mirror of
https://github.com/fmap/muflax65ngodyewp.onion
synced 2024-07-05 11:20:42 +02:00
307 lines
15 KiB
Markdown
307 lines
15 KiB
Markdown
% Consciousness Defined
|
|
|
|
About "the Mind"
|
|
================
|
|
|
|
I'm doing something that, as far as I can tell, nobody[^nobody] in the study of
|
|
consciousness, and this includes neuroscientists, psychologists and Buddhists,
|
|
seems to be able to do. The first thing, clearly stated, you should be doing is
|
|
answer this question:
|
|
|
|
**What do you mean by "mind" (etc.) and what does it encompass?**
|
|
|
|
[^nobody]: Ok, that's not exactly true. I've seen, for example, definitions and
|
|
diagrams in books by (or about) Julian Jaynes and Bernhard Baars. Still, these
|
|
models are often only meant to demonstrate how their own ideas fit together, not
|
|
to catalog the whole phenomenology.
|
|
|
|
Everybody and their grandmother has a theory about the mind, yet when you
|
|
actually look at these theories, they don't just approach the issue differently,
|
|
they even approach *different issues*. Studying "the mind" or "consciousness"
|
|
is kinda like a physicist saying they study "stuff". Unless you have a clear,
|
|
*explicit* idea of what you mean when you say "mind", you will at best only
|
|
confuse yourself and think that a half-baked answer solved the problem.
|
|
|
|
I was wrestling with all kinds of ideas about what consciousness is and how it
|
|
works. The most important realization, and I credit Dennett for it, was that I
|
|
didn't even know what I was talking about *myself*. I had no idea what I even
|
|
meant when I spoke about my own consciousness.
|
|
|
|
So I stopped all the hypothesis-making and took a good, deep look. Exactly what
|
|
is meant by the mind, what "parts" does it consist of, which phenomena are all
|
|
to be included? Note that I don't aim to *explain* anything. At all. Here I just
|
|
want a complete description of what there actually is to explain. Otherwise
|
|
we'll just end up solving wrong or non-existent problems (see: free will).
|
|
|
|
I've also included comparisons to other models, so that you can see how my terms
|
|
relate to concepts you may already know. (And why I consider all other models to
|
|
be too deficient.)
|
|
|
|
The Complete(-ish) Model
|
|
========================
|
|
|
|
I follow *5 simple principles*:
|
|
|
|
# TODO Really? Don't split too much!
|
|
1. Not everything that is a separate part in the model is meant to be strictly
|
|
separate in reality. In fact, I am fairly convinced that some parts at least
|
|
overlap, if they are not even identical. The distinctions are meant to help
|
|
*you* understand what I'm talking about, not show you *how it works*.
|
|
|
|
2. The model is not necessarily exhaustive. I may have forgotten something, but
|
|
I have compared my model to all common views on consciousness I could find
|
|
and searched my own consciousness for anything missing. However, if you think
|
|
something should be there but isn't, and it's not a part of something already
|
|
there, then most likely I personally do not have this feature. (This applies
|
|
equally if you find something *unnecessary*[^unnecessary]. Consider that you
|
|
may have a different consciousness.)
|
|
|
|
3. The relationships in the model are only meant for easier classification. They
|
|
do *not* necessarily reflect any *actual* relationships. However, I tried to
|
|
get all important ones.
|
|
|
|
4. Nothing is included based on "inference". Just because you think something
|
|
*should* exist because you can only explain something else that way, doesn't
|
|
mean it actually *does* exist. If you can't access it, it doesn't belong in
|
|
the model.
|
|
|
|
5. I shall not, under any circumstances, use the terms "mind", "consciousness",
|
|
"perception", "soul" or "self". They are all so ambiguous that they will only
|
|
confuse.
|
|
|
|
[^unnecessary]:
|
|
When I write that features may be "unnecessary", I mean that there is
|
|
nothing they "do" or "influence" and can't be accessed in any way. I don't
|
|
mean that they are "virtual", i.e. that they are the result of the
|
|
interaction of multiple other parts. For example, "Music" is virtual, as it
|
|
is created by the interplay of "Hearing", "Space-time" and so on. There is
|
|
no separate "Music" thingy that is independent from the others. (See the
|
|
first principle.) However, "Thoughts", as defined in the article, are
|
|
unnecessary. They don't exist.
|
|
|
|
Here we go.
|
|
|
|
![The Model](con_def.png)
|
|
|
|
Now some explanations.
|
|
|
|
Senses (green)
|
|
--------------
|
|
|
|
It can be argued that some senses should be split further, particularly
|
|
**Smell** and **Taste**, which is really a huge amount of very small senses, and
|
|
**Motor-Balance**, which consists of senses of acceleration, balance and so on.
|
|
The split I use is somewhat arbitrary, but I hope it covers every "kind" of
|
|
sense without much overlap.
|
|
|
|
Also, **Body Feedback** means things like heart rate or hunger. I have not split
|
|
this because I don't think that it actually is very differentiated. This is most
|
|
obvious to me once the **Space-time** is impaired (most distinctly via shrooms),
|
|
such that figuring out "where" a sense is coming from is very hard. Once this
|
|
happens, I can't tell hunger from thirst from having to pee.
|
|
|
|
Most importantly note that at no point do I split "external" senses from
|
|
"internal" ones. There is no such thing as "seeing something in the world"
|
|
compared to "seeing something in your mind". They are *the same process*. "If
|
|
all you can know is your brain programs operating, the whole universe you
|
|
experience is inside your head.", as Robert Anton Wilson wrote in Prometheus
|
|
Rising. If you still think "real" sight and "imagined" sight etc. are different,
|
|
try to observe them critically in meditation, trying to pin-point the exact
|
|
difference. Then do the same thing within a (lucid) dream.[^constrained]
|
|
|
|
[^constrained]: This is interpretation now, not just description. I believe that
|
|
all perception, as it happens in the **Theatre**, is a hallucination, in the
|
|
sense that it is *exactly* the same thing as any other hallucination. There
|
|
is no difference in looking at a flower, dreaming a flower, imagining a
|
|
flower or hallucinating a flower. None *at all*. There are difference in
|
|
relationship to **Memory**, **Volition** and so on, which make these states
|
|
distinct, but the actual **Seeing** is identical.
|
|
|
|
At no point in time does the **Theatre** (or anything working with it) ever
|
|
get the "real" perception. You don't see what your eyes see, not for a
|
|
single moment. What happens instead is that the **Theatre** is wildly
|
|
hallucinating, like a mad improv actor, but sense processes (that have
|
|
filtered and modified "raw" data from the eyes and so on) interrupt the
|
|
performance and correct it. There is a certain amount of feedback, in that
|
|
specific data can be requested to fill in details, but never is the direct
|
|
data ever used.
|
|
|
|
Stephen LaBerge calls this "constrained dreaming", meaning that normal
|
|
perception is simply dreaming with hard constraints on content by the
|
|
outside world, while normal dreaming doesn't get the unchanging correction
|
|
and so diverges.
|
|
|
|
This explains all the problems of strong, convincing and incredibly common
|
|
hallucinations we get and removes the fake distinction between "this is
|
|
real" and "this is imagined". Every group event is a mass hallucination.
|
|
|
|
You might find it controversial (or plain wrong) that I included a **Theatre**
|
|
in the first place and that I'm trying to sneak in dualism. I'm not, not at all.
|
|
There is very strong evidence that the **Theatre** really exists as a separate
|
|
thing, in which senses are united and dealt with. A good scientific model of
|
|
this is [Global Workspace] theory, but more importantly, you can directly
|
|
experience the **Theatre**. See the section on **Presence** on how.
|
|
|
|
[Global Workspace]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Workspace_Theory
|
|
|
|
Volition (red)
|
|
--------------
|
|
|
|
There are three important aspects to **Volition** I'll have to explain. Let's
|
|
start with **"Do It" Mode**. What I mean by this is the difference between
|
|
experiencing something and doing it yourself. I'll just quote PJ Eby on this,
|
|
who calls it "command mode"[^evo]:
|
|
|
|
> Point your finger at the screen. How did you do that? Do it again. Try
|
|
> something else. Make various motions with your body. Now just think about
|
|
> making the motions. What's the difference between thinking it, and doing it?
|
|
> *That's* command mode.
|
|
>
|
|
> -- PJ Eby, [The Multiple Self]
|
|
|
|
[The Multiple Self]: http://dirtsimple.org/2005/08/multiple-self.html
|
|
|
|
[^evo]: Evolutionary speaking, I think "stop pretending mode" would be a more
|
|
accurate name. I'd imagine that at first there is a direct link between
|
|
simulated events and actions, then later a switch is introduced so that
|
|
events can be simulated in advance, or with different preconditions.
|
|
|
|
The main drawback of my model is that it hides the bilateralism of the brain, as
|
|
well as certain parallel structures. You might get the impression from looking
|
|
at it that there is a single **Volition** center somewhere, when really, there
|
|
are multiple ones with subtle, but notable differences. Don't think of every
|
|
part as unique or isolated, but rather, a kind of job description that may be
|
|
fulfilled (and competed over) by many applicants.
|
|
|
|
Attention
|
|
---------
|
|
|
|
Presence
|
|
--------
|
|
|
|
Let me get it out of the way: **Presence** is the most important, yet hardest to
|
|
describe part of the model. It is essentially the whole reason I wrote this in
|
|
the first place. Almost everybody ignores (or worse, rejects!) the existence of
|
|
**Presence**, and the few that I suspect mention it are so unclear about it
|
|
that I'm never sure what they really mean.
|
|
|
|
So what *is* **Presence**?
|
|
|
|
Well, it's the *being here*. The *this gets experienced, not that*. The [quale].
|
|
Not helping? I know. Let me instead say what it is *not*.
|
|
|
|
**Presence** is not any kind of sense. When you observe your senses, you will
|
|
find them united in a certain way, in what I call the **Theatre**. This is not a
|
|
unity in **Space-time**, which is actually superimposed. That it is not spatial
|
|
can be demonstrated by disabling it, as mentioned for example by taking shrooms.
|
|
It is very common to feel like you are at multiple places at once or are stuck
|
|
in a time loop and stuff like that, but the unity of the **Theatre** is
|
|
untouched. When you concentrate further on the senses, you will find that they
|
|
disappear. It is very much possible to observe an empty **Theatre**. At first,
|
|
it will feel like empty, infinite space, but even the space will disappear. Only
|
|
nothingness remains, but you are fully aware of the nothingness. (This is
|
|
something functionalism or something like higher-order thought theory can in no
|
|
way explain.) But if you keep on concentrating, something even weirder happens.
|
|
*The nothingness disappears*. I'm not making this up. There is no perception,
|
|
but also no non-perception, yet you are still conscious. In the metaphor of the
|
|
**Theatre**, what happens is that first, the actors leave and the **Theatre**
|
|
becomes empty, but the stage is still there. Then the stage itself is removed,
|
|
so there's nothing in the **Theatre**, yet it is still there. Finally, we remove
|
|
even the building itself.
|
|
|
|
**Presence** is not attention. It is not focusing on anything, it has no
|
|
content. It has no memory, it is not "attached" to anything going on in the
|
|
mind. It has nothing to do with emotions or thinking or action or will. It
|
|
doesn't make any decisions, but there is feedback. It is not epiphenomenal. It
|
|
is also not subjective experience. **Presence** is still there during
|
|
schizophrenic attacks, still there during deep sleep (all of which I can attest
|
|
to). The problem is that **Presence** is not (and probably can not be) encoded
|
|
in memory, so it's really tricky to find out if it was there in the past. You
|
|
have to reproduce the experience and see for yourself, making a note *right
|
|
then*, in some form or another.
|
|
|
|
Let me give a metaphor I personally really like. Think of **Presence** as the
|
|
sky. At first, you might think the sky are the clouds, but the clouds are really
|
|
*in* the sky. Or you might think it is blue, but that's the light travelling
|
|
through it, not the sky itself. It is impossible to pollute the sky. You can
|
|
pollute the *air*, but not the sky itself. Nor can you send up a missile to
|
|
attack it. It is untouchable, the ground on which all else is possible, but not
|
|
directly affecting anything.
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, the metaphor is misleading because you might think of it as some
|
|
kind of space. Like the mental space in which your stuff happens. This is
|
|
conceptualization through **Space-time**, not **Presence**. If your mental
|
|
events are reflections of a real world, then **Presence** *is* the mirror. Which
|
|
color is it? None. Shape? None. Where is it? Nowhere. Does it still exist, can
|
|
we still know it is there? Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[quale]: /reflections/quale.html
|
|
|
|
Thinking
|
|
--------
|
|
|
|
I tried hard to figure out if "thoughts" should be here somewhere. I searched
|
|
everywhere, but couldn't find any that very not actually heard sentences, seen
|
|
images and so on. Therefore, there is no **Thought** in my model.
|
|
|
|
I have united space and time as **Space-time** not because I want to brag with
|
|
my understanding of the theory of relativity, but because I agree with Jaynes'
|
|
assertion that time can only be spatially understood. I can't think of time
|
|
except by treating it like space. Therefore, they are united. #REALLY?
|
|
|
|
Comparisons
|
|
===========
|
|
|
|
Brahman
|
|
-------
|
|
|
|
There is a striking resemblance between [Brahman] and **Presence**. However, I
|
|
am not convinced that they are really the same. Brahman is unconstrained.
|
|
Everyone has the one same Brahman, separation is just an illusion. This *may* be
|
|
true (in fact, I highly suspect it is and that everything, including rocks, has
|
|
Brahman), but I don't have enough evidence for this yet. Therefore, I won't
|
|
equate the two.
|
|
|
|
[Brahman]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman
|
|
|
|
Buddhism
|
|
--------
|
|
|
|
In Buddhism, there are 5 canonical "senses" (seeing, hearing, smelling,
|
|
touching, tasting) and there is additionally a consciousness *of* each of those
|
|
senses. These 5 are generally grouped together and called "thought". This
|
|
distinction is broken and better understood via shifting attention, as in my
|
|
model. I have not been able to figure out what else thought is supposed to be
|
|
than directed attention, so I did not include it. Therefore, I deliberately
|
|
diverge from the Buddhist view here.
|
|
|
|
Similarly, several senses and emotions (often all of them) are always grouped
|
|
together, when they are clearly distinct. I have split as much as I could.
|
|
|
|
One big advantage of Mahayana models is that they include **Presence**.
|
|
Theravada rejects it, as far as I can tell. To be honest, most of the time when
|
|
I *think* a Buddhist mystic is talking about **Presence**, they seem to start
|
|
attributing things to it that it clearly doesn't have, like a content, so I'm
|
|
never really sure if they are talking about the same thing or something closely
|
|
related. And the more people "get" it, the less they seem to talk about it.
|
|
Zennists often even outright refuse to talk about any of this. I find this
|
|
completely unacceptable. This is the behaviour of a vulnerable child that
|
|
doesn't want its comfortable delusions to be taken away, not that of a
|
|
truth-seeker.
|
|
|
|
Bicameral Mind
|
|
--------------
|
|
|
|
If you are familiar with Jaynes' Bicameral Mind model, then the early bicameral
|
|
mind looked like this:
|
|
|
|
[]
|
|
|
|
while the subjective mind looks like this:
|
|
|
|
[]
|
|
|
|
Both modes fit my experience very well, which is why I included them. If you are
|
|
not familiar with Jaynes' work, *you really should be*. I highly recommend it.
|