by Zeev Nitsan
Is our mind a mirage—a phantasmagoric result of perception tricks? Loops of perceptional representations that are formed within our brain, one inside the other, and that mutually feed each other? Some believe that the conception that sees our inner part as the “mind” derives from this highly complex pattern of weaving.
Thus, for example, the delivery room of the sense of self, according to the theory of brain researcher Rodolfo Llinás, is formed in the space of mutual connections between the thalamus, basal ganglia, and cortex.
The marvelous exchange act of the brain from material to spirit echoes in the words of mathematician Paul Erdös, who once defined a mathematician as a machine whose purpose was transforming coffee into algorithms.
In the eye of Buddhists, the issue is reflected in the argument that, as a flower that grows in the garden reflects the continuation of the matter and the atoms that compose it have existed from the very first days of Earth (though they have undergone different incarnations in the evolutionary process, to the point where they incarnated as a flower), so, similar to entities in the materialistic world, the cognition of an individual must also derive from a continuum that originated in the past.
Skeptic Mind
Some might say that the attempt to use the self to see “beyond the self” is doomed to failure, and, despite the scientific craving that has lasted for years, it seems that it is impossible to separate the process of observation from the observer. Possible support for that can be found in quantum mechanics as well. A poetic metaphor for that might be that we are both the poet and the poem, and the poem defines our nature as poets.
In a similar sense to the meaning used by Carl Sagan when he said that we are stardust looking at the stars and exploring their secrets,[56] our mind is a creature of our brain, and we use it to explore the brain as being the interrogator and the interrogee simultaneously; some might claim that there is built-in failure in that.
Some think that one of the substantial characteristics of cognition is that, by its nature, it is incapable of explaining itself—the limitation of self-knowledge is built into our cognition. In other words, our nature prevents us from fully comprehending our nature, including understanding the manner in which the flower of spirit blossoms on the bedding of materialism.
Philosopher Gilbert Ryle claimed that body and soul do not exist on the same reference plane, thus their conceptualization and investigation in similar tools of analysis are doomed to failure.
The personal experience is formed in the first-person universe; science is a resident of the third-person universe. Robert Frost once said that poetry is what is lost in translation. Some claim that, in a similar manner, the “poetry of cognition,” which is experienced in the first person, is lost in the attempt to translate it into a third-person description in the language of anatomy and biochemistry.
Is our mind an immeasurable aspect of the physical universe?
Some believe that among brain functions there are immeasurable qualities, not only with respect to measurement modes known to us today, but also in a more comprehensive sense, and that the understanding of cognition exceeds the ability of conceptual understanding of the human brain, exactly as we do not expect a lizard to understand grammar rules or a goldfish to understand the principles of thermodynamics. Mysterianism is a philosophical approach that represents a softer version of the anti-romantic saying about the limited ability of human intelligence. Mysterianism suggests that the human mind is not at the evolutionary stage that enables it to understand how cognition grows from neural activity, though it is not a supernatural phenomenon. This approach, as opposed to the one that preceded it, does not totally deny the future potential of human intelligence to cope with the riddle.
Will We Be Able to Know Our Mind?
Metaphysics—the kingdom of the things we cannot get to know by means of observation and experiments—is the space in which numerous hypotheses regarding the essence of the mind and the body–soul alchemy that is formed in the workshop of the brain take place.
Science is empirical (based on experiments) and quantitative, whereas metaphysical approaches are qualitative and, though they are sometimes characterized by a great power of explanation, they usually cannot be quantified or proven by means of an experiment.
Science is suspicious of metaphysical hypotheses, and often justifiably so. But metaphysical “axiomatic” hypotheses are hidden, like corpses of the unlucky rivals of Mafia members, in the “concrete pillars” that constitute a basis for the scientific method, even if only implicitly. Thus, for example, there is a hypothesis according to which reality manifestations are real in and of themselves, regardless of human acknowledgement. Thus, trees in the forest will make a sound when falling down, even if nobody hears this sound. So also is the assumption that reality manifestations have some kind of orderly regularity that can be traced.
The dispute that is based on the question of whether the ontological existence of phenomena depends on or does not depend on human consciousness that experiences it seems like a metaphysical dispute. In this spirit, for example, there are contradictory arguments that claim that mathematical entities are only expositions (ideas) of physical entities in human thought and, on the other hand, the notion that one plus one will remain two also after the death of the last person on Earth.
Insights that were perceived as metaphysical and unexplainable empirically in certain periods of time might be either confirmed or refuted as time goes by—for example, the insights regarding the essence of time and space. Contradictory positions were introduced by Newton, who claimed that time and space are absolute, and Leibniz, who claimed that time and space are relative.[57] The issue that seemed irresolvable, irrefutable, and unconfirmable was classified at the time as a metaphysical issue. This issue has undergone conceptual metamorphosis with the emergence of the theory of relativity, whose common inferences are compatible with Leibniz’s position. Will the riddle of cognition, characterized nowadays as a metaphysical issue, be empirically illuminated in a pattern similar to the question of time and space?
Some define the constant search for the secret of the mind as “spiritual pilgrimage.”
According to William James, a philosopher resembles a blind person who looks in a dark room for a black cat that is not there. Some might cynically say the same thing about “soul hunters”: they search our brain for an abstract entity that is not really there.
Is our mind—a non-material entity—the production of a material organ—our brain?
Is there an “autonomous, perceiving entity” in our brain that operates the constant channel of perception in our consciousness? And does this entity include a unique component that contributes the essence of consciousness? And who perceives it? And who perceives the perceiver?
Is the pattern of perception a type of matryoshka doll, which contains smaller and smaller matryoshka dolls that are contained within one another? Containment in a pattern that gets smaller and smaller is referred to as endless regression, and it is one of the familiar logical failures that researchers of consciousness are dealing with.
The discussion that relates to the issue of the mind sometimes seems like a semantic, undecidable argument that relates to the meaning of the concepts rather than the facts.
There are situations in which cracks are revealed in our worldview, which usually seems whole. Even the most rationalistic people among us have difficulty with applying cold, scientific methods when it comes to researching the high spheres of the human mind.
The body–soul unity approach often meets fierce internal resentment, which usually derives its strength from the lands of emotion.
It seems that the mysteries of the mind will remain a “terra incognita” (unknown land) for years to come. Some say, “We will never know,” while others make do with saying “We do not know yet.”
Epilogue
For those who have forded the river of words and made it to the rear bank of this book, I truly hope you have al
so found some insights that might be useful for your daily life.
In the spirit of the philosophical, existential view, we should create a purpose for ourselves for our short cadence on the planet. Our brain enables us to design this purpose and pursue it. A complete understanding of the human brain’s pattern of action is a remote objective, and some claim it is unachievable, like an asymptote to which one can draw closer and closer but is never able to reach completely, though additional knowledge and information about this magnificent organ bring us closer to the objective. And I do hope you are, indeed, closer to it now.
* * *
[1]Hippocrates about the Brain
In The Genuine Works of Hippocrates. Translated by Francis Adams. Vol. 2, 344–5. 1886.
[2]John Locke-Self Identity
Uzgalis, William. 2012. “John Locke—Self Identity.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Edward N. Zalta. Fall edition.
[3]Franz Kafka – Metamorphosis of Identity
In The Tremendous World I Have Inside My Head, Franz Kafka: A Biographical Essay. Atlas & Co., 2008.
[4]Richard Dawkins – The evolution of genes
Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press.
[5] Paul Bach-y-Rita- To see with the tongue
Abrams, Michael, and Dan Winters. 2003. “Can You See with Your Tongue?” Discover, June 1. Retrieved October 3, 2009.
Bach-y-Rita, Paul, and Y. P. Danilov, M. E. Tyler, R. J. Grimm. 2005. “Late Human Brain Plasticity: Vestibular Substitution with a Tongue BrainPort Human-Machine Interface.” Intellectica 40:115–122.
[6]Jose Delgado -Electrical Conditioning of Bull’s Behavior
Delgado, Jose M. 1969. Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society. New York: Harper & Row.
[7]Out-of-body experience
Blanke O., and T. Landis, L. Spinelli, M. Seeck. 2004. “Out-of-Body Experience and Autoscopy of Neurological Origin.” Brain Journal Feb; 127 (Pt 2): 243–58.
[8]Arthur Schopenhauer-Between Dream and Reality
Schopenhauer, Arthur In The World as Will and Presentation. Translated by Richard E. Aquila in collaboration with David Carus. New York: Longman, 2008.
[9]The Bouba-Kiki Effect
Gómez Milán, E., and O. Iborra, M. J. de Córdoba, V. Juárez-Ramos, M. A. Rodríguez Artacho, J. L. Rubio. 2013. “The Kiki-Bouba Effect: A Case of Personification and Ideaesthesia.” In The Journal of Consciousness Studies. 20(1–2): pp. 84–102.
[10]Daniel Kahnemanand Amos Tversky– The Framing Effect
Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky, eds. 2000. Choices, Values, and Frames. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[11]John Edensor Littlewood- about Miracles
Littlewood, John Edensor. 1986. A Mathematician’s Miscellany. Cambridge University Press.
[12]Karl Popper- Knowing and Not Knowing
Popper, Karl. 1978. “Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind.”
[13]Stephen Hawking – Soft Determinism
Hawking, Stephen, and Leonard Mlodinow. 2010. The Grand Design. Bantam Books.
[14]Friedrich Nietzsche – Life in the Second Round
Young, Julian. 2010. Friedrich Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography. Cambridge University Press.
[15]Attentional Blink
Chun, Marvin, M., and René Marois. 2002. “The dark side of visual attention.” Current Opinion in Neurobiology 12(2): 184–189.
[16]Marco Polo in the Land of Smell
Arzi, A., and N. Sobel. 2011. “Olfactory Perception as a Compass for Olfactory Neural Maps.” Trends in Cognitive Science 15(11): 537–45.
[17]The Zeigarnik Effect – The Effect of “Uncompleted Matters”
Baumeister, R. F., and B. J. Bushman. 2008. Social Psychology and Human Nature. United States: Thompson Wadsworth.
[18]Benjamin Libet – who is in charge of making decisions
Libet, Benjamin. 2004. Mind Time: The Temporal Factor in Consciousness, (Perspectives in Cognitive Neuroscience). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[19]The Rubber Hand Illusion
Botvinick, M., and J. D. Cohen. 1998. “Rubber Hands ‘Feel’ Touch What Eyes See.” Nature Magazine 391: 756.
Makin T. R., and N. P. Holmes, H. H. Ehrsson. 2008. “On the Other Hand: Dummy Hands and Peripersonal Space.” Behav Brain Res. 191: 1–10.
Out-of-body experience
[20]Frederik Skinner – Behaviorism
Smith, D. L. 2002. “On Prediction and Control: B. F. Skinner and the Technological Ideal of Science.” In Evolving Perspectives on the History of Psychology. Edited by W. E. Pickren and D. A. Dewsbury. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological.
[21]James Olds and Peter Milner- Reward Cycle in the Brain
Olds, J. 1958. “Self-Stimulation of the Brain.” Science 127:315–32.
[22]Wolfram Schultz-Dopamine in the service of happiness
Schultz, W. 2013. “Updating of Dopamine Reward Signals.” Curr Op Neurobiol 23: 229–238.
[23]Alexander Shulgin- Mendeleev of the Psychoactive Elements
Shulgin, Alexander, and Tania Manning, Paul Daley. 2011. The Shulgin Index Vol 1: Psychedelic Phenethylamines and Related Compounds. Berkeley: Transform Press.
[24]Aldous Huxley - Soma Pill
Huxley, Aldous Leonard. 1932. Brave New World. Huxley, Aldous Leonard. 1954. The Doors of Perception.
[25]Eric Kandel- How Memory Remembers
Antonov, Igor, and Irina Antonova, Eric R. Kandel, Robert D. Hawkins. 2003. “Activity-Dependent Presynaptic Facilitation and Hebbian LTP Are Both Required and Interact during Classical Conditioning in Aplysia.” Neuron 37 (1): 135–147.
Dreifus, Claudia. 2012. “A Quest to Understand How Memory Works.” New York Times, March 5.
[26]Hermann Ebbinghaus- The Curve of Memory Fading
Thorne, B., Henley, T. 2005. “Hermann Ebbinghaus.” In Connections in the History and Systems of Psychology. 3rd ed., 211–216. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
[27]HM (Henry Molaison) – Prisoner of Eternal Present
Scoville, Beecher W., and B. Milner. 1957. “Loss of Recent Memory after Bilateral Hippocampal Lesions.” J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiat. 20(11), 11–21.
[28]Elizabeth Loftus-False Memories
Loftus, E. F., and J. M. Doyle, J. Dysert. 2008. Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal. 4th ed. Charlottesville, VA: Lexis Law Publishing.
Loftus, E., and G. Geis. 2009. “Taus v. Loftus: Determining the Legal Ground Rules for Scholarly Inquiry.” Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice 9(2): 147–62.
[29]Alexander Luria- Memory and Head Injuries
Luria, A. R. 1987. The Mind of a Mnemonist: A Little Book About A Vast Memory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Luria, A. R., and Lynn Solotaroff. 1987. The Man with a Shattered World: The History of a Brain Wound. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[30]Arthur Koestler - The Theory of Relativity in the Sunflower Field
Scammell, Michael. 2009. Koestler: The Literary and Political Odyssey of a Twentieth-Century Skeptic. Random House.
[31]Solomon Asch - Conformity Experiment
Asch, S. E. 1955. “Opinions and Social Pressure.” Scientific American 193, 35–35.
[32]Jean Jacques Rousseau - On Human Nature
Zalta, Edward N., ed. 2012. “Jean Jacques Rousseau.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter ed.
[33]Thomas Hobbes - On Human Nature
Zalta, Edward N., ed. 2013. “Hobbes’s Moral and Political Philosophy.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Summer ed.
[34]Stanley Milgram- Obedience to Authority Test
Milgram, S. 1974. Obedience to Authority; An Experimental View.
[35]Jorge Luis Borges—Books and Darkness
The Garden of Forking Paths. An Internet site on life and work of Jorge Luis Borges.
[36]Ray Kurzweil- The Singular Point
Kurzweil, Ray. 2005. The Singularity Is Near.
Viking Penguin
[37]Richard Haier and Rex Jung – Men’s & Women’s Intelligence
Haier, R. J., and R. Jung, R. Yeo, K. Head, M. T. Alkire. 2005. “Structural brain Variation, Age and Response Time.” Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience 5(2), 246–251.
[38] The Effect of Physical Activity on the Brain
Voss, M., and L. Nagamatsu, T. Liu-Ambrose, A. Kramer. 2011. “Exercise, Brain, and Cognition across the Life Span.” Journal of Applied Physiology 5: 1505–1513.
[39]Isaac Asimov- Exceptional event and mental chaos
Asimov, Isaac. 1941. Nightfall.
[40]Edwin Abbott- Transdimensional Meme
Abbott, Edwin. 1884. Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions.
[41]Sigmund Freud- The Super-memes of the mind apparatus
Tauber, Alfred I. 2010. Freud, the Reluctant Philosopher. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[42]Rosalind Franklin – Basic steps on the ladder of DNA
Maddox, B. 2002. Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA. London: Harper Collins.
[43]Immanuel Kant – Categorical Imperative
Hanna, Robert. 2006. Kant, Science, and Human Nature. Clarendon Press.
[44]Moral Conflict- The Railway Scenario
Mikhail, John. 2007. “Universal Moral Grammar: Theory, Evidence, and the Future.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 11, 143–152.
