fwh

Could we not say that the mind is related to thought (or the brain) as the eye is to light? Everyone accepts the very special relation that exists between the eye and light; but no one suggests, as far as I know, that light is simply something that goes on in the eye.

Most of us look at the process of evolution, in one way or another, as a process by which matter grows ever more complex and highly organised until it finally produces something called human conciousness. Mind begins as inanimate matter and eventually evolves into what we perceive today as thought or thinking. In other words; matter preceeds mind.

So pervasive is this 'materialism' that even some like Chardin, when advocating that all things are evolving upward toward ultimate spirit (the Omega point of Christ), assumes that matter precedes spirit.

Does this not miss the whole beginning of "the story"? Aren't we aware that something is amiss when events are portrayed this way? Aren't we aware that some intellectual scrambling takes place to 'save the appearances' of evolution, in the Darwinian sense, if this is the only way we have of looking at things?

Could we not imagine (yes I said imagine) a world in which mind precedes matter? Couldn't we assume that matter is not merely a form of arrested energy, but that it is 'coagulum spiritus'-a kind of coagulation or concentration of spirit? That the material is formed from and within the "immaterial" rather as ice is formed from and within water? That in the beginning, humans were part of the "mental" not "material"? That dualism is not necessary , but rather a monist view (objective idealism)? Can nature be man's unconscious being? Doesn't this more accurately echo philosophically the ideas of Kant and others? Haven't you heard mentioned (or whispered ominously) that the world view of modern physics, in some sense, is alarmingly becoming a "spiritual" one?

In the beginning, there was no subject/object relationship between man and nature. Only in recent times has this particular dichotomy been perceived due to a change in the conciousness of humans. My proposition proposes that "evolution" has taken place and IS taking place. However, it is an "evolution of conciousness" and it is occurring in an explosive way when compared to evolution in the material sense.

"There may be times when what is most needed is, not so much a new discovery or a new idea as a different 'slant'. A comparatively slight readjustment in our way of looking at the things and ideas on which attention is already fixed."-Owen Barfield

No one seriously argues that light is something that goes on in the eye. Yet, we argue till we are blue in the face that mind is something that goes on in the brain. I realise that some may view this as an apologetic for a religious viewpoint. I have no desire for you to take it that way. I consider myself to be skeptical of all religious and secular dogma and am sincerely looking for a reasoned approach to the ideas I have brought to this discussion forum. Flail away!!!

scigirl

Hello fwh,

No, but light is something that simply passes through the eye. We know how it works (reductionistically), but that doesn't mean I don't marvel at every sunset.

scigirl

fwh

Hello sci girl

You said:
"No, but light is something that simply passes through the eye. We know how it works (reductionistically), but that doesn't mean I don't marvel at every sunset."

me:
Thanks for responding. I agree. Sunsets, sunrises, rainbows are all marvelous. My point, which I was probably making very badly, is that perception of objects is dependent upon light stimulating the eye(optic nerve) and other sight perceiving tissue in the brain. Light:eye is a picture or analogy of the relation mind:brain.

scigirl

Hello. I was halfway kidding, because I did understand your analogy. However, the rest of your post was a bit confusing? Are you in a sense, arguing for a soul (for lack of a better word) ? If something has a natural explanation (like our minds), does that make it any less marvelous? I don't think it does.

scigirl

(I'm not saying we have natural explanations for all of our mental phenomenon. . . .yet!)

fwh

sci girl said:
"However, the rest of your post was a bit
confusing?"

me: You are right it is confusing. Part of the reason is that I turned the post into a philosophical discussion and ranted about things which are not essential to my point. This probably should be moved to the philosohical forums because my reply will be in that area of thought.

sci girl:
"Are you in a sense, arguing for a soul (for lack of a better word) ? If something has a natural explanation (like our minds), does that make it any less marvelous? I don't think it does."

me:
No, I am not arguing for a soul. My point is that the modern theory of evolution (TOE) is skewed
in the wrong way because of its initial assumption that "matter precedes mind" in the scheme of things; ie, the world consists of matter with a little bit of mind attached. I have great admiration for those who do their research with TOE as their paradigm for discovery. Indeed, much valuable research has been because of that paradigm. My belief is that it will eventually be found that the basic assumption that mind has a natural explanation, as you stated, will be found to be false. Then we will change our initial assumptions about our origins to "mind precedes matter" and IMO a theory of "evolution of consciousness" (EOC) will bring about invaluable research results.

I would define EOC as 'the concept of man's self-conciousness as a process in time'. This concept calls for "a sustained acceptance by us of the relation assumed by physical science to subsist between human conciousness on the one hand and, on the other, the familiar world of which that conciousness is aware. Most philosophy since Kant has heavily emphasised the paricipation of our own mind in the creation of the familiar world. Indeed, physical science has for a long time stressed the enormous difference between what it investigates as the actual structure of the universe, including the earth, and the phenomena (appearances) which are presented by that structure to normal human conciousness." ( I am liberally quoting Owen Barfield from several different sources)

Looking at the world with "objective idealism" spectacles would possibly make what I am saying easier. Owen Barfield says, "'Objective idealism' contends that reality, individual being; however you think of it, consists in the polarity between the subjectivity of the individual mind and the objective world which it perceives. They are NOT two things, but they are ONE and the SAME thing. What we call the objective world is merely one pole of what is a unitary process. What we call subjective experience is the other pole, but they are not really divided from each other." (Emphasis is mine)

Any clearer?

Secular Pinoy

I don't understand this thing called mind precedes matter. Care to explain that? The flowery quotes you provided is cute but really didn't explain what it is and how it was brought about. What is your theory of mind? Are you a dualist? A materialist monist? Do you think the mind is merely an emergent property of our brain? An Epiphenomenon?

Quoting Kant is nice but he lived before the advent of Modern research in the brain and cognitive science. It's like quoting Newton on creationism.

scigirl

Oh, and fwh,

Welcome to infidels, and specifically, the E/C forum. You may want to start a similar thread in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=56" target="_blank">Philosophy</a> or <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=57" target="_blank">Science and Skepticism.</a> You can also introduce yourself here in the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=43" target="_blank">Welcome Forum</a>. I'll leave this here for now, since it does pertain to evolution.

Enjoy the boards!

scigirl

fwh

Cheap Thrill:
I don't understand this thing called mind precedes matter. Care to explain that? The flowery quotes you provided is cute but really didn't explain what it is and how it was brought about. What is your theory of mind? Are you a dualist? A materialist monist? Do you think the mind is merely an emergent property of our brain? An Epiphenomenon?
Quoting Kant is nice but he lived before the advent of Modern research in the brain and cognitive science. It's like quoting Newton on creationism.

Me;
Thanks for welcoming me to the board CT. If I didn't know any better, I would suppose you as an interrogator for some religious inquisition or some fundamentalist group. I thought normal discourse on this board was to illucidate ideas and themes FROM THE POSTS. I didn't know all my inclinations had to be laid bare to the brethren before discourse could begin. Is that how it works here? If so, so much for the "free thinkers" subtitle of this discussion board!

scigirl

fwh:

I sent you a private message - please read.

Thank you,

scigirl

Oolon Colluphid

Nope. All the evidence suggests that thought is what brains do.
Mind is to brain as digestion is to stomach, or dialysis is to kidney.
Eye is to light as ear is to sound.

What special relation is that? That it is ‘designed’ to sense light of certain wavelengths? Why is that ‘special’? It’s a sensory organ!

Therefore mind is not to brain as eye is to light, contradicting your own opening argument. I suggest you go learn some neurophysiology. Do we not have a pretty good idea how eyes work...? Here’s some hints on what to look up: photon, rod cell, refraction, rhodopsin, synapse, neuron.

On what grounds is ‘mind’ to be taken as something external, like light?
Care to explain viruses? Where’s the ever-increasing complexity over the last 3 billion years in bacteria? Some matter has evolved in complexity; in sheer numbers, the overwhelming proportion of living things are still (comparatively) pretty simple. There is no evolutionary drive toward complexity; as parasites show, if becoming simplified means better survival and reproduction, then living things will do that too. “Most of us look at the process of evolution” in ignorance of it.
Please show how evolution says this is inevitable.
Erm, if, as all the evidence suggests, mind is something that goes on in brains, where exactly was this ‘mind’ before there were brains? Please indicate the location of the ‘mind’ of, say, a platyhelminth, a plasmodium, paramecium or pre-Cambrian fossil.
In other words, WTF? I thought you just said that “mind begins as inanimate matter and eventually evolves into” thought. Ooh look, you did. Please explain what this ‘mind’ was up to for the billions of years before there were brains.
Did Chardin have the tiniest shred of evidence for this ‘spirit’? Do you?
No, no, and no. Please supply evidence to the contrary.
Okay, imagine away, Mr Star Trek, I'm listening...

You may assume anything you like. In science, however, we need to offer some evidence too. Please explain what this ‘spirit’ is.

“All mater is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.” -- Bill Hicks

Is it me, or aren’t philosophers amazing contortionists? Look how easily they can get their heads up their own arses! Look pal, biology is the empirical study of living things, and Darwinian evolution is the scientific theory that underpins it. Please explain how this metaphysical daydreaming relates to that.

Time for fwh to investigate evolutionary psychology, methinks.

So? What does this navel-gazing have to offer that is new and is not banal?

Do you see many neurophysiologists arguing about this? Are you arguing with this? If religious experiences can be induced by electrical disturbance of the brain (they can; do a search for V S Ramachandran), what does this tell us about the location of ‘mind’?

Well what the hell is it if not?

Well what the hell is it if not?

But utterly credulous when some philosophy-cloaked reverie comes along, yeah?

Okay... did you have a point? Your idea appears to be that mind is something external to brains. Please offer some evidence.

TTFN, Oolon