What is the nature of man's mind?

[RadCap]

Tell me, can the legs run without the body? Your question is a nonsequitor (and, frankly, stupid).

I identified the concept mind. I identified it as those parts of man which enable him to perceive that which exists (mind perceives).

I stated that this is no different than the concept legs. I identified legs as those parts of the man which enable him to run (legs run).

You then launch into a tirade, and identify the brain as the thing which enables man to think. You say "without it, there would be no mind." I don't believe anyone here has disputed that the brain is not required for man to think - anymore than we have disputed that the femur is not required for a man to run (without it, there would be no leg).

Yet you act as if we have disputed it.

To correct your error, I will state explicitly: the brain is indeed an element of (if not most of) those parts of man which enable him to perceive reality (ie is part of the mind) - just as the femur (the long leg bone) is an element of those parts of man which enable him to run.

Since we are in apparent agreement on these points, my question STILL remains unanswered. You still have NOT stated WHY the mind supposedly cannot exist by itself, whereas legs etc supposedly can. In other words, you have NOT stated WHY the brain and all other part of the mind supposedly cannot exist separately, whereas the femur and all other parts of the leg supposedly can.

And so I STILL await either a rational answer to the question - OR - a retraction of the claim.

[AshRyan]

I'm still not entirely clear on what the objection is, but let me take another stab it, Tom.

To go back to the circulation analogy, you would say that man has a circulatory system, and thereby the faculty of circulation, which is the (series of) action(s) performed by the organs of which the circulatory system is composed. Similarly, man has a nervous system including sense organs and a brain, and thereby the faculty of awareness, awareness being action(s) performed by the nervous system. Correct?

Is the objection, then, that since awareness, or consciousness, is itself an action, it is improper to speak of it as acting?

If so, I would say that, in the worst case scenario, this is simply a redundancy in the common way of speaking about consciousness in the English language (there may or may not be a similar redundancy in other languages, I'm not sure--but all languages have little quirks like this). I do not think that this is necessarily an indication of any serious philosophical difficulty. If consciousness is itself an action, it would be the most abstract, broadest term for all the actions of the nervous system which compose it (e.g., sense perception, reason, memory, imagination, etc.). To speak of the "actions of consciousness", then, would simply be to speak of some of these specific actions subsumed under the broad abstraction "consciousness".

Was that your objection, or am I still missing it?

If that's the problem, this would also resolve the difficulty of referring to the mind or consciousness as either an "attribute" or "faculty" of man, just as one could describe circulation as an attribute or faculty. Also, one could speak of the "actions of (the faculty of) circulation", such as the heart pumping, the blood flowing through the veins, and whatever other particular actions might constitute the broad abstraction "circulation"--even though circulation is itself an action. Again, I think this can all be boiled down to a simple linguistic peculiarity (if it's really even that).

[Guest Tom Rexton]

Tell me, can the legs run without the body?  Your question is a nonsequitor (and, frankly, stupid).

I identified the concept mind.  I identified it as those parts of man which enable him to perceive that which exists (mind perceives). 

I stated that this is no different than the concept legs.  I identified legs as those parts of the man which enable him to run (legs run).

You then launch into a tirade, and identify the brain as the thing which enables man to think.  You say "without it, there would be no mind."  I don't believe anyone here has disputed that the brain is not required for man to think - anymore than we have disputed that the femur is not required for a man to run (without it, there would be no leg). 

Yet you act as if we have disputed it. 

To correct your error, I will state explicitly: the brain is indeed an element of (if not most of) those parts of man which enable him to perceive reality (ie is part of the mind) - just as the femur (the long leg bone) is an element of those parts of man which enable him to run.

Since we are in apparent agreement on these points, my question STILL remains unanswered.  You still have NOT stated WHY the mind supposedly cannot exist by itself, whereas legs etc supposedly can.  In other words, you have NOT stated WHY the brain and all other part of the mind supposedly cannot exist separately, whereas the femur and all other parts of the leg supposedly can.

And so I STILL await either a rational answer to the question - OR - a retraction of the claim.

Did you or did you not read the quotes I provided? An attribute cannot exist independently of the entity of which it is an aspect. One cannot separate an attribute like "lenght" from a ruler--only the parts. The mind cannot be separated from the body like an organ or a bone (or legs)! It cannot be an independently existing entity. And as such, it cannot ACT.

When will you be able to differentiate parts from attributes?

A leg separated from the body will still exist and be able to act (for instance, deteriorate!).

The mind, on the other hand, cannot do that--unless you believe in GHOSTS--minds who somehow perceive without any means perception.

I am STILL waiting for you to actually read my posts.

[RationalEgoistSG]

Might I suggest that you not act like a jerk when you post? You'll get more responses and more cooperation that way.

Did you or did you not read the quotes I provided? An attribute cannot exist independently of the entity of which it is an aspect. One cannot separate an attribute like "lenght" from a ruler--only the parts. The mind cannot be separated from the body like an organ or a bone (or legs)! It cannot be an independently existing entity. And as such, it cannot ACT.

Sir, this is a ridiculous straw man. Has anyone claimed this? No. Rather, it has been stated that when someone says "actions of consciousness" or "actions of the stomach," etc., it is implicit that these things are functions of a particular entity, man, which can not exist separately from man.

The consciousness, the stomach, etc., are the MEANS by which a man acts in a particular way, not entities in themselves.

[AshRyan]

Did you or did you not read the quotes I provided? An attribute cannot exist independently of the entity of which it is an aspect. One cannot separate an attribute like "lenght" from a ruler--only the parts. The mind cannot be separated from the body like an organ or a bone (or legs)! It cannot be an independently existing entity. And as such, it cannot ACT.

When will you be able to differentiate parts from attributes?

A leg separated from the body will still exist and be able to act (for instance, deteriorate!).

The mind, on the other hand, cannot do that--unless you believe in GHOSTS--minds who somehow perceive without any means perception.

I am STILL waiting for you to actually read my posts.

I took RadCap to mean, when he said that the "mind" could be separated from the body in the same sense as could the stomach, the brain, sense organs, and other physical organs which give rise to the mind (in other words, he was using "mind" in this case to refer to the physical organs, rather than "consciousness" or "awareness").

Second, have you read my previous post? I believe I may have addressed all of your concerns here (although I can't be entirely certain, since you still have not made it very clear what exactly your objection is).

[AshRyan]

The consciousness, the stomach, etc., are the MEANS by which a man acts in a particular way, not entities in themselves.

Steve, I agree with you...in normal contexts.

However, I agree with Tom's contention that a stomach could be separated from the body, and referred to as an independent entity...although the context would be entirely different, and thus the content of what the concept referred to in that particular instance (a non-living piece of meat, as opposed to a part of a living whole.)

While Tom complains that people here are confusing (parts of) entities with attributes, he seems to have a similar confusion concerning entities and parts of entities.

No, consciousness couldn't be separated from a man...but the brain, sense organs, etc. could be. And a stomach could be separated from a man, but "digestion" couldn't be. Go back about four posts and read my comments there if you haven't already.

Edited August 16, 2003 by AshRyan

[AshRyan]

By way of further clarification of a couple of points in my previous few posts (in case anyone is confused by anything I said):

I am using "entity" here to mean an independently existing whole. In this case, a stomach (or a brain) may be an entity in some contexts, and merely a part of an entity in other contexts.

The reason the context makes that difference is because in the two different contexts, the identity of the existent in question is fundamentally different. In one case, the stomach is a part of a living whole, with a certain function that contributes to the life of the entity to which it belongs. In the other case, the stomach is not living, and does not perform that function. I take these two characteristics to be fundamental to the identity of a "stomach" in the one context. Therefore, when one uses the term in the two different contexts, one is actually using two different concepts. The reason it is appropriate to use the same word to denote the two different concepts is because, although they are fundamentally different in some respects, they are also fundamentally similar in some respects (and in fact may be referring to precisely the same physical object).

This is also part of what I meant when I mentioned "linguistic peculiarities". One such peculiarity is this common practice of using the same word to denote multiple concepts. This can lead to confusion, if one is not careful, but is not entirely unjustified. (Notice, for example, that we use two different words for the animal "cow" and the meat "beef", but the same word for the bird "turkey" and the meat "turkey". In other languages, if I'm not mistaken, this example is reversed. That is because a case can be made either way as to whether two concepts are essentially similar or different enough to use the same or two different words to denote them, when they share some but not others of their essential characteristics.)

Granted, this is getting a bit off of the main topic of this thread, but may help to clear up some of the underlying confusions.

Edited August 17, 2003 by AshRyan

[Guest mattbateman]

Consciousness cannot be defined. It simply means awareness. State, process, faculty of, etc. are all redundancies or attributes of consciousness, not a definition. There is no definition for consciousness, beyond a conceptual honing in on the fact that you are aware. This is what we mean when we say that it is a basic axiom.

Consciousness is an action, a process. What kind of action? You can't ask that question; consciousness is its own unique type of action. Consciousness is a faculty of perception--perception meaning awareness--awareness meaning... consciousness.

That's really all philosophy has to say about the issue. The different language we use about "consciousness" (state of, mind, awareness, perception, process) is like the difference language we use about "existence" (nature, reality, universe). They all name the same fact from a slightly different angle. Observe:

Action stresses that consciousness is not passive, but part of a living organism (an entity that sustains itself by a process of self-generated action). It doesn't get us any further than that. Faculty and attribute stresses that it is part of an organism. State stresses that it is a state of awareness--i.e., that the awareness exists.

I hope this helps.

[Tom Rexton]

AshRyan, I have read your posts and I agree with your point about "linguistic peculiarities and variable contexts".

RedCap, there is a difference between legs, hearts and the mind. The legs can be separated and exist indepedently. The heart too can be separated and exist independently. In fact, the heart (and many other organs) can even be transplanted from one human body to another!! But can the mind exist independently? No. Can it be transplanted from one human body to another? I don't think so!

Your defining the mind as the means by which man thinks implies that the mind identitical to the brain. Is that what you intended? Are you saying that the mind and the brain are the same?

Here's what Ayn Rand has to say in her workshops in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (read them and you'll understand my position):

--the context makes it clear that "consciousness" means "faculty of perception" (i.e., the mind)--

"Consciousness is not a primary object, it is not an independent existent, it's an attribute of a certain kind of existent." (p. 251)

"Characteristics, qualities, attributes, actions, relationships do not exist by themselves." (p. 264)

"...[Y]ou must always remember that parts [of an entity] can exist separately, whereas attributes and actions cannot exist apart from the entity.

"Included in the very concept of attributes is the fact that they are parts which you can separate only mentally, but which cannot exist by themselves."(p. 265)

"A part of an entity is something that can be separated." (p. 268)

"An attribute is that which cannot be physically separated." (p. 266)

"Once you say that anything, anything whatever on any level, can exist, it doesn't matter whether it deteriorates in two days or two centuries. If it can exist by itself, it is a part and not an attribute." (p. 267)

Still don't get it why I think that the mind is inseparable from the body? Why I don't consider it a part of me like my legs and arms and lungs and heart?

[Tom Rexton]

Might I suggest that you not act like a jerk when you post?  You'll get more responses and more cooperation that way. 

Sir, this is a ridiculous straw man. Has anyone claimed this? No. Rather, it has been stated that when someone says "actions of consciousness" or "actions of the stomach," etc., it is implicit that these things are functions of a particular entity, man, which can not exist separately from man.

The consciousness, the stomach, etc., are the MEANS by which a man acts in a particular way, not entities in themselves.

Parts of man can exist independently and thus become entities when separated from his body. Parts like his his organs, his tissues, his glands, his skin, and even his arms and legs and head.

Keep in mind that an entity is that which can exist independently. Its identity may change when it is separated from the entity of which it was a part, but the fact that it is an entity does not change.

The mind cannot be separated from man and then deteriorate or whatever as his body parts would.

[Guest mattbateman]

The body can't be separated from man either. So what?

[Tom Rexton]

The body can't be separated from man either. So what?

My point is: the mind is not an entity. That is, it cannot exist independently of the body in the same way that the organs, glands, bones, and tissues can.

[Guest mattbateman]

Oh. You're right, it's definitely not a entity. But its still an existent.

[Tom Rexton]

It's interesting to note that Ayn Rand herself used "mind" and "brain" interchangeably--though often more of the former--to denote man's rational faculty.

From Roark's testimony to the jury in The Fountainhead:

"But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. [...] No man can use his brain to think for another." (emphasis added by me) (p. 679 of the mass-market paperback)

From Chapter 10 of Part II in Atlas Shrugged:

"She [Dagny] thought that she could not abandon an incalculable wealth such as the brain of Quentin Daniels on one of those rocks below, if he was still alive and within her reach to help." (p. 639 of the mass-market paperback)

[RationalEgoistSG]

The mind and the brain are inseparable. We all agree. What's your point?

[Tom Rexton]

The mind and the brain are inseparable.  We all agree.  What's your point?

I've been quite insistent on one thing: the mind is not an entity. THAT is my point.

Let me repost my argument--

Premise 1A: An entity is a being that can exist by itself.

Premise 2A: The mind cannot exist by itself.

Conclusion A: The mind is not an entity.

Premise 1B: Only an entity can act.

Conclusion A becomes Premise 2B: The mind is not an entity.

Conclusion B: The mind cannot act.

I posted it here for you guys to object, to find some fault in my syllogisms. Maybe their formal format (right above) will allow for a better dissection of my problem--which definitely lies in one or more of the premises listed above.

[RationalEgoistSG]

Ok.

A man is an entity.

Consciousness is an attribute of man.

When a man thinks, it is not the mind that is acting but rather the man. The man's consciousness is an attribute of his identity, his MEANS of acting in a particular manner (thinking).

This attribute can not exist on its own, it is dependent on the entity of man.

Where is your objection?

[Tom Rexton]

Edit

[RationalEgoistSG]

You did not object to my last post, but is there anything else in this particular subject that you do object to? Or have I cleared up your original confusion in this matter?

[RadCap]

Speaking of "interesting things" as you have, I think it is interesting that I described mind (not consciousness) yet you keep trying to attribute my description TO consciousness, not mind. I was very specific when I assigned this description to mind and am making a point quite different from what some others are saying.

I am saying mind *is* an entity. I have said it MULTIPLE times. I am saying mind is those parts of man which enable him to perceive that which exists - just as legs are those parts of man which enable him to run. AshRyan was essentially correct when he said I was speaking of mind and not the faculty it enables.

Furthermore, you ask if I consider the mind and the brain one in the same. I do not. The brain is a *component* of the mind, just as the femur is a component of the leg. In other words, the brain is not the WHOLE mind (just as the femur is not the WHOLE leg). Since the brain is likely the major component, mind and brain (as you found so interesting) are sometimes used as synonyms - just like leg and femur are used interchangably - ie one says "I broke my leg", not "I broke my femur" - even though one is NOT in fact the other.

This is likely why AR used mind and brain interchangably in some instances.

Now, as to consciousness - it is not a floating abstraction. Just as motion requires a means (legs), so too does consciousness. In the case of motion that means are the legs. In the case of consciousness, that means is the mind.

Motion is the faculty - the ability produced by the functioning OF the components of the legs. Those abilities include running, walking, jumping, crouching, etc..

Consciousness is the faculty - the ability produced BY the functioning OF the components of the mind. Those abilities include perception, thinking, imagination, etc..

In other words, just as motion is not a primary object, but an attribute of a certain kind of existant (legs), so too consciousness is not a primary object, but is an attribute of a certain kind of existant (a mind).

--

Now, you have repeated a statement numerous times. You say: "The mind cannot be separated from man." On what basis do you make this claim? The only one you have provided so far is your insistance that the *mind* is an attribute and not an entity. Yet that is the very thing you are SUPPOSEDLY seeking to determine. As such, your argument is circular.

So please explain why the brain and any other component which makes up man's mind cannot conceivably be separated from man while his other organs and body pars can be separated. You keep insisting such a feat is impossible each time I ask the question. However you have never provided a logical reason it cannot possibly be done (circular reasoning being a logical fallacy).

I will help you out here. You also said: " But can the mind exist independently? No. Can it be transplanted from one human body to another? I don't think so!"

I disagree. The components of man which make up the mind CAN exist independently. The brain and other components (known or unknown) can be separated from the other parts of his body (ie separated from those things which are NOT a component of his mind). The brain, for instance, may indeed be removed from the rest of a man's body, just as can his lungs. Can his lungs or his brain be transplanted from one human body to another. Yes indeed they can. Are we yet capable of making them FUNCTION again as they did in the prior body (ie lungs breathe or brain etc think)? No. But as you have already pointed out, that fact does not change their nature as entities.

[Tom Rexton]

If, as you said, the mind is "those parts of man which enable him to perceive that which exists - just as legs are those parts of man which enable him to run", then is the nervous system the mind?

After all, it is through the nervous sytem that man perceives reality, feels emotions, coordinates the movements of his muscles, thinks about practically anthying, remembers past events, sleeps, dreams, etc... All "actions of consciousness" are performed by the nervous system.

It is know that certain regions of the brain are responsible for processing certain sensory signals recevied from the senses, which are part of the nervous sytem. For instance, the visual cortext processes visual signals received from the visual receptors in the retina of the eye. The various visual processing centers have independent processing centers for shape and color and one for movement, location and spatial organization. Another example: the auditory signals are sent to the primary auditory processing center in the temporal lobe, which processes auditory signals and sends the incoming auditory signals to the left himsphere into the langauge processing centers when it recognizes them as word(s). (fascinating stuff I just wanted to include these info I discovered from various books on neuroscience)

Of course we are not aware of the actual complex, electro-chemical processes of perception, but we do experience the results of those processes in integrated percepts and can direct the higher electro-chemical processes of abstraction and cognition through sheer volition. Are all those processes as a whole the phenomenon known as "consciousness"?

[msb]

The term "mind" is not synonymous with consciousness. It is used generally to refer to the part of your consciousness that thinks. It is used in the Objectivist literature more specifically: it denotes the volitional, conceptual aspect of consciousness. (As opposed to feeling, which is automated by the subconscious.) The mind is an aspect of consciousness, and not an entity.

The sense in which RadCap is using it is very unconventional. Ayn Rand certainly does not use mind and brain interchangably. When she uses it in her novels it is either to emphasize the fact that man's mind is inseparable from his body, or to emphasize a false view of the mind (i.e., the mind as automatically functioning). This latter is the most common.

I'm sure its possible to find quotes that are the exception to this pattern, but it is the general pattern. In any case, mind is not synonymous with nervous system--mind is... well... mental.

EDIT:

Also, Tom Rexton said: "After all, it is through the nervous sytem that man perceives reality, feels emotions, coordinates the movements of his muscles, thinks about practically anthying, remembers past events, sleeps, dreams, etc... All 'actions of consciousness' are performed by the nervous system."

This is not true. The nervous system does not think. Consciousness does that--more specifically, the mind does.

[RadCap]

"is the nervous system the mind?"

Parts of it would be, just as parts of the skeletal system are components of the leg, or parts of the muscular system are components of the leg, etc.. They are not the whole leg, nor are the leg bones the whole skeletal system, but they do overlap.

"Of course we are not aware of the actual complex, electro-chemical processes of perception, but we do experience the results of those processes in integrated percepts and can direct the higher electro-chemical processes of abstraction and cognition through sheer volition."

You are correct - we do not yet grasp the complex, electro-chemical process which is *part* of perception. I say *part* because SINCE we do not grasp the means of perception as a whole yet, one cannot claim it is the entire process.

And, as you say, we DO experience the results of those currently undetermined processes. This is why it is NOT necessary to know exactly what causes consciousness nor what all the components of the mind are to identify the mind and consciousness (as well as specific forms of consciousness - thinking, imagination, etc) - any more than one needs to know exactly what causes motion nor what all the components of the legs are to identify legs and motion (as well as specific forms of motion - running. walking etc).

"Are all those processes as a whole the phenomenon known as "consciousness"?"

It is the functioning of all the parts of the mind (known and unknown) which produce the phenomenon indentified as "consciousness."

--

Now I am going to muddy the waters a bit.

There is speculation (based on evidence and logic) that some part(s) of the mind, while not physical, is an existant (as matt indicated when he was posting as 'guest'). In other words, there may be some existant which is a component of the mind which is not made of matter but of something as yet unidentified.

Now since the concepts 'attribute' and 'entity' refer to *physical* existants, these concepts would not apply or not apply fully to the concept mind. New concepts to identify the conditions of the existants would instead be required. However, since we do not yet know what that non-matter existant is - ie we cannot yet exactly identify it - we cannot create concepts which identify those specifics yet.

This is why BOTH the term consciousness and brain are sometimes used interchangably with mind - because there would seem to be an unidentified component(s) which has some non-physical characteristics.

Thus, because we have as yet not identified all the parts which make up the mind, nor identified the way in which these components give rise to consciousness, we are left with approximations in some areas - approximations which match the gaps in our understanding of mind and consciousness.

[RadCap]

Matt

AR identified consciousness as an axiomatic concept. Specifically she said 'consciousness' is the faculty which perceives that which exists - ie consciousness is the ABILITY to act.

I assume you agree with this statement.

However, you also say: "Consciousness [thinks]--more specifically, the mind [thinks]." - ie Consciousness is the EXISTANT which does the acting.

So it sounds as if you are saying consciousness is not ONLY a faculty, but is also an existant (though not an entity - ie not matter). In other words, you agree that the term 'consciousness' is used to identify a *capacity* (it identifies the capacity of certain entities to percieve). But you seem to be saying the term 'consciousness' is also used to identify the existant which gives rise to this capacity (the MEANS by which you are able to perceive).

To use an analogy:

Man has the faculty of seeing. That faculty is called 'sight'.

There are existants that are part of man which give rise to this capacity to 'see'. You would call these existants 'sight' as well.

In other words, your 'sight' (existant) gives rise to your 'sight' (the capacity to 'see').

So, in context of consciousness, you say:

Man has the faculty of perceiving. That faculty is called 'consciousness'.

There are existants that are part of man which give rise to this capacity to 'perceive'. You call these existants 'consciousness' as well.

In other words, your 'consciousness' (existant) gives rise to your 'consciousness' (the capacity to 'percieve').

Put another way, when asked:

"What is the FACULTY (the ability) of perceiving that which exists?" you would answer: "Consciousness".

And when asked:

"What is the MEANS (the existant) by which that which exists is perceived" you would also answer: "Consciousness."

Would you say this an accurate appraisal of your position?

[msb]

Yes, these last four lines are an accurate appraisal of my position. Consciousness is the faculty of awareness. We are aware by means of consciousness.

I'm curious some of the other stuff though:

It sounds as if you are saying consciousness is not only a faculty, but is also an existant (though not an entity - ie not matter).

"Existent" can be used to designate anything that exists, including entities, relationships, attributes, and non-physical things. So of course consciousness is an existent (with identity, no less). It's just not an entity in the primary metaphysical sense of the term entity.

In other words, you agree that the term 'consciousness' is used to identify a *capacity* (it identifies the capacity of certain entities to percieve).  But you seem to be saying the term 'consciousness' is also used to identify the existant which gives rise to this capacity (the MEANS by which you are able to perceive).

I don't know if I would call consciousness a capacity (though means is okay). I much prefer faculty. Anyway, the existent conciousness is this capacity, not the "existent which gives rise" to it. The existent which gives rise to it, broadly, is man.

Man has the faculty of seeing.  That faculty is called 'sight'. There are existants that are part of man which give rise to this capacity to 'see'.  You would call these existants 'sight' as well.

Of course not. I would call them them organs of sight, or the visual perceptual system.

I'm not denying there are physical existents which give rise to the capacity for consciousness. I'm denying that they are called the mind. "Mind" refers to the cognitive aspect of consciousness.

I don't think there's anything wrong with coming up for a concept to refer to the physical or neural "underpinnings" of consciousness, as long as we keep the proper philosophical context in mind. Usually thats "brain" or "nervous system" or (my favorite) "man", not "mind."