The human mind

[DrZoidberg]

And what you describe does look like a two-system set up anyway.

Seems also fair to assume that what you call the "control system" is basically our conscious mind? Or is that something else?

Because although me can usually choose to consider our many urges to assess them and decide what to do next, I don't think this is the default mode. Rather, it seems we suddenly want to do something rather than something else and that's when we may choose instead to step back and see whether it's a good idea to proceed with that. So, basically, there's a level of control that would be unconscious and another one which is the conscious one. After all, if dogs are not conscious in the way we are, we would still expect their brain to be able to decide what to do next between barking, biting and peeing for example. So, the question is whether we have two levels of control, and thereby truly two systems, only the second one conscious, or just one level of control and therefore just one system. And how do you explain consciousness in this second case?
EB

Not at all. Rather the opposite. The control system are even smaller parts of the machinery. They're highly specialised to only kick in in certain situations. Take for example our innate fear of snakes. This control system does nothing but analyse pictures coming in and look for things that have a complete set of certain markers. The snake control system sits on high priority. So has a lot of power. But only kicks in if it detects a snake. And if it does it can take over completely. Sometimes this cabling gets wrong and this fires at inopportune moments. I'm thinking cats and cucumbers.

Consciousness cannot be the control system. Partly because we've proven experimentally that the consciousness doesn't take decisions. Whatever it is that takes decisions is elsewhere. But also, because it's a dumb model. Nothing in nature works that way. And not just living nature, but nature nature. If our consciousness was truly in control it would be a self causing causal agent. That's physically impossible. Or as Daniel Dennet to aptly put it, it would require an infinite regress of humunculi

I suspect consciousness is part of our story telling machinery. It's used to create compelling and interesting stories. Things that risk revealing our true motives is hidden in our subconscious. The stuff we're conscious about is mostly self agrandising facts that make us seem more impressive to our peers. Anyway... that's Stephen Pinker's theory, and I think it's compelling.

To understand the brain you first have to ask yourself 'why a living thing at all', and then secondly 'why did intelligence evolve', being the the thing that is unique to humans.

In the first part the function of the brain is to propagate itself, and so the most deeply embedded functions of our nervous system are intrinsic to our survival: our neuromotor system allowing us to move around and manipulate the world, automatic systems that keep our heart beating and our lungs pumping. Or like you mention, things like automatic reactions to dangerous animals.

What distinguishes people from other animals, though, is intelligence. The reason intelligence evolved is because over time people increasingly existed in social groups, and their ability to reproduce became more dependent on their social status within the group, rather than things like brute strength or body size. Intelligence is to humans as the size of horns are to rams. Our evolutionary history has become an arms race to outsmart other people.

Eventually this evolution led to language, and language evolved as our culture experiences added to it, and over time we gained the ability to conceptualize both the world and ourselves. So what most people usually think of as 'consciousness' is actually just our ability to think and conceptualize in terms of language, because we can know ourselves we feel like an I. But this is also an automatic process. You can't just not think, and in that way it's similar to the deeper, sub-conscious, and also intrinsic to our survival, it just feels like the 'I'.

And I also believe people tend to think that we have some kind of special status re: consciousness, that other animals don't have, but I don't think this is the case. Pending on the animal, they feel like an I too, just without language.

I don't think that's how intelligence evolved. For millions of years humans were snacks for lions in one valley in what now is in Kenya. I think it's more likely that we got smart because we needed to outsmart lions. We were weak on physical strength. Our only real weapon is that we're good at long distance running. On long distances we can outrun almost any animal. But not sprinting. That requires planning. Since we need to respond fast to a variety of threats it requires flexibility and ingenuity. Instead of claws and fangs we evolved grippy fingers. So we needed to evolve intelligence to craft weapons to put in the grippy fingers.

Social animals don't have to be smart. Human societies are nowhere near as complex as ant societies, and they're dumb as bricks.

I have seen a theory that once we started to become intelligent, we used a lot of that effort to fool our peers. Essentially, to lie to eachother, and then evolve to catch lies. Which is what led to an arms race. Especially since intelligence became our peacock feathers. We think it's sexy to be smart. Then evolution will push for it, regardless if it's useful or not.

 

[rousseau]

To understand the brain you first have to ask yourself 'why a living thing at all', and then secondly 'why did intelligence evolve', being the the thing that is unique to humans.

In the first part the function of the brain is to propagate itself, and so the most deeply embedded functions of our nervous system are intrinsic to our survival: our neuromotor system allowing us to move around and manipulate the world, automatic systems that keep our heart beating and our lungs pumping. Or like you mention, things like automatic reactions to dangerous animals.

What distinguishes people from other animals, though, is intelligence. The reason intelligence evolved is because over time people increasingly existed in social groups, and their ability to reproduce became more dependent on their social status within the group, rather than things like brute strength or body size. Intelligence is to humans as the size of horns are to rams. Our evolutionary history has become an arms race to outsmart other people.

Eventually this evolution led to language, and language evolved as our culture experiences added to it, and over time we gained the ability to conceptualize both the world and ourselves. So what most people usually think of as 'consciousness' is actually just our ability to think and conceptualize in terms of language, because we can know ourselves we feel like an I. But this is also an automatic process. You can't just not think, and in that way it's similar to the deeper, sub-conscious, and also intrinsic to our survival, it just feels like the 'I'.

And I also believe people tend to think that we have some kind of special status re: consciousness, that other animals don't have, but I don't think this is the case. Pending on the animal, they feel like an I too, just without language.

I don't think that's how intelligence evolved. For millions of years humans were snacks for lions in one valley in what now is in Kenya. I think it's more likely that we got smart because we needed to outsmart lions. We were weak on physical strength. Our only real weapon is that we're good at long distance running. On long distances we can outrun almost any animal. But not sprinting. That requires planning. Since we need to respond fast to a variety of threats it requires flexibility and ingenuity. Instead of claws and fangs we evolved grippy fingers. So we needed to evolve intelligence to craft weapons to put in the grippy fingers.

Social animals don't have to be smart. Human societies are nowhere near as complex as ant societies, and they're dumb as bricks.

I have seen a theory that once we started to become intelligent, we used a lot of that effort to fool our peers. Essentially, to lie to eachother, and then evolve to catch lies. Which is what led to an arms race. Especially since intelligence became our peacock feathers. We think it's sexy to be smart. Then evolution will push for it, regardless if it's useful or not.

Well there is definitely a long history of evolution prior to intelligence evolving, but I think you could argue that 'out-smarting lions' is exactly the type of thing that would have led to social prestige in a tribe. This is why men have evolved to be fearless hunters: over time the best hunters produced the most babies.

Eventually the object of our hunting changed, though, but fundamentally those who gamed the system better than others were the ones who produced the most kids, rather than being a large animal in the wild.

These days many people are dumb as bricks because of food security. Those who would have been weaned out of the gene pool 2000 years ago have no trouble reproducing these days.

 

[abaddon]

We tend to see our conscious mind, i.e. the part of our mind that's capable of proper reasoning, i.e. thinking using a formal language, as properly "us". This is the "I" in Descartes' Cogito, I think, therefore I am. We also see it as the part that's really intelligent compared to our more brutish, instinctive, "intuitive", and essentially apparently non-conscious mind. Many people think of this as a two-system set-up. The second system, the conscious part of our mind, is assumed as having evolved at some point in our more recent history well after the first system was already in place, system which is seen therefore as much closer in terms of evolution to that of our closest animal relatives. Basically, we tend to think that all the intelligent ideas we have when awake are produced by the second system, typically through a sort of "verbal", or formal, thinking. The first system is usually understood as providing us with emotions, sensations, perceptions etc. and also intuitions.

What do you think of this view?

Do you have any alternative view?
EB

The "I" is an object within awareness. And a protean one. It and its thinking can be observed "at a distance" within awareness. In states of flow and other non-ordinary states of consciousness, the "ego" may disappear entirely. In psychedelic states, it may even be visually witnessed as scattered like post-it notes across an hallucinatory landscape. It'll be easy for egos out there to say "Oh, but that's hallucinatory" but it's as real to the experiencer as the experience of the "I" itself is. And the ability to dissociate from it and see that the little "I" function is not "properly 'us'" can be experienced right now if you just sit back and silently observe as awareness, without the "I am the one doing the observing" noise running through awareness.

The reports of temporary "ego death" come from the recent resurge of research into psychedelics, where it's found these drugs (LSD, psilocybin, 5MEO-DMT, and a few others) are several times more effective for treatment of depression, anxiety, and addictions than any other therapeutic and/or drug interventions. Interesting, most terminal cancer patients who are treated just once with LSD or psilocybin will lose most, maybe all, their stress about dying. Why? The researchers think it's the experience of ego-loss that I described. The ego goes, but full awareness stays. It's the strong identity with the "I" that creates the terror of "my death". In egoless awareness, there's no "my" about it and yet it's not a 'dumb animal' state but usually a beatific one. So, show people they're more than how they've been identifying all their lives, and they feel able to separate from the stories in the head that are spun by that possessive, defensive, anxious, over-thinking ego. Less investment in "I" can be a quite liberating release.

Non-ordinary states are information too. Rationalists often privilege the ordinary state of mind over them, as if its ordinariness is more "sober" or "clear"... when it's merely more typical. You get only limited, biased info that way (ego-biased info). If you keep deferring to the ego's thinking about itself ("I'm in control of everything, and I am SO smart"), then you get the sort of story Descartes came up with.

The ego's useful occasionally. Most of "I's" thinking is trite and needless, but occasionally it comes up with something. And it's the protector of the organism and helps orient the organism within its environment. But thank goodness, it's not always necessary for that shit to be going on.

Summary: Egoless awareness is not always dull animal instinctive consciousness. And the ego, the thinking portion of consciousness, is not "properly 'us'" but a facet of "us".

 

[untermensche]

I don't think that's how intelligence evolved. For millions of years humans were snacks for lions in one valley in what now is in Kenya. I think it's more likely that we got smart because we needed to outsmart lions.

That's the gradualism argument.

But Chomsky talks about the sudden emergence of language as a recent and single event in a single individual human. Something that became possible once the brain reached a certain size and complexity.

It's another possible evolutionary pathway and Chomsky has many reasons for believing it. The nature of the brain, trillions of similar components in a specific arrangement allows for large changes with the change of a single gene.

And with the language capacity also comes an internal grammar and structure to thoughts. It is a capacity that allows complex thought.

In other words the thing (capacity) that allows us to understand and use language also allows us to think the way we think. Chomsky sees the language capacity as mainly a thinking ability with spoken and written language as crude secondary extensions.

The language capacity came about with a single mutation in a single individual and it was something that could be passed to offspring. It was so helpful for survival including the ability to wipe out the people without it and so clear to see in others it soon (over thousands of years) became universal.

The language ability is a thinking ability and thus it becomes a leadership ability and the superior thinker now has a place on the Earth and soon dominates it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't think that's how intelligence evolved. For millions of years humans were snacks for lions in one valley in what now is in Kenya. I think it's more likely that we got smart because we needed to outsmart lions.

That's the gradualism argument.

But Chomsky talks about the sudden emergence of language as a recent and single event in a single individual human. Something that became possible once the brain reached a certain size and complexity.

You're talking about something else entirely. You're talking about language. Not intelligence. And you are also making a gradualism argument. Since the brain will reach a certain size and complexity gradually.

The language capacity came about with a single mutation in a single individual and it was something that could be passed to offspring. It was so helpful for survival including the ability to wipe out the people without it and so clear to see in others it soon (over thousands of years) became universal.

The language ability is a thinking ability and thus it becomes a leadership ability and the superior thinker now has a place on the Earth and soon dominates it.

All primates are capable of leadership. They're all highly social. In fact, in that sense, no different from us... at all. There's no difference in degree. Only in method.

All primates are capable of language. So it's clearly been around way longer than us. All primates use it.

What sets humans apart is our story telling instinct. We enjoy telling and listening to stories. It brings us closer emotionally. Creates stronger bonds. It's a bit like dancing or singing or making music. It just adds to our sexual attractiveness. So just a random bizarre quirk in evolution that makes no sense and costs way more than the value it brings to our species. Or has done for the first couple of million years on our evolutionary branch

 

[untermensche]

You're talking about something else entirely. You're talking about language. Not intelligence. And you are also making a gradualism argument. Since the brain will reach a certain size and complexity gradually.

I'm talking about the language capacity, not language.

First the capacity exists then languages exist.

And there is an apish intelligence without the capacity. Chimps and gorillas have intelligence.

But with the language capacity, which is really a capacity to think, you get a completely different kind of intelligence.

You have human zoos with chimps and gorillas in them.

Human intelligence begins with the language capacity.

All primates are capable of leadership. They're all highly social. In fact, in that sense, no different from us... at all. There's no difference in degree. Only in method.

All primates are capable of language. So it's clearly been around way longer than us. All primates use it.

You confuse communication with the language capacity which is a thinking capacity that is able to be used in communication.

Only humans have language or a language capacity.

And it is this capacity that separates humans from all other primates.

Some whales and birds also seem to have something close to the human language capacity but no other primates have it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

And what you describe does look like a two-system set up anyway.

Seems also fair to assume that what you call the "control system" is basically our conscious mind? Or is that something else?

Because although me can usually choose to consider our many urges to assess them and decide what to do next, I don't think this is the default mode. Rather, it seems we suddenly want to do something rather than something else and that's when we may choose instead to step back and see whether it's a good idea to proceed with that. So, basically, there's a level of control that would be unconscious and another one which is the conscious one. After all, if dogs are not conscious in the way we are, we would still expect their brain to be able to decide what to do next between barking, biting and peeing for example. So, the question is whether we have two levels of control, and thereby truly two systems, only the second one conscious, or just one level of control and therefore just one system. And how do you explain consciousness in this second case?
EB

Not at all.

???

Not at all what?!

Rather the opposite. The control system are even smaller parts of the machinery. They're highly specialised to only kick in in certain situations. Take for example our innate fear of snakes. This control system does nothing but analyse pictures coming in and look for things that have a complete set of certain markers. The snake control system sits on high priority. So has a lot of power. But only kicks in if it detects a snake. And if it does it can take over completely. Sometimes this cabling gets wrong and this fires at inopportune moments. I'm thinking cats and cucumbers.

Earlier on, you talked of one control system and now it seems you're saying there are as many control systems as there are possible reactions to our environment. One for snakes, one the mother-in-law, one for the President of the United States, whatever. I'm lost. See here what you said:

It's not a two system set up. It's more like a twenty, or two hundred system set up, or thousands. Each human urge, or goal, no matter how small, has it's own mind/cerebral machinery to reach it's goal. Overlayed with a control system that weighs these between them in terms of value to the individual.

And if there is a control system for each of these "two hundred" or "thousands" systems, then none of them is a control system.

So, which is which? "Not at all" again?

Consciousness cannot be the control system. Partly because we've proven experimentally that the consciousness doesn't take decisions.

I don't believe we've proven any such a thing. I can decide now on some deliberate action to be taken in the near future.

Whatever it is that takes decisions is elsewhere. But also, because it's a dumb model. Nothing in nature works that way. And not just living nature, but nature nature. If our consciousness was truly in control it would be a self causing causal agent. That's physically impossible. Or as Daniel Dennet to aptly put it, it would require an infinite regress of humunculi

???

I guess you would have to take the pain to go through the minutia of this argument for me to understand. Right now, it just looks to me like your unfounded opinion.

I suspect consciousness is part of our story telling machinery. It's used to create compelling and interesting stories. Things that risk revealing our true motives is hidden in our subconscious. The stuff we're conscious about is mostly self agrandising facts that make us seem more impressive to our peers. Anyway... that's Stephen Pinker's theory, and I think it's compelling.

And that's a pretty dumb theory too. What would be the advantage for the human species? Or is it just a quirk of evolution, a dead end?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Well there is definitely a long history of evolution prior to intelligence evolving, but I think you could argue that 'out-smarting lions' is exactly the type of thing that would have led to social prestige in a tribe. This is why men have evolved to be fearless hunters: over time the best hunters produced the most babies.

Eventually the object of our hunting changed, though, but fundamentally those who gamed the system better than others were the ones who produced the most kids, rather than being a large animal in the wild.

These days many people are dumb as bricks because of food security. Those who would have been weaned out of the gene pool 2000 years ago have no trouble reproducing these days.

I don't think any study will show that intelligent people produce more children.

I'm not even sure any study will show intelligent people produce intelligent children.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

You're talking about something else entirely. You're talking about language. Not intelligence. And you are also making a gradualism argument. Since the brain will reach a certain size and complexity gradually.

I'm talking about the language capacity, not language.

First the capacity exists then languages exist.

And there is an apish intelligence without the capacity. Chimps and gorillas have intelligence.

But with the language capacity, which is really a capacity to think, you get a completely different kind of intelligence.

You have human zoos with chimps and gorillas in them.

Human intelligence begins with the language capacity.

Sure, but it's not saying much. Human intelligence also begins with the Big Bang. You have not explained why human intelligence is qualitatively different from apes. And then you need to explain it using something other than language.

All primates are capable of leadership. They're all highly social. In fact, in that sense, no different from us... at all. There's no difference in degree. Only in method.

All primates are capable of language. So it's clearly been around way longer than us. All primates use it.

You confuse communication with the language capacity which is a thinking capacity that is able to be used in communication.

Only humans have language or a language capacity.

And it is this capacity that separates humans from all other primates.

Some whales and birds also seem to have something close to the human language capacity but no other primates have it.

Apes have the same language capacity as humans. They're just not using it. So whatever it was that made us intelligent was something other than language.

Also.. hasn't Chomsky been debunked? I think his theories are obsolete today.

 

[rousseau]

Well there is definitely a long history of evolution prior to intelligence evolving, but I think you could argue that 'out-smarting lions' is exactly the type of thing that would have led to social prestige in a tribe. This is why men have evolved to be fearless hunters: over time the best hunters produced the most babies.

Eventually the object of our hunting changed, though, but fundamentally those who gamed the system better than others were the ones who produced the most kids, rather than being a large animal in the wild.

These days many people are dumb as bricks because of food security. Those who would have been weaned out of the gene pool 2000 years ago have no trouble reproducing these days.

I don't think any study will show that intelligent people produce more children.

I'm not even sure any study will show intelligent people produce intelligent children.
EB

Sure they will, but there's a sweet spot, which is why we see IQ cluster in the 'pretty-smart, but not neurotic smart' region. Being too smart can also be a problem in terms of things like conformity, or even wanting kids.

The ideal 'intelligence' is someone who can hold down a well paying job, and raise their children to do the same.

- - - Updated - - -

Apes have the same language capacity as humans. They're just not using it. So whatever it was that made us intelligent was something other than language.

Isn't the theory that bi-pedalism freed up metabolic energy for our brain capacity?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Earlier on, you talked of one control system and now it seems you're saying there are as many control systems as there are possible reactions to our environment. One for snakes, one the mother-in-law, one for the President of the United States, whatever. I'm lost. See here what you said:

And if there is a control system for each of these "two hundred" or "thousands" systems, then none of them is a control system.

I'm pretty sure we're fundamentally talking about different things. You're talking about some sort of central oversight office weighing and evaluating actions and outcomes. I'd argue that that doesn't exist in the human brain.

Here's metaphor to make it more clear what I'm talking about. Imagine a train system where each train is input from one of our senses travelling along neurons. Along the track there's a number of switches. Each switch is just looking for one specific set of input signals in the neurons. When it sees what it's imprinted for it'll pull the switch and the train is diverted. Those switches are the control system. They're not coordinated. Each switch just does one thing on it's own.

This BTW is the theory for how the brain worked that was developed in the 1950'ies and used as a model for how to programme AI. It didn't work. But we're still pretty sure that we're on the right track. Through evolutionary programming we developed AI "brains" that were somewhat more efficient.

The theory now is that there's a hierarchy of these switches, so that the brain can shift schemas all over the brain all at once. This can evolve by itself and does not require any coordination. Which increases the complexity exponentially. But complexity is not a problem for evolution. But there's still no single-most top level hierarchy in control. At the very top of the hierarchy we're still looking at thousands of switches.

The reason why AI researchers abandoned the idea of the consciousness being in control is that it would require magic to make it work. Since science doesn't believe in magic it was not a contender.

I'm not saying the brain is a computer or that any AI that works will work exactly as the brain. But these guys put a lot of work and effort into figuring out what could, hypothetically work.

Consciousness cannot be the control system. Partly because we've proven experimentally that the consciousness doesn't take decisions.

I don't believe we've proven any such a thing. I can decide now on some deliberate action to be taken in the near future.

I didn't say you weren't able to take decisions. I'm challenging whether it's your consciousness that is taking that decision.

Benjamin Libet proved as much and the more data we get in the more is his original finding validated. Our consciousness doesn't seem to decide anything.

I suspect consciousness is part of our story telling machinery. It's used to create compelling and interesting stories. Things that risk revealing our true motives is hidden in our subconscious. The stuff we're conscious about is mostly self agrandising facts that make us seem more impressive to our peers. Anyway... that's Stephen Pinker's theory, and I think it's compelling.

And that's a pretty dumb theory too. What would be the advantage for the human species? Or is it just a quirk of evolution, a dead end?
EB

It's an advantage if you want to get laid. If being intelligent is sexually attractive we have an incentive to fool potential mates into thinking that we're much smarter than we really are. But evolution is itself clever, and will evolve counter measures to catch the lies. So counter measures to counter measures evolve. This is the way evolution works for everything that is sexually selected for.

Since apes don't tell stories to each other their evolutionary route didn't go down this road.

 

[untermensche]

Sure, but it's not saying much. Human intelligence also begins with the Big Bang. You have not explained why human intelligence is qualitatively different from apes. And then you need to explain it using something other than language.

It is saying everything about any "intelligence" is a chance accident. Evolutionary change is due to random processes.

The giraffe's neck does not get longer because the giraffe needs a longer neck.

The necks that are longer by chance have greater odds of survival.

This over time leads to those with very long necks dominating the species.

The humans who by chance had the language capacity also had greater odds of survival and over time those with the language capacity dominated the species.

And once a capacity exists it can undergo random modification.

And we see this with the difference in language capacities in all individuals.

Apes have the same language capacity as humans.

Only one ape has the language capacity.

No other ape has shown any ability to acquire human language.

None have a language.

They do have communication; postural communication, auditory communication, facial communication, tactile communication.

But language and communication are not the same thing.

The fact that pre-human ancestors used sound for communication and developed control of sounds is how once the language capacity arrives it can be used to create auditory languages.

Also.. hasn't Chomsky been debunked? I think his theories are obsolete today.

Chomsky is the leading expert on language in the world.

This idea that the language capacity arose in a single mutation has not been debunked by anyone.

Some don't believe it.

There are the gradualism hypotheses.

But Chomsky has many reasons to reject these hypotheses.

 

[Underseer]

We tend to see our conscious mind, i.e. the part of our mind that's capable of proper reasoning, i.e. thinking using a formal language, as properly "us". This is the "I" in Descartes' Cogito, I think, therefore I am. We also see it as the part that's really intelligent compared to our more brutish, instinctive, "intuitive", and essentially apparently non-conscious mind. Many people think of this as a two-system set-up. The second system, the conscious part of our mind, is assumed as having evolved at some point in our more recent history well after the first system was already in place, system which is seen therefore as much closer in terms of evolution to that of our closest animal relatives. Basically, we tend to think that all the intelligent ideas we have when awake are produced by the second system, typically through a sort of "verbal", or formal, thinking. The first system is usually understood as providing us with emotions, sensations, perceptions etc. and also intuitions.

What do you think of this view?

Do you have any alternative view?
EB

What do I think?

I think a lot of neuroscience has been done in recent decades such that you no longer have the excuse of wild speculation. If they haven't already answered the question, then the question is just speculative nonsense at the moment.

 

[steve_bank]

This is a well done article on how pot influences the brain. One can see how other things (emotions) might release chemicals that alter how we process our thoughts and ideas.




https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/thc/

When we feel threatened stress hormones are released in the blood along with more adrenalin. In the fight or flight state reason fades and survival instinct takes over.

Right, and so I don't think it is too much of a stretch to see how hormones can alter feelings, or how long bouts of depression can alter which chemicals the brain releases.

Long term chronic stress hormones damage the heart. I think it also depletes dopamine in the brain.

 

[Speakpigeon]

We tend to see our conscious mind, i.e. the part of our mind that's capable of proper reasoning, i.e. thinking using a formal language, as properly "us". This is the "I" in Descartes' Cogito, I think, therefore I am. We also see it as the part that's really intelligent compared to our more brutish, instinctive, "intuitive", and essentially apparently non-conscious mind. Many people think of this as a two-system set-up. The second system, the conscious part of our mind, is assumed as having evolved at some point in our more recent history well after the first system was already in place, system which is seen therefore as much closer in terms of evolution to that of our closest animal relatives. Basically, we tend to think that all the intelligent ideas we have when awake are produced by the second system, typically through a sort of "verbal", or formal, thinking. The first system is usually understood as providing us with emotions, sensations, perceptions etc. and also intuitions.

What do you think of this view?

Do you have any alternative view?
EB

What do I think?

I think a lot of neuroscience has been done in recent decades such that you no longer have the excuse of wild speculation. If they haven't already answered the question, then the question is just speculative nonsense at the moment.

Where is it I'm speculating?! Is it not true we tend to see our conscious mind as properly "us"? Is it not true many people think of the mind as a two-system set-up?!

You should read a little more carefully before making ultra-idiotic comments. You should be ashamed of yourself.
EB

 

[Treedbear]

We tend to see our conscious mind, i.e. the part of our mind that's capable of proper reasoning, i.e. thinking using a formal language, as properly "us". This is the "I" in Descartes' Cogito, I think, therefore I am. We also see it as the part that's really intelligent compared to our more brutish, instinctive, "intuitive", and essentially apparently non-conscious mind. Many people think of this as a two-system set-up. The second system, the conscious part of our mind, is assumed as having evolved at some point in our more recent history well after the first system was already in place, system which is seen therefore as much closer in terms of evolution to that of our closest animal relatives. Basically, we tend to think that all the intelligent ideas we have when awake are produced by the second system, typically through a sort of "verbal", or formal, thinking. The first system is usually understood as providing us with emotions, sensations, perceptions etc. and also intuitions.

What do you think of this view?

Do you have any alternative view?
EB

I think this view is in error and therefore very limiting. Meaning that it will eventually prove to be useless as a way of understanding conscious awareness. My own view is more inclusive and holistic. I take ownership of both my conscious and unconscious mind. The mind becomes essentially all that the brain does in terms of sensing and making sense of its environment. It is one system all doing the same thing, i.e.; creating models and integrating them into the larger more objective understanding. The cause of our subjective experience of consciousness is still difficult to explain or even describe, but that is a unique problem unto itself (for which I could offer a hypothesis if prompted). From my perspective there doesn't seem to be any indisputable evidence that consciousness is responsible for controlling anything. I am aware of this or that ... in other words I have thoughts. But it is just something I have, and I define myself by what I have. It comes down to relationships between those things. The context can be as broad or as narrow as one wants. And if I had to wait for a 2nd tier consciousness to generate ideas through what you call "proper reasoning" I'd get nowhere fast. Ideas and connections come into consciousness from the depths of the unconscious mind. Who knows by what convoluted process their ideas evolved?

I say Descartes was wrong. Not I think, therefore I am. Rather I have thoughts, therefore I am. But that's only logical because anything that can be said to have something must exist by definition. I know I have thoughts, although I don't necessarily know where they come from. But in having them it is true that I must exist. Hardly a foundational concept except as basic metaphysics.

 

[untermensche]

...I say Descartes was wrong. Not I think, therefore I am. Rather I have thoughts, therefore I am....

You do more than have thoughts. You can create thoughts.

You can think of a red elephant walking on it's trunk juggling tea cups.

Writing requires organizing your thoughts.

You can organize your thoughts and create thoughts.

It is more than just having thoughts.

 

[DBT]

A brain creates thoughts. Without a brain and its activity, there are no thoughts.

 

[untermensche]

A brain creates thoughts. Without a brain and its activity, there are no thoughts.

A brains creates something capable of autonomously choosing which thoughts it will type out and which it will not.

If written out thoughts have not been chosen autonomously they are worthless babble of no importance and cannot be believed.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think this view is in error and therefore very limiting. Meaning that it will eventually prove to be useless as a way of understanding conscious awareness. My own view is more inclusive and holistic. I take ownership of both my conscious and unconscious mind. The mind becomes essentially all that the brain does in terms of sensing and making sense of its environment. It is one system all doing the same thing, i.e.; creating models and integrating them into the larger more objective understanding. The cause of our subjective experience of consciousness is still difficult to explain or even describe, but that is a unique problem unto itself (for which I could offer a hypothesis if prompted). From my perspective there doesn't seem to be any indisputable evidence that consciousness is responsible for controlling anything. I am aware of this or that ... in other words I have thoughts. But it is just something I have, and I define myself by what I have. It comes down to relationships between those things. The context can be as broad or as narrow as one wants. And if I had to wait for a 2nd tier consciousness to generate ideas through what you call "proper reasoning" I'd get nowhere fast. Ideas and connections come into consciousness from the depths of the unconscious mind. Who knows by what convoluted process their ideas evolved?

Not much i could disagree with here, sorry.

I guess the point is that the view I presented in the OP seems to be the default view for the average human being, prior to any serious consideration of the issue and prior to being subjected to any materialist propaganda. Isn't that so?

I say Descartes was wrong. Not I think, therefore I am. Rather I have thoughts, therefore I am. But that's only logical because anything that can be said to have something must exist by definition. I know I have thoughts, although I don't necessarily know where they come from. But in having them it is true that I must exist. Hardly a foundational concept except as basic metaphysics.

The Cogito is the thought itself thinking "I think, therefore I am". It is the though knowing itself as a thought and therefore knowing itself to exist. I know I exist at least as a thought whenever I think. I wish it worked for you, too.

Your "I have thoughts, therefore I am" doesn't tell us what is the thing having thoughts. The Cogito makes explicit that any thought knows itself to exist whereas your argument only says that there is something rather than nothing and without even stating the obvious that there has to be a thing that knows this. Your argument is true of a universe where there would be no thinking things. The Cogito is true only of the thinking thing itself but all thinking things know they are thinking and so can recognise the argument as true of themselves.

Now, if you don't know that you are thinking when you are thinking, or perhaps if you don't think at all, ever, then there is nothing I could possibly say to make you understand what the Cogito means.

And if you're not persuaded by my explanation as to the meaning of the Cogito, I can only assume it may be because you really don't know that you are thinking. And that's entirely a possibility.
EB