What is the nature of man's mind?

[Tom Rexton]

I've been thinking about the nature of the mind for a while, trying to figure out what are its essential characteristics so that I can properly define it.

In Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Ayn Rand said that "a definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a concept," and that a proper definition of a concept must include the concept's differentia and genus.

I've been trying to formulate a definition of the concept "consciousness". But I'm still in the process and have been having some trouble trying to indentify both its "differentia" and "genus."

First off, there are two ways in which Ayn Rand defined the word "consciousness": one is the state of awareness, the other--a faculty of awareness. She also often used it synonymously with "the mind," saying that it is an attribute of certain living entities. These various definitions and usage have been rather confounding to me, since she often talks about the content of consciousness and the action of consciousness in regards to concept-formation; and yet she defined "conciousness" as either a state or a faculty, both of which are NOT entities that can act and have a content (a state is not entity, but a condition of an entity; and a faculty is not an entity, but an ability/power possessed by an entity). If consciousness were an attribute (as Ayn Rand also states), still it would not be able to act (.e.g., think) because only an entity--not an attribute--can act. Ayn Rand even describes it as "an active process of...differentiation and integration" in the first chapter of ITOE; but even if that were true, consiousness still could not act, because a process is not an entity, but a series of actions.

However, Ayn Rand states that the mind/consciousness is capable of many actions (e.g., thought, imagination, perception, hallucination, dreams, etc...). This implies that the mind is an entity. Thus, consciousness/mind now has a variety of definitions that further exacerbate my struggle to define it: state, faculty, attribute, process, entity!!!

If the mind can act, then it is an entity.

If it is an entity, then it possesses charactertics, attributes, properties, qualities, etc... that constitute its identity. (law of identity)

Its identity determines what kind of action is possible to it under certain circumstances and conditions. (law of causality)

If the faculty of perception, volition and reason are intrinsic to the mind, then the means by which those faculties are exercised must also be intrinsic to the mind.

In reality, however, they are not. The mind cannot exercise those faculties apart from the body.

The means by which the mind automatically excercises the faculty of perception is through the nervous system--which is intrinsic to the human body. The means by which the mind volitionally exercises the faculty of reason is through the brain--which is intrinsic to the nervous system of the human body. Without the body, the mind could not exist, because there would be no means by which it could be conscious of reality and of itself. The identity (and therefore the existence) of man's mind is dependent on his body--without which it would not be. Therefore, only man as a whole, integrated being of mind and body can possess the faculty of perception, volition and reason. It is only he that can be conscious of reality and of himself.

But then, if the faculty of perception, volition and reason belong to man as a whole and not to his mind alone, what then is his mind? What then are its essential characteristics, if not the said faculties?

I am so confused. I wish I could talk to Ayn Rand right now!

[danielshrugged]

I've been trying to formulate a definition of the concept "consciousness". But I'm still in the process and have been having some trouble trying to indentify both its "differentia" and "genus.""

Your mistake is in ignoring a certain exception to the need for differentia and genus: ostensive definitions. There are certain concepts, such as conceptualized sensations (such as the concepts of "blue" or "smooth") and axiomatic concepts that can only be defined by pointing and saying: "I mean THIS." Concsiousness is an axiomatic concepts; it CANNOT be defined except by pointing.

Consider what a genus and differentia would mean in relation to consciousness. What larger class would consciousness be a part of? What would one be differentiating consciousness from? To quote Ayn Rand:

"Since axiomatic concepts are not formed by differentiating one group of existents from others, but represent an integration of all existents, they have no Conceptual Common Denominator with anything else. They have no contraries, no alternatives..."Existence," identity" and "consciousness"have no contraries--only a void."

In regard to some of your other comments, I would say that it is part of the identity of the mind that it is one with the body.

[Guest Tom Rexton]

I know that consciousness as a state of awareness is axiomatic, but my question was: What is the mind? It is it also an axiomatic concept?

Let me reiterate:

Ayn Rand often used "consciousness" synonymously with "the mind" when talking about the "actions of oconsciousness" such as perception, evaluation, emotion, and thought. (see Chapter 4: "Concepts of Consciousness") My problem with that is the various ways in which she would also described consciousness: faculty of perception, state of awareness, process of differentiation and integration, attribute of certain living entities.

But I am talking about the mind as consciousness--the consciousness that acts, which cannot be any of those. An action presupposes an entity that acts according to its identity. If it is the mind as consciousness that acts, then it must be an entity, because only an entity is capable of action.

[Tom Rexton]

SIDE NOTE: The previous post by a guest was mine--I just forgot to log-in.

Continuing...

In page 264 of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (Expanded Second Edition), Ayn Rand said that "an entity is that which you perceive and can exist by itself." The Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary gives essentially the same definition: "independent, separate, or self-contained existence."

But the mind cannot exist by itself. It is an inseperable attribute of man. So how can it be an entity? That is, how can it act?

[AshRyan]

I am not entirely sure what the difficulty is in saying that consciousness, when described as an attribute or faculty of certain living organisms, cannot perform actions or have content, but rather must be described as an entity.

Think of any other attribute or faculty of an organism. We have, for example, the faculty of circulation. A faculty is an ability to act in a certain way. It implies some physical existent capable of performing those actions (in this case, blood, the heart that pumps it, and the system of veins and arteries that carry it). One could say that the faculty of circulation itself is not an entity, but that doesn't mean it can't act. (Nor are the organs involved independent entities of themselves, but rather an attribute of the organism to which they belong.) I think describing something as a "faculty" or an "attribute" is just a more abstract perspective on the same phenomenon.

Similarly, the faculty of consciousness is an ability we possess (which functions automatically on some levels, e.g. undirected awareness or pure sensation, and volitionally on others) to perform certain actions. The physical existent which performs them is the brain.

As far as defining it, this must be done ostensively (by introspection): Consciousness is something which exists, and one must introspect to observe it, and no meaningful definition could be given of it to something which could not perceive it ostensively (i.e., something which is not conscious--to which attempting to provide a definition to would, of course, be absurd anyway), in the same way that a meaningful definition of "blue" could not be given to a blind man.

[RadCap]

"What is the mind?"

Just as legs are that part of man which enable him to run, a stomach is that part of man which enables him to digest, and lungs are that part of man which enable him to breathe, the mind is that part of man which enables him to percieve that which exists.

In other words, MAN is the entity which acts:

MAN runs

MAN digests

MAN breathes

MAN percieves

Legs

Stomach

Lungs

Mind

are those PARTS - those attributes - OF man which ENABLE him TO act in each of those specific ways.

Put simply, TO act, an entity requires a MEANS of acting. Legs, stomach, lungs, MIND - they are each the MEANS by which the ENTITY man ACTS in a particular manner.

[Tom Rexton]

I am not entirely sure what the difficulty is in saying that consciousness, when described as an attribute or faculty of certain living organisms, cannot perform actions or have content, but rather must be described as an entity.

A faculty cannot act. A state cannot act. Only an entity can act.

Think of any other attribute or faculty of an organism.  We have, for example, the faculty of circulation.  A faculty is an ability to act in a certain way.  It implies some physical existent capable of performing those actions (in this case, blood, the heart that pumps it, and the system of veins and arteries that carry it).  One could say that the faculty of circulation itself is not an entity, but that doesn't mean it can't act.  (Nor are the organs involved independent entities of themselves, but rather an attribute of the organism to which they belong.)  I think describing something as a "faculty" or an "attribute" is just a more abstract perspective on the same phenomenon.

What is it that circulates the blood? The circulatory system--which inherently possesses the faculty of circulation. It is not the faculty of circulation--but the circulatory system--that acts to circulate the blood. The circulatory system is an entity.

Take the following example: I have the faculty of motion (e.g., walking). What or who is it that acts when I walk? Is it my ability to walk that is acting (i.e, walking)? Or am I walking?

An ability is a capacity for action--which can only be had by an entity. It is the entity--not the ability possessed by the entity--that acts. Similarly, an attribute cannot act.

[Tom Rexton]

"What is the mind?"

Just as legs are that part of man which enable him to run, a stomach is that part of man which enables him to digest, and lungs are that part of man which enable him to breathe, the mind is that part of man which enables him to percieve that which exists.

In other words, MAN is the entity which acts:

MAN runs

MAN digests

MAN breathes

MAN percieves

Legs

Stomach

Lungs

Mind

are those PARTS - those attributes - OF man which ENABLE him TO act in each of those specific ways.

Put simply, TO act, an entity requires a MEANS of acting.  Legs, stomach, lungs, MIND - they are each the MEANS by which the ENTITY man ACTS in a particular manner.

That's exactly what I was saying. What I was objecting to is the mind's ability to act, i.e., to think, feel, imagine, etc... It is MAN as an integrated entity of mind and body that performs those actions--not his mind.

Read my previous posts--the ones refering to Ayn Rand's statements about the "actions of consciousness."

[AshRyan]

A faculty cannot act. A state cannot act. Only an entity can act.

What is it that circulates the blood? The circulatory system--which inherently possesses the faculty of circulation. It is not the faculty of circulation--but the circulatory system--that acts to circulate the blood. The circulatory system is an entity.

Take the following example: I have the faculty of motion (e.g., walking). What or who is it that acts when I walk? Is it my ability to walk that is acting (i.e, walking)? Or am I walking?

An ability is a capacity for action--which can only be had by an entity. It is the entity--not the ability possessed by the entity--that acts. Similarly, an attribute cannot act.

You have simply reiterated my point here. I agree with you. But when stated this way, I don't see what the problem is. It is man, the entity, which acts, but if you want to get more specific, you can say that the brain is the physical organ (analogous to the circulatory system and its role in the action of circulation) which performs the functions in question. When one speaks of the mind as a faculty, or attribute, or as acting, these are just different (more or less abstract) perspectives on the same phenomena.

I'm still confused as to what exactly is the problem here.

[Tom Rexton]

You have simply reiterated my point here.  I agree with you.  But when stated this way, I don't see what the problem is.  It is man, the entity, which acts, but if you want to get more specific, you can say that the brain is the physical organ (analogous to the circulatory system and its role in the action of circulation) which performs the functions in question.  When one speaks of the mind as a faculty, or attribute, or as acting, these are just different (more or less abstract) perspectives on the same phenomena.

I'm still confused as to what exactly is the problem here.

The problem in a nutshell is:

Premise 1: Only entities can act.

Premise 2: An entity is a being that can exist by itself.

Premise 3: The mind cannot exist by itself.

Conclusion A: The mind is not an entity.

Conclusion B: It cannot act.

But Ayn Rand says otherwise. Read Chapter 4: "Concepts of Consciousness", in which she explains the ACTIONS of consciousness!

[RadCap]

So you object to saying the "mind thinks." You insist it is ONLY proper to say "MAN thinks."

Then you must ALSO insist is it improper to say the "legs run" or the "stomach digests" or the "lungs breathe" because you are saying it is improper to not reference the entity which is doing the act.

Does the stomach do the digesting (as opposed to the heart, for instance)? No, you say. MAN does the digesting.

Do the legs do the running (as opposed to the hands)? No, you say. MAN does the running.

Does the mind do the thinking (as opposed to the butt)? No, you say. MAN does the thinking.

In other words, you REJECT identification of the MEANS by which an entity acts. You are saying differentiation (one of the two essential elements of identification) is IMPROPER.

This is an error.

When speaking of lungs, stomach, legs, mind, etc., implicit in each of the statements is what entity those things are a PART of - in this context: MAN.

What is ACTUALLY being said is:

MAN's legs run (as opposed to his hands running)

MAN's stomach digests (as opposed to his heart digesting)

MAN's mind thinks (as opposed to his butt thinking)

The entity "man" is implicit throughout - because the CONTEXT of the discussion is man.

Not recognizing this fact is the source of your error.

[Tom Rexton]

So you object to saying the "mind thinks."  You insist it is ONLY proper to say "MAN thinks."

Then you must ALSO insist it improper to say "legs run" or "stomach digests" or "lungs breathe" because you are saying it is improper to not reference the entity which is doing the act. 

Does the stomach do the digesting (as opposed to the heart, for instance)?  No, you say.  MAN does the digesting.

Do the legs do the running (as opposed to the hands)?  No, you say.  MAN does the running.

Does the mind do the thinking (as opposed to the butt)?  No, you say.  MAN does the thinking.

In other words, you REJECT identification of the MEANS by which an entity acts.  You are saying differentiation (one of the two essential elements of identification) is IMPROPER.

This is an error.

When speaking of lungs, stomach, legs, mind, etc., implicit in each of the statements is what entity those things are a PART of - in this context: MAN.

What is ACTUALLY being said is:

MAN's legs run (as opposed to his hands running)

MAN's stomach digests (as opposed to his heart digesting)

MAN's mind thinks (as opposed to his butt thinking)

The entity "man" is implicit throughout - because the CONTEXT of the discussion is man. 

Not recognizing this fact is the source of your error.

But you see, the legs, the heart, the stomach, the lungs, ALL OF THESE ARE ENTITIES! That's why I don't object to their being able to act. They can all exist by themselves. The mind cannot.

There is a big difference between an entity's parts and an entity's attributes. Its parts are separable. Its attributes are not. Its parts are entities. Its attributes are not. Read the section Entities and Their Makeup in the appendix of ITOE.

[RadCap]

Um - why cannot the mind exist by itself but legs, arms, etc can? Are you equating "entity" with "matter" perhaps?

That would be another error.

[AshRyan]

Premise 1:  Only entities can act. 

Premise 2:  An entity is a being that can exist by itself. 

Premise 3:  The mind cannot exist by itself. 

Conclusion A:  The mind is not an entity. 

Conclusion B:  It cannot act.

But Ayn Rand says otherwise.  Read Chapter 4: "Concepts of Consciousness", in which she explains the ACTIONS of consciousness!

Neither can a (functioning) circulatory system exist by itself. It would not come into being, except as part of a man, and if it weren't part of man, it would die, disintegrate, and go out of existence. Yet you have stated yourself that it is proper to say that the circulatory system acts. This is simply a different level of abstraction from saying that the action is performed by the man. But that abstraction does not imply that man is not the whole entity that acts; that the circulatory system belongs to a man is implicit throughout.

The same goes for discussions of the mind. Thus, the objection does not hold.

Also, it seems to me that the objection is purely linguistic, and does not deal with the actual content of Rand's claim. As such, why are we arguing about it?

[AshRyan]

Um - why cannot the mind exist by itself but legs, arms, etc can?  Are you equating "entity" with "matter" perhaps?

That would be another error.

I agree. A leg, in normal contexts, could not be viewed as an "entity".

[Tom Rexton]

Um - why cannot the mind exist by itself but legs, arms, etc can?  Are you equating "entity" with "matter" perhaps?

That would be another error.

The circulatory system is separable and can exist by itself. Existing and functioning are two different concepts which you confuse. The fact that the circulatory system will disintegrate is immaterial, because the matter from which it was composed would still exist.

Have you guys ever read the appendix of ITOE?

Let me give you guys a quote:

Ayn Rand: "The fact that human organs deteriorate has no relation to the issue at all. That is not a philosophical issue, it is an issue of the fact that living organisms deteriorate--well, so do bricks, but it takes them longer. Taht does not pertain to the question you are asking. It isn't by means of observing what happens to separate parts that you decide whether something is a part or an attribute. An attribute is that which cannot be phisically separated."

[RadCap]

You did not answer my question. You said the circulatory system is separable and can exist by itself. You did not even MENTION the mind.

I will therefore repeat my question: why cannot the mind exist by itself, whereas you claim legs, etc can?

[Tom Rexton]

You did not answer my question.  You said the circulatory system is separable and can exist by itself.  You did not even MENTION the mind.

I will therefore repeat my question:  why cannot the mind exist by itself, whereas you claim legs, etc can?

I just answered it in the previous post by quoting Ayn Rand.

An attribute is that which cannot be physically separated.

To quote Ayn Rand again: "Consciousness is an attribute of certain living entities."

[AshRyan]

The circulatory system is separable and can exist by itself. Existing and functioning are two different concepts which you confuse.  The fact that the circulatory system will disintegrate is immaterial, because the matter from which it was composed would still exist.

I'm not confusing the two concepts (how could one?). But that's a separate issue.

If I understand correctly, then, the objection is that Rand, by speaking of the "mind" or "consciousness" as "acting" is positing some sort of Cartesian dualism? That's simply not true. The mind is simply a different perspective on the functions of the brain. We can talk about the actions of the mind because they are available to direct observation (by introspection). But to describe these actions in the physical terms would require a complex scientific study in the field of neurophysiology. To speak of the mind acting is simply a different perspective from which to speak of the functioning of the brain. It is not separable from the brain, but, in your sense, the brain is separable from the body. So where's the problem?

[Tom Rexton]

I have to leave for a while now so I won't be able to reply until tonight or tomorrow.

[RadCap]

Tom.

I defined mind in my statement above. You switched to the term consciousness when trying to refute my statement about mind. That is a logical fallacy.

I stated the mind is that part of man which enables him to percieve that which exists, just as legs are that part of man which enables him ro run.

In other words, the mind is a set of existants which enable man to act in a particular way - ie percieve.

This is NO different from the legs (or stomach, etc). The legs are a set of existants which enable man to act in a particular way - ie run.

So my question remains unanswered.

[RationalEgoistSG]

I do not understand the confusion here.

The mind is not an independent entity but rather is the means for a human being to act in a given way (perceive reality).

The mind, the stomach, the lungs, one's circulatory system, etc., are all the means by which a particular entity acts (in this case a human being).

The mind thinking is an action, the stomach digesting is an action, the circulatory system functioning is an action, etc. All of these actions are the result of an entity (man), but the means to performing those actions are the mind, stomach, circulatory system, etc.

Thus, it was not improper for Rand to refer to something as the actions of consciousness because she identified that the consciousness is not an independently existing entity but rather one of the means by which a human being performs a given action.

[danielshrugged]

I'm avoiding getting into this discussion any further for my own psycho-epistemological reasons, and I'd like to note something related to that.

I just answered it in the previous post by quoting Ayn Rand.

An attribute is that which cannot be physically separated.

To quote Ayn Rand again: "Consciousness is an attribute of certain living entities."

This, and much of your other reasoning, is pure rationalism. Let's not discuss ITOE like the Bible, deducing our answers by putting together various quotes of Our Lord, Ayn Rand. Look to reality to form your ideas; do not use Ayn Rand's ideas as a substitute for looking at reality.

[Tom Rexton]

I've managed to get just a few more seconds of time to reply....

Tom.

I defined mind in my statement above.  You switched to the term consciousness when trying to refute my statement about mind.  That is a logical fallacy.

I stated the mind is that part of man which enables him to percieve that which exists, just as legs are that part of man which enables him ro run.

In other words, the mind is a set of existants which enable man to act in a particular way - ie percieve.

This is NO different from the legs (or stomach, etc).  The legs are a set of existants which enable man to act in a particular way - ie run.

So my question remains unanswered.

Tell me, can the mind perceive without the senses?

It is the nervous system that enables him to perceive reality. It is the brain which enables him to think. Without it there woul be no mind.

Ayn Rand used the terms "consciousness" and "mind" interchangeably to denote his rational, cognitive faculty.

[AshRyan]

It is the nervous system that enables him to perceive reality.  It is the brain which enables him to think.  Without it there woul be no mind.

No one is denying this, nor did Rand deny it. This is a straw man, and therefore, I don't understand what you're getting so bent out of shape about.

Since you brought up the senses, let's look at another analogy. Just as one speaks of consciousness as acting, so one speaks of the senses as acting (e.g., perceiving). But on the physical level, what we're actually referring to are the sense organs.

So?