|
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] RE: But where's
the mind?
Keith,
Just a thought from my own world
here. The Arts as opposed to academic thought is concerned with
the (HUMAN) body as a whole instrument. "Consciousness" is a
"working concept" rather than a mechanical (concept) or as Harry would say, an
Object-ive reality (object relations). We are alive and in flux
and it is in doing (discipline) that flux that we attain mastery.
On the other hand Object-ive reality is digital (again a "working" concept)
that stops time in order to examine something visually. (I don't know
how to make that more clear. It is a "visual concept" rather than
an "aural one" in time. Perhaps.)
Those of us who work with sound know that
(digital visualization) is an impossibility even in the sound studio
where we can do some rather amazing things digitizing sound waves but still
cannot separate an oboe from a voice once they are
"mixed." Eventually they will figure that
out. That object-fying or digit-izing is what in the art is
called "consciousness". The "unconscious" or "subconscious"
is another working term. Practically it refers
to action or thought taken from (with) the whole
instrument. The intuition is the move from the
mega (unconscious) to the specific (conscious). We could
also say time to space but that is probably more confusing.
All knowledge is probably learned with the
potential for knowledge being genetic. I don't speak much
about the brain because it is constantly changing (in scientific theory)
as is the information about such things as (e.g.) the
muscles. I do like Pribram's theories about "holism" because it
conforms to my experience of thinking from different parts of the
organism. (Herbert Read Education through Art, Gardner
Frames of Mind etc.) You (artists) can't
(don't) "think" from the brain, you (Artists) wish to experience
the whole (instrument and product) and the whole (body
instrument) speaks from its parts dependant upon the action
needed. You "Think" with your hands if you are a pianist and
with your intellect (together). (You think) With the
articulation (joints) of your instrument if you are a dancer and with
your intellect (together). With the voice and breath if you are a
singer and with your intellect (together). All of the
above integrates the (+) emotion as well. (Artists say
the Art speaks to them and dictates the product. That is a holistic
response to a problematiqe.)
Not long ago, incorrect information from science,
about the way that muscles worked, destroyed a whole generation of
singers who tried to conform to the latest "scientific knowledge" which
were just theories and inappropiate to build a person's life and technique on
(Douglas Stanley and medical model for muscle movement). We had
the same thing happen with the theories of thermodynamics which were supposed
to be the way the body worked with the breath but which again was far too
simple to support anything as complex as vocal technique, except for choir
singers (Varismo techniques before integration with bel canto, I admit this is
probably too specific, sorry) . Science has ruined pianists hands
(Schumann) and many singers voices (too numerous to mention) with their
latest discoveries that were just someone's desire to get fame by publishing
their theories. (Most of the early anatomy books which were just plain
wrong.)
We (vocal professionals) can't build lives
and careers on fantasies. We work from practical experience and
from the heritage of language and practice. So we find the
concepts of consciousness (visual focus) to be useful.
Although if another word appeared tomorrow that was more useful we would
abandon it.
There is a third phase which Donald Schoen has
termed "Reflection in Action" (Visual/Aural feedback integration) which is a
type of awareness during action that is only the realm of the
masters. (Athletes call it the "groove" and it includes
kinetic/kinesthetic feedback). That means that you are able to be
totally aware of your instrument both in an act of specific control and
intuitive trust that becomes an information loop. (The race is running
you.) Generally, with the average professional it is an act of
thinking before doing and then abandoning themselves to the action without
thinking except at specific practiced points. Gradually over the
years you "become" the music (the Art) so completely that there is no
distinction between thought and action and that is "reflection in
action." A flawed concept but a step forward
maybe.
Indian people with the four directional learning
process (perception/analysis/dialogue/reflection) and the seven layered
spiral of growth (the four processes completed seven times on the way to
Intuition) are the closest in their pedagogy to what artists experience
in learning with their bodies that I find complete (adaquate description for
teaching). But those processes are over a thousand year old.(not
the latest knowledge) I suspect that there is a better explanation but
science has not come up with it to date.(unfortunately for us, we could use
it!) Certainly digital thought (academic conscious) and
physical exploration (artistic unconscious) is no answer thus far anymore
than they can explain the coordination of a concert pianist or the act of
love. (you just do it until its natural.)
(Consciousness is the name of a cognitive state
as is unconsciousness. Both are useful concepts in the
arts where they define two types of attention in the physical
body.)
Ray Evans Harrell
Hope that helps. REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 11:04
AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] RE: But
where's the mind?
Hi Natalia,
At 01:06 06/06/2003 -0700,
you wrote:
Hello Keith,
You wrote,
How do you know you are free to change mind from moment to moment? Leave
it to the
scientific mind to ask and then try to prove the
obvious!
I'm not sure I understand
you.
Just
because electrical potential builds up in relevant brain cells *before*
"taking" (did you mean
extracting or making?--either way, doesn't
matter) a decision, does not mean brain is behind creating
thought or offering response. Electrical
potential building up in brain cells will also be responding
to input,
and how to sort & store same prior to response.
Yes, this is true. The point is,
however, is that it is quite clear that when we think "we" are deciding to
do something it has already been decided. How much "we" have had to do with
the preliminaries is a moot point. I happen to think that "my" decisions are
"joint" decisions between me and what David Bohm called a "quantum field",
but that is purely a personal speculation for which there is no proof nor
ever likely to be.
Recent work on
brain shows that women use
more areas of the brain in functioning
compared to men, and also that for everyone--certain sections
do more
than they originally thought and that more tasks are shared than
originally thought.
Yes, brain studies
show that this is true
What was
conclusive before is subject to new conclusions. I will concede that brain
is a vessel of communication.
Brain will pursue pathways
of subconscious & conscious memory,
There's really no difference between conscious and subconscious
memory. There's no separate mental "box" where the unconscious lies -- as
implied by Freudian theory but a myth which still lingers on in the way that
people think about the brain. Conscious and subconscious memories are both
in the same place -- the cortex. There are some memories which are easier to
recall than others.
and possibly
collective conscious
in order to process new stimuli or questions or
whatever researchers are providing to people used in
these
experiments. Again, I suspect this type of research is the pre-amble to
more advanced studies
aimed at trying to measure mind
energy
You're posing a concept which you
called "mind energy". How do you define this in terms which can be measured?
Do you mean the total energy that the brain uses?
-at which
they will never succeed, mind's abstract qualities
alone precluding that. How do you suppose
they are going to research love energy? Or creative
energy or capacity
for art, music or design? How are they going to figure out appreciation
for beauty?
I am afraid that I have no
idea what you mean by "love energy".
Though they
may have some success at measuring brain energy output or intake, even to
some extent
physical processes--mind function, as opposed to brain
function, will remain a mystery to science.
I'm afraid that you will have to prove that there is "mind
function" in opposition to "brain function".
When you
were growing up you were constantly changing your mind due to new
information. Then you
got to university, and the same applied, but you
were trained to back up everything you put to paper so
that you could
be taken into the commonly accepted paradigm of "scientific". From there,
the scientific
self-censor insisted that you back up everything with
usually other people's proof.
I
think you have the wrong angle on what scientists regard as "proof". There
are no scientific laws or beliefs which are considered to be proved once and
for all. There are really only "working statements" which are amended from
time to time if and when (and it's nearly always when) they (or parts of
them) fail to be corroborated by well-designed experiments which probe the
the weak spots in the "law" (and sometimes succeed in finding
them!)..
Questioning
everything
is good, so that you understand something for yourself, yet
believing only that which has been proven in
the lab is not only
limiting your consideration of other possible factors, holding you back
from using your
mind freely, it is expecting you to relive someone
else's past in for future work to proceed, thereby
slowing you down.
Once again, you are misunderstanding what is meant by "proven in
the lab". Nothing is ever proven. A scientific fact or law or truth is
always provisional. How do you know you are totally "free" when taking
decisions or believing something? It feels like that, to be sure, but it
isn't always so -- for example, a person who's been hypnotised says he
is free when carrying out a post-hypnotic suggestion.
Scientist
becomes mostly historian, designing "better" nukes and a more marketable
pain reliever.
Significant research is hardly ever conducted because
the petrochemical/pharmaceutical companies providing most funding even to
universities have greedy agendas. Historical evidence has therefore been
suspect.
Not at all. Independent
foundations and governments fund much more research than petrochemical and
pharmaceutical companies added together. I don't know the figures but I
would have thought that the ratio is at least 20:1.
I'm afraid I
don't understand much of what you write below, though every now and again
you use phrases which suggest that you believe that it is desirable for an
individual to make an act of faith, and in this I agree with you. However, I
believe that any act of faith must be minimal, and it should always be
consistent with current scientific language and not in opposition to
it.
Keith
I'm certain
you are familiar with the concept of projection in psychology. All people,
not just those deemed to have mental illnesses, internalize thoughts or
feelings they would rather not have, and, not wishing to harbour such
feelings due to guilt, will project them onto someone else in order to
alleviate the guilt. Of course, this results in further guilt, fractured
and projected again onto others in an endless nightmare of projections
until such time that you acquire a great psychologist who is able to help
you recognize what you've been up to. With
luck, meaning a success rate
of about one in two hundred and fifty-six, you will recognize why you
create scapegoats out of everyone who fits the bill, and get over
it.
Our minds
are, I believe--because it's the most logical theory in metaphysics I'm
aware of--fractured ideas
of one collective mind, further fracturing
in chaos and projecting our primary fear of separation from
the source-
mind of a Creator. Liken it to the Big Bang theory. What
great force could have initiated that kind of event, from
alleged
nothingness? Matter born out of nothing? Our Mind (collective use,
implying also one creation of Creator) being created in the image of the
Creator (--Who is spirit alone--love energy) able to
create in form though not in
content (eternally), is capable of such
an idea. Yet like all forms, the universe in all its seeming
timelessness, cannot exist eternally because of its physical nature.
Mountains will crumble, and suns get cold. Nothingness is only true in the
sense that it's the playground of the imagination. Actually there is
nothing out there that has a basis in reality--or eternity.
The universe is one big projection of an insane thought of one tiny idea
of the collective mind that the created (or effect, the one
creation of the Creator) could also become the Cause. Said universe
seems absolutely real because we created it, and one tends to believe in
one's own creations, even when they are but illusions. This accounts for
the fact that prayer to God doesn't really have an effect--because the
physical universe is not part of God's realm (which is eternity). To
acknowledge pain, wholly non-existent in Heaven, would be to acknowledge
illusion as fact. It is an impossibility. Ask for guidance, and you will
get it.
Hence a puppet show of physical bodies,
using for our example those of homo-sapiens, dancing to the bidding of the
puppeteer mind, projecting fear thoughts resulting from its separation
from the source. Yet we know that ideas never leave
their source, but as children do, we become convinced that
what is projected is quite real. Further fracturing or filtering of the
divine energy occurs and we split fear into new parts again, continuously
acting out in different ways. What the mind can conceive, it can create (
and most typically on Earth--mis-create). It must also, by means of
free will, arrive at the conclusion that only eternal energy
is real and that we never really left the source. Because we made the
world we see, we need help to dispel the illusions of separation and the
permutations of endless fearful pathways. Perpetually trying to prove its
existence simply perpetuates fear. It is tantamount to assigning
control over an illusion.
Search for truth is
admirable, and reason must help you decide, but try giving up control and
ask the unknown
to guide you
there. No one rests until the point that faith takes over.
Believing in God is not
essential. It is, however, a genuine belief, rather than imposed, if you
arrive at faith because of reason backed up by personal experience. The
only alter is in your mind, devotion only by thought and action. The deity
described in most religious books (a jealous God, a vengeful God, a
schizophrenic God) could never have created Mind, let alone created
in eternity or truth. The true Creator wouldn't even be aware of
our
fearful imaginings
because they are non-existent in a realm of peace. Love is where God
resides, and your right-thinking mind is still safe in eternity. Now,
kick-start that free will, and wake up to Heaven. There is no where else.
Obviously,
there's a lot of unlearning to do before the Big Crunch is possible.
Just as you
concluded, I claim the right to my mind.
Natalia
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith
Hudson
To: Darryl and Natalia
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 12:27 AM
Subject: Re:
[Futurework] RE: But where's the mind?
At 16:40 02/06/2003 -0700,
you wrote:
<<<<
Hello Arthur,
Your remark about
mind being a process that goes on in the brain echoed back at me in a
meditative moment yesterday. You were wondering, Where is the mind?, and
if indeed we have one. I really enjoy these kinds of questions, and ask
that you consider the following:
Mind is quite apart from brain
because you are free to change your mind moment to moment. You can do so
because, unlike brain and body, it is unfettered by physical
laws.
>>>>
How do you know you are free to change
your mind from moment to moment? Brain studies show very clearly that
electrical potential builds up in the relevant brain cells *before* you
are conscious of taking a decision (and apparently exercising your
freewill). This was a counter-intuitive discovery by Libet some 15 years
ago of explosive significance to philosophy and has been more thoroughly
investigated -- and confirmed -- than almost anything else in
neuroscience
If the mind is unfettered by physical laws and
outside their ambit, then how come you can think or say anything at all
about it? Everything you think or say is governed by the neurons in your
brain and these, in turn, are governed by exactly the same physical laws
that govern every other activity.
If one persists in thinking of
the mind as some sort of free-floating entity then you can have an
infinity of different hypotheses about it and every single one of them
can be thought to be true (if anybody believes you) simply because it
can't be tested.
Keith Hudson
Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden
Place, Bath, England
Keith Hudson, 6
Upper Camden Place, Bath, England
|
