The relationship between the mind and the observed world.

[drumbo]

The observed world is a subset of the world itself, since the observed world only exists within a mind that is contained within the world. The observed world only exists for as long as the mind continues to function. The actions of the mind affect the world, so one could say that the world itself would not exist in its current state without the mind, but the mind is just part of the world. I'm confused now.

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, drumbo said:

The actions of the mind affect the world,

Is not the mind a subset of the world? Are we not the universe expressing itself in human form for a little while?

[geordief]

16 minutes ago, drumbo said:

The observed world is a subset of the world itself, since the observed world only exists within a mind that is contained within the world. The observed world only exists for as long as the mind continues to function. The actions of the mind affect the world, so one could say that the world itself would not exist in its current state without the mind, but the mind is just part of the world. I'm confused now.

If we ignore the mind ,the world affects/interacts with itself continuously.Everything that happens seems to be a part of the world affecting another part of the world.

So there is nothing surprising in the mind (one part of the world) affecting another part of the world 

I think there is an approach that maintains that the mind is independent of the world (possibly this is called Dualism?)

I do not share that approach..Perhaps ,from my scanty knowledge of philosophy it is called Monism?

20 minutes ago, iNow said:

Is not the mind a subset of the world? Are we not the universe expressing itself in human form for a little while?

It seems the universe is a great contortionist to be able to express itself in a form that is able to observe and make enquiries of itself.

That is one thing that I find I cannot myself do (observe myself directly)

Perhaps the universe is likewise obliged to look at itself indirectly?

[drumbo]

35 minutes ago, iNow said:

Is not the mind a subset of the world? Are we not the universe expressing itself in human form for a little while?

 

15 minutes ago, geordief said:

If we ignore the mind ,the world affects/interacts with itself continuously.Everything that happens seems to be a part of the world affecting another part of the world.

So there is nothing surprising in the mind (one part of the world) affecting another part of the world 

I think there is an approach that maintains that the mind is independent of the world (possibly this is called Dualism?)

I do not share that approach..Perhaps ,from my scanty knowledge of philosophy it is called Monism?

I once wondered if the brain takes advantage of some exogenous mechanism to introduce creativity into decision making, elevating the mind into a truly intelligent construction rather than being based on some deterministic electrochemical machine. In that case the mind would exist outside of the world as we know it, if that exogenous mechanism is found nowhere but in the brain. Even if that exogenous mechanism is a feature of the universe itself, if it is found and exploited only within the brain then the mind is essentially a separate and special entity.

Edited August 7, 2020 by drumbo

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, drumbo said:

I once wondered if the brain takes advantage of some exogenous mechanism to introduce creativity into decision making, elevating the mind into a truly intelligent construction rather than being based on some deterministic electrochemical machine

It doesn’t. Now please stop hijacking threads with nearly every single post you make

[drumbo]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

It doesn’t. Now please stop hijacking threads with nearly every single post you make

It's not a hijack, I think it's important to determine if the mind is merely an object within the world or an object that is capable of introducing some exogenous influence. Of course it is a question that wanders into the determinism question, but it's related and highly relevant here.

[iNow]

Bless your heart 

[drumbo]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Bless your heart 

It's not as stupid an idea as you think. The great philosophers of the past entertained the idea of god and the soul as a source of exogenous influence. Today we consider the idea of god and the soul quaint, but the great philosophers of the past were some of the greatest minds of their time and even they entertained the idea that there may be some exogenous influence that elevates the mind beyond some mechanical object. Rejecting the existence of god and the soul, there may yet be some phenomenon we do not know of (quantum mechanics?) that allows the brain to perform processes that no other object in the universe does. In that sense the mind would be a separate entity based upon a unique process that introduces an exogenous influence in a way that no other object does.

In that case the relationship between the mind and the observed world is one of feedback; the mind introduces its exogenous influence, which then affects the world, which is then perceived as the observed world, and the mind once again introduces its exogenous influence. A feedback loop where each "step" introduces entropy into the system.

[Alex Caledin]

- that's all quite simple. The Consciousness - the Fundamental Process of awareness - is interested in introducing and delineating some valuable subprocesses. For that purpose, the "physical" (the Everettian multiverse as the mathematical game Tree) Game is played, the physical brain processes organizing but not limiting the new minds.

[MSC]

On 7/16/2020 at 6:05 PM, OldChemE said:

The primary relationship between the mind and the real world is that the mind interprets the real world based on the inputs of the bodies senses.  The mind does not create the real world.   If it did, then the odds of dying if you step in front of a truck that your mind was unaware of might change.  That is to say, the mind interprets reality but does not control reality.

Agreed, we can also misinterpret reality. Another way to phrase your point, would be to say that the mind paints a picture of the world. Internal and external. Especially when we speak about the mind. Part of the universe is inside too and the mind has to paint a picture of that. It's kind of like how the more pervasive belief is that we only have 5 sensory systems. When in reality there are 9. 5 for external stimulus, 3 for internal and 1 for both. 

All that being said, are we going to talk about the mind/body problem or the explanatory gap between how brain states can bring about mind or consciousness? 

I wonder what Galileo would have made of an EEG, or EM fields in the brain, or even neuronal structures for that matter.

I can never shake the feeling that the claim the mind is unobservable is probably wrong. I think we have probably observed it, we just haven't recognised it as such. Proving we have observed it would require that we empirically bridge that explanatory gap.

I especially don't like the use of the phrase "Non-Physical". What does that even mean? Sounds like an impossible state of affairs. If the mind exists, it is obviously physical in nature. I think a fair number of individuals have this weird conception of "The Physical" as something solidly observable. Dark matter and dark energy are physical but we can't solidly observe them either and are only aware of their existence due to their effects on gravity and other forms of matter. 

If the mind truly hasn't already been observed, perhaps it's an exotic form of matter, brought about by yet unexplainable processes of the physics of brains. Maybe it has some kind of non-linear structure?

I'm just spitballing of course. None of this is known and I certainly can't think of any experiments we can do to shed light on this. I do believe in the end it will take a very collaborative, interdisciplinary effort to really start to make progress in this riveting field of study.

I'm currently putting my money on QM theory of mind or CEMI.