Mind and consciousness

Metaphysics and Epistemology
1

In Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand wrote:

“He stood at the window trying not to think. But he kept hearing words in his mind: Rearden Ore, Rearden Coal…Rearden Metal…The day when he stood here…and thought that a bridge could be made to carry incredible loads on just a few bars of metal, if one combined a truss with the arch…He stooped and stood still. _ He had not thought of combining a truss with arch, that day." _ (pg 215)

Here is an example of the unconscious work of the mind, in other words, a situation in which mental activity is not presented to consciousness.

Here are others:

"She whirled to him, realizing what _ decision her mind had been reaching without her conscious knowledge " _(pg 688)

“…while her mind had lost the faculty of consciousness…” (pg 733)

“…she was running across the road…not knowing that she was running, driven by a reason she had no time and no courage to name…” (pg 800)

Does Objectivism , therefore, separates consciousness and mind? I think so.Consciousness is a state of awareness of existence, the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

"“Every state of consciousness is a consciousness by someone (the subject) of

something (the object).”

“Consciousness is some organism’s awareness of something that exists or that

derives from existence.”

“Consciousness is an action or an interaction between the organism and the object, between the subject and the object the subject is aware of.” (The Metaphysics of Consciousness (Binswanger 1998).

Mind or reason, however is the faculty that organized perceptual units in conceptual terms by following principle of logics (OPAR, pg 152)

So, in Objectivism mind and consciousness are different faculties. Consciousness identifies existence and mind processes this data by forming concepts. What is less clear is a relationship between mind and consciousness. As we’ve seen, Ayn Rand observed that mind may or may not been presented to consciousness, and this is not a volitional process. Rearden is trying not to think but thinking nevertheless and the work of his mind presented eventually to his consciousness against his will. Dagny, however, not aware about a conclusion her mind made. Apparently, similarly to the process of perception or extraspection, the process of introspection is also involuntary. Experimental work of Benjamin Libet indicates that conscious volitions are preceded by a “readiness potential” by some 350–400 milliseconds. As Libet puts it, “[t]he initiation of the freely voluntary act appears to begin in the brain unconsciously, well before the person consciously knows he wants to act" (Libet, 1999)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

This delay in awareness of volitional act could be explained by Ayn Rand premise that mind has to be presented to consciousness, the process which requires some time. What is the mechanism of such a presentation is not clear. However, that much one can claims with certainty: mind exists and consciousness identifies its existence. If man’s consciousness means self-awareness, than one’s mind is an object of this consciousness.

2

Yes, consciousness and mind are different. Animals have consciousness but not minds.

You wrote " Consciousness identifies existence and mind processes this data by forming concepts. " This formulation is not justified by the sources you have presented here, which is the repeated proposition “Consciousness is awareness.”

Consciousness is awareness and the mind is the faculty that makes identifications. Mind requires memory but not everything in memory is remembered at once, thus there is consciousness and subconsciousness. The subconscious is not merely static memory but also attempts to integrate and reconcile its contents.

3

"You wrote " Consciousness identifies existence and mind processes this data by forming concepts. " This formulation is not justified by the sources you have presented here, which is the repeated proposition “Consciousness is awareness.”

Consciousness is awareness and the mind is the faculty that makes identifications.

I think it is justified.

In AS, Galt’s speech Ayn Rand postulated: " Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification." Consciousness is a faculty which perceives existence. Since existence is identity-nothing exists as nothing in particular, in order to perceive existence consciousness has to identify it. Mind integrates these percepts into concepts and high abstractions, but primary identification is performed by perception. ( one see tree and identifies it as such) If you were right, then animals who possess consciousness but not mind, wouldn’t be able to identify what is exist. Subconsciousness is mind which is not presented to one’s consciousness.

4

The mind brain is able to automatically retain and integrate sensations into percepts. Percepts are the raw materials. Animals demonstrate the ability to remember percepts in say a dog’s ability to recognize individuals they have encountered before, the ability of other animals to recollect where they stashed food for later retrieval. The distinction is that man has a conceptual consciousness. It is this ability by which he differentiates and integrates his percepts into conceptual form expanding his knowledge to be able to grasp such things as the subconscious mind.

5

It is up for interpretation what Rand meant by “identification” in “Consciousness is Identification.”

Soon after the appearance of this sentence in Galt’s speech the concept of identification is expounded upon.

“All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.”

The whole sequence “A is A. … Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification” I take to be a statement opposing Decartes’ “Cogito, ergo sum”. The context is the human context, and she is not addressing animal consciousness. Animals do not use logic, yet they do not thereby fall into the error of contradiction. Animals have no diction at all, and so no contradiction. Yet Rand judges herself to be compelled to explain the most basic of all the axioms precisely so that she can discuss contradiction and why it must be avoided. Because Rand talks about contradiction I take her to be firmly in the human context here.

To be aware of and to identify the same object are certainly related acts. Because only particular identities exist awareness is always awareness of particular identities, and so there can be said to be identification at the perceptual level. But because there is no case of awareness which is not also identification in this way then there is a duplication of concepts. The concept of awareness would not call out anything not already included in identification, and there can hardly be identification without awareness of what is being identified.

What awareness calls out is the fact that something exists, it is detection done directly without any further inferences indirectly identifying what exists. Animal consciousnesses do not infer, they detect. Human consciousness detects also but it alone can infer. This distinction between detection and computation/inference and the issue of directness I take from chapter 3 of Kelley’s book.

As far as I can understand this is a valid distinction, but it is a philosophical technicality that had no place in Galt’s speech.

6

The integration of the sensual data is perception and this is involuntary process of identification. Observe that Ayn Rand says "by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; " Perception therefore is a process of identification . Mind integrates the mental representations of these identities into concepts-this table becomes a table; table, chair, bed become furniture; furniture, electrical appliance, etc…become household and so on and so far. Man develops concepts of wood, forest, biosphere-all these high abstractions which pertain to the initial perceptual identification. The process of mental integration. however, is different from the process of perceptual integration-it’s volitional non contradictory process which integrates " two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition. . . "( ITOE pg10). My point is that we not always aware of this process of cognition, as Ayn Rand demonstrated in AS. Man’s consciousness has to perceive this process by means of introspection;and as any perceptual process, it doesn’t involve volition. What are the tools of introspection, the senses of consciousness so to speak, we don’t know yet-this is the task for the science of neurophysiology to discover. What is clear, that the ability to be aware of the content of the mind is an unique quality of the man’s consciousness, that is-self awareness. This faculty facilitates conscious choice , free will and conceptual thinking which is volitional , although such a process is not always identified by consciousness.( eventually it is).

This is the main difference between man and animal. Animals also make choices, but this process is not presented to their consciousness and therefore is non-volitional. That why they need instincts-to make the right choices.

My main point is that human consciousness perceives and identifies both existence and and his own mind. This is unique human quality which is a basis for the conceptual thinking and free will.

7

Looking to the paragraph before in both AS and FTNI: “The task of his senses is to give him the evidence of existence, but the task of identifying it belongs to his reason, his senses tell him only that something is, but what it is must be learned by his mind.”

As you posit in your OP: “So, in Objectivism mind and consciousness are different faculties. Consciousness identifies existence and mind processes this data by forming concepts. What is less clear is a relationship between mind and consciousness. As we’ve seen, Ayn Rand observed that mind may or may not been presented to consciousness, and this is not a volitional process.”

Is perception the processing of the sensory data into percepts, end of story? Sight and touch are integrated into “solid object”. This is part of the percept that is retained and integrated by the brain. Is this “identification”? Does it satisfy the “What is it?” at this point?

Is this capturing the intent of your question?

8

My main point is that human consciousness perceives and identifies both existence and and his own mind. This is unique human quality which is a basis for the conceptual thinking and free will.

I can agree with this.

Merry Christmas!

9

There are three types of identification-one is perceptual , another is conceptual and the third is an identification of the mental content by means of introspection, in other words man possesses the faculty of self awareness. My point is to highlight the observation that consciousness and mind are two different facilities which interact on different levels. Some times mental processes presented to consciousness and some times not. Evolutionary this is a much higher level of awareness, than just an ability to grasp that what exists. Self-consciousness is a unique human quality which is a foundation of volition and therefore conceptual thinking.

10

Leonid,

Fascinating subject. A couple of notes: If “perception therefore is a process of identification”,

then conceptualization (in my opinion) is a process of identification AND value-judgement. What I’m

getting at is that as we get to the higher levels of abstraction and concept formation, so judgement

becomes the increasing priority. Choice and effort are required to a greater degree.

Importantly, this focused introspection (self-awareness) is then the “foundation of volition”, as you say.

But the way I see it, “conceptual thinking” is the cause, not an effect. Differing slightly from you.

I think that your distinction (I realise you are not creating duality) between mind and consciousness,

is significant. I’ve been using them interchangeably, but I do think Ayn Rand did distinguish them,

even if she didn’t explicitly define the difference - to my knowledge.

How’s this for a simple thumb-nail: the brain, via the senses, faithfully and impartially takes in everything within range

of the senses. The mind isolates and selects what is relevant or important, by focusing its consciousness -

IOW, I see the mind is director, consciousness its tool. (Whatever data is discarded or over-looked goes to the

sub-conscious.)

Over simple, perhaps, since mind and consciousness are going back and forth constantly, and the self-aware

faculty of the mind ‘directs’ them both.

11

Hi, Tony

There is not dualism, but rather the hierarchy. Sensual organs perceive data and simultaneously present it to mind and consciousness. Mind integrates percepts into concepts and also presents them to consciousness. Human consciousness which is self-awareness, facilitates volitional choice of mind since we only can make decisions about things which we are aware of. The The point is that sensual and conceptual data are not always presented to consciousness instantly. So before presentation all these mental events take place on preconscious level. The presentation itself takes time, normally about 0.4 seconds and in some instances this is not sufficient time to be conscious even of the direct perception. For example a tennis player reflectively returns a serve hundreds of milliseconds before he 's conscious of it-his mind received and precessed data , but his consciousness not. . (Grey, 2004,72) . In the case of conceptual identification, the presentation could take much longer time or not at all ( as in the case of Dagny Taggart cited above). This kind of delay or failure in presentation could be a reason for common belief of " just knowing" without understanding of the source of such a knowledge. Could it be that a cause of mysticism is a malfunction of presentation mechanism?

Usually the process of presentation of mental content is involuntary process-often we try to recall something without success, and after while we suddenly remember it without any volitional effort. The same thing could happen in regard to the conceptual thinking ( as in Rearden’s case). The physicist Wolfgang Kohler said about the great discoveries in physics; “We often talk about the three B’s, the Bus, the Bath and the Bed. This is where the great discoveries are made in our science.” The meaning of this is that even great discoveries of conceptual mind could be presented to consciousness suddenly and involuntary. Value-judgment which occurs on the preconscious level the source of emotions. However their content is defined by previously integrated and internalized hierarchy of values.

12

Preconscious activity of the mind in the first glance seems to be involuntary, but in fact it isn’t. It based on the previous conscious choices which have been internalized. Besides conscious volition still exercises control.

"Libet himself proffers one response to the apparent late arrival of consciousness.

Conscious volition does, in fact, occur before the action, some 150–200 milliseconds

before the muscles in question are activated. So, conscious choice may have a sort of

veto power over an action. About 0.4 sec after the choice is made (non-consciously),

but before the muscles are activated, there is the possibility of consciously inhibiting

the action. As Libet puts it, while the “volitional process is … initiated

unconsciously,” consciousness “could still control the outcome; it can veto the act” (Libet1999,47)

13

Preconscious activity of the mind in the first glance seems to be involuntary, but in fact it isn’t. It based on the previous conscious choices which have been internalized. Besides conscious volition still exercises control. "Libet himself proffers one response to the apparent late arrival of consciousness. Conscious volition does, in fact, occur before the action, some 150–200 milliseconds before the muscles in question are activated. So, conscious choice may have a sort of veto power over an action. About 0.4 sec after the choice is made (non-consciously), but before the muscles are activated, there is the possibility of consciously inhibiting the action. As Libet puts it, while the “volitional process is … initiated unconsciously,” consciousness “could still control the outcome; it can veto the act” (Libet1999,47)

Yes, this is self-evidently correct. There would apparently be a ‘default mechanism’ by which consciousness

focuses ‘automatically’ on externals - self-preservation being top priority, I’d imagine.

Two ways to over ride this, would be consciously to re-arrange the hierachy in advance; or, to consciously “veto”

the response, after the fact. (Like your example of seeing a snake - reacting with fear - but then identifying it as a harmless variety.)

To return to my use of value-judgements, I do realise I’m borrowing the term from another place (emotions), but don’t you

think that ‘conscious value judgements’ become critical at higher concepts and abstractions? iow, consciously selecting an order of importance to those concepts?

14

_ "don’t you think that ‘conscious value judgements’ become critical at higher concepts and abstractions? iow, consciously selecting an order of importance to those concepts? " _

Yes, in fact every conscious choice ( or unconscious for that matter) is a value-judgement- not only at higher concepts and abstractions, but in every single decision one ever makes. Value-judgment is a sine qua none of choice, and every choice pertains to the hierarchy of values. (morality). The exact reason why we need morals is that, contrary to animal we don’t have the automatic code of values. Observe that only rational code of values is compatible with life.