‘Origin’). When we move from one domain to another we lose all understanding relevant to the first domain. Within the line of thinking developed in ‘Origin’ we have our psychology consisting of thought, emotions, attention and attitude. The brain, neuron, etc., are the mechanism of mind, but moving from our mind to the brain we lose all insight into our psychology.  Understanding of the brain offers only the most basic insight into the person (‘Origin’ and the first two essays).

It is not simple to get your head around it... knowledge, not continuous! It has always been assumed that it is continuous, of course it is it is obvious! But it is not obvious, merely assumed, it has never been argued it is or is not, not until now.

This is where the argument goes beyond this essay, hence I can only offer a brief overview. Knowledge is created by people. Therefore how can we really understand knowledge unless we understand how it is created? The requirement of an apt general theory of psychology is that it must account for all that humanity does. Knowledge, and science in particular is a substantive output by humanity hence the theory must account for that. I call this the reflexive criteria of any general theory of psychology, since the theory is knowledge and hence must fully account for itself. In short, any apt general theory of psychology must account in full for scientific knowledge, including the structure of that knowledge. It is the theory of psychology itself that directs the understanding that knowledge is not continuous. We need to understand knowledge to build a theory of psychology which in turn had to fully account for knowledge. The circularity is difficult, but it is crucial in order to understand the body-mind solution as stated in ‘Origin’.

So where does this leave us in our understanding of ourselves?

First, let’s deal with the idea that we know or can find out for sure what part of the brain does what. The issue is called neuroplasticity. Basically it says you can fully chart my brain, and what parts of my brain do what, but that will not necessarily tell one much about your brain and what parts of that do what. Actually, the problem is rather more difficult than that. Any analysis of my brain is only certain at that time. As I develop, the locations in the brain can change, not sure by how much. Say 20 years ago this group of neurons did this, but now, that has shifted just next door, and the neurons that did do that now do something else. And if the brain has been damaged, then the plasticity can be very marked indeed, such that the no two brains bear any similarity.  

Outside some broad patterns of general location of types of activity, our brain and its structure tends to be unique to us.

Now, let’s do another social science thought experiment. Imagine two people and imagine we had charted their brains, and knew that they had almost identical neural structure. One person is a New Yorker, and other an Mbuti Pygmy from the Congo rainforest. Neither had ever been outside their home range so to speak. Now imagine further that we could chart their neural operations minute by minute, and that at some exact point the neural activity in each brain was identical involving emotions and thoughts, with the exact same level of attention. Would the two people be thinking the same thing?  I argue it is impossible for their thoughts to be remotely parallel. Nor can we have any idea of the significance to the people of that which they are thinking. The New Yorker could be about to put his new expensive shoes into a pile of dog poo on his way to meeting his new girlfriend, while the Pygmy in bare feet may be about to step on a very dangerous poisonous snake. Understanding the exact neural state can tell us nothing of the meaning to the person of that which is occurring in their mind.  There would clearly be overlaps if the two people are from similar cultures, but with neuroplasticity we need be careful with our assumptions.

The need for a dualistic solution is difficult if not impossible to avoid. We are left with the problem of exactly how is the brain the mechanism of mind? This argument alone forces reconsideration of the structure of knowledge, we are forced to the conclusion that knowledge must be discontinuous. Unless we intend to speculate that our mind in some way operates without involvement of the brain... I think that idea quickly shown as spurious.

So the answer to who we are does not reside in understanding our brains. It follows that neurological research effort is a drive to understand neurons, but can tell as little about people. To understand people we need understand their mind, and within their mind, understand their spirit.

The brain is a physical thing, part of the body. This means that the brain is subject to the second law of thermodynamics exactly as every other physical body on this planet, and from what we can tell, in the universe. The second law is about entropy, which can be difficult, but the definition of the law I prefer is not difficult, and is very intuitive. All energy flows to the lowest available energy states. So hot flows to cold, high pressure flows to low pressure, high voltage flows to low voltage.

Now think what that means in the brain? The simple insightful image of the brain is from Edward de Bono, the jelly mould. Imagine a large jelly mould on the table, now imagine pouring hot water over it, the hot water will cut paths in the mould. Now pour more hot water some will cut new paths the rest will flow down the established paths. And more hot water, cuts existing paths deeper. It takes less energy to flow down existing paths than cut new ones.

I refer to the brain as an ‘entropic device’. With the image above offering a sense of what that means: If left to its own devices then the energy flows in the brain will flow along paths already cut. To put that in psychological terms, if left to its own devices then the brain will direct us to follow habit.  This essay will not explore how habits form, but again the jelly mould offers a sense of it, if in some situation we acted this way, then later in the same or similar situations the energy will flow down that same path and we will repeat the same responses. It is crucial to understand the responses we repeat are yesterday responses and there is no strong reason why they will necessarily be appropriate today.

Remember we ‘exist’ not in the brain per se, but in the energy flows in the brain. Hence at least a solid chunk of us is determined by entropy, not our psychology, although our psychology may have laid the flow paths in the brain in the first place.

What about ideas? The only thought experiment I could come up with was to imagine a balloon resting on a column of air. The balloon moved in accord with the air flow. Now try to imagine seeing that balloon without seeing the air column. The balloon itself uses no energy, all the energy of the balloon is provided by the air flow. I am trying to offer a sense of the relationship between ideas, the brain and entropy. Ideas per se, in and of themselves do not involve energy, therefore they are not subject to the second law. Hence we can judge, choose and imagine ideas, without any limits from the second law, consciousness itself, to the extent it involves ideas, as I argue it does, is not subject to the second law. However, creativity can involve the second law, since creativity implicates making neural connections in the brain that lead to new ideas, the ideas themselves require no energy, but redirecting neural flows does... this is why we get tired after serious creative effort.

Now, how do we do things? There has been much research into the attention mechanism in our brain, I explore it in ‘Origin’ but will not repeat that discussion here. I argue attention has two fundamental functions, observing, and intervention. The attention mechanism has the capacity to intervene in the brain and alter neural pathways making flow patterns occur that if the brain left to its own internal system would not otherwise happen. The exact detail of this is covered in ‘Origin’.

We can judge the best idea in mind, then via the intervention capacity of our attention mechanism, we can cause our body to do it. The combination of judging the best idea and then having the body do it is called choice or freewill, making the choice involves no energy, acting out our choice does. These two mechanisms, judging good ideas to deal with our Reality, and having the capacity to do it are fundamental to our survival and emergence as the dominant species on this planet.

Consciousness the only force in the universe that can overcome entropy making energy flow along pathways that if left to entropy it would not flow along.  We ‘see’ a response in mind, a solution to some problem we face, then we are able, via our attention mechanism, to intervene in our brain to reshape the neural flows such that our body does the action as we ‘see’ it. But altering the neural flow in the brain requires energy, effort, it is not thinking about it that requires effort, it is doing it. Now, one can say that thinking about some things makes one tired, but it is not the idea that makes us tired, it is the emotion associated with it. Emotion is energy, it is not an idea, but becomes associated with ideas. The effort associated with managing our emotions is psychologically described as self-discipline, emotional intelligence, or professionalism (doing that needed despite how one may feel). Holding emotions at bay until the task done, we see it all the time in professional sport on the tele.

To understand what this means, think of something you need resist, such as overeating, or over-drinking, you can, you know you can, but it demands energy, the energy is consumed by you ensuring the flow patterns in the brain are as you choose, and not as the habit driven by entropy. 

It is not you, now, wanting to eat that donut. But very likely it was you some time in your past and the brain has encoded that pattern of response and will enforce it on you today if you allow it. It is your brain merely acting according to the entropic pathways built in it from your history. To make your choices today, you need resist entropy in your brain and assert neural pathways that enable the action fulfilling to you today. And that demands effort.

The fundamental of the human condition lies in the tension between habit of brain and the free will of mind. We can choose, and when we choose and put in the effort we succeed. It is mind over matter if we choose it so. -§-