Introduction to my hypothesis of mind

My hypothesis is a contradiction of sorts. I am creating a model of our consciousness, and then explaining why models are not good ways to look at reality. I cannot deny that I am on a slippery slope.  Every word here has its origins in my brain, which is, by my own definition flawed. You must look deeply into your own existence to affirm or deny the truth of what I am saying. And I wouldn't mind a little scientific research to confirm or deny my rants.

I caution you: Nothing is black or white, and no model that defines things can be perfectly correct. There are too many variables, too many influences, to have a model that is absolute. Models are just models. Ways to make understanding the world easier.

It’s an interesting exercise for me to write. In order to tell the truth, I must destroy my model as I use it. This is a scary journey for me, but one that I must take. I don’t know whether I will be destroyed or enlightened - but see the title at the top.  If nothing else, my path has helped me achieve some happiness and a state of empathy that I haven't found in many other people.

On Models

We each use a personal model of the world to organize and interpret what we see. Imagine each being with a history - dating back a billion years. Our brains have synaptic connections based on that history. It has been found that the first thing that the brain does is to match the cognitive experience. We are hard-wired by our experiences.

The brain has limitations, though.  It is simply not physically possible to have enough cells and connections to have an accurate record of all our cognitive experience. The fabled photographic memory is a myth.  The brain must compensate somehow - and I contend that it does so by matching and modeling experiences in real time

A not unimportant question, then, is how do we acquire the beginnings of that neural network that I call models? Do we, as infants, start with a completely clean slate?  Or are we born with some basic structure?  At this point in my research, I can only postulate that it is probable that we must start with something organized, if only our instinctual behavior.  It is a observed fact that infants deprived of stimulation are put at an intellectual disadvantage later on.  It is perhaps, that they have failed to develop a strong neural network.

Every experience is interpreted based on our cache of personal models. It is really a quite efficient storage system, but one that has limitations:  I think those things which tend to reinforce a model tend to be accepted - or distorted so that it does reinforce it. That which contradicts it directly tends to be ignored.  All for purely practical considerations, really!

In the same vein, we tend to associate with those who share our beliefs - because the feedback of others reinforces our beliefs. When we isolate ourselves, we tend to become more and more narrow, more and more exclusive, more and more paranoid. We are uncomfortable in other cultures because our beliefs are challenged.

The Paradigm of Consciousness

My basic definition of consciousness

Consciousness is the process within the intersection of our perception inputs - sight, hearing, touch, etc. - and the structure of our current neural network.  It is a feedback system, where our current memories have some influence on how our perception inputs are processed and interpreted. and, in the other direction, how our input influences the development of our neural network.

So - by my definition, consciousness exists in varying degrees in all creatures.  From single cell to (stretching things a bit) society at large.

On Self Deception

We are all tended and raised by our histories, which go back billions of years. Because our histories are not alike - after all, our electro-physical position in space-time varies from every other person - we all have acquired “filters” that keep us from seeing an unprejudiced vision of reality. Our filters come from our genetic make-up, our local and global cultures, and our personal histories.

One might consider our visual limitations. While our total visual field is about 90 degrees, our level of real understanding is limited to only a couple of degrees from our visual center. In order for us to take in a whole scene, we must quickly scan back and forth, prioritizing that which is important enough to spend some cognitive energy on. It may be (and it would certainly be interesting to experiment to test the hypothesis) that we tend to selectively spend our attention energy on that with which we agree - and derive affirmations from.

Why do we delude ourselves?

While it would seem that the best strictly evolutionary trend would be toward accurate knowledge of what is real, this may not be the case for modern people. We have transcended natural selection with our “advanced” civilization. Survival is generally not a critical factor of an individual’s motivation. The pursuit of happiness has replaced it. This self-delusion, what I call mental masturbation, has become the easiest path to satisfying the quest for happiness.

There is a scientific and traditional consensus supporting my thesis, although it is not widely publicized. It is the basis of practically all psychological schools. Neuro-linguistic programming, chanting, praying, even the tendency to join groups with common cultures are illustrations of the truth of this concept. And we must remember that we all are subject to these circles of self deception, so people will always be reluctant to give up their present world view.

We cannot avoid these filtering differences, but we can open our minds to how our history forms our present.

I cannot deny that I am also a result of that history.

We are, most of the time, hardly doing more than dreaming. What is the difference, after all, between fabricating all of our reality and fabricating only ninety per-cent.

Our tendency to be slaves to our history is like being carried by the current of a river. We may move within the current - perhaps sometimes even going upstream, but the tendency is always downstream.

But this model is not static. Our brains cannot totally ignore reality. The model is in a constant, but small, state of change.

On enlightenment - a critical aside

The Buddhist and Hindu concepts of enlightenment may be a change in an individuals model, the destruction of it, or something else entirely. A new model still allows for false interpretations, destruction of all models allows for an unprejudiced vision. Can this really be done by meditation? Or drugs?

We look at life as a win-lose proposition when we don’t recognize that we are one. We must see that the truth is always valuable, no matter what the origin.

On near-death experience

Imagine an anoxia that makes synaptic changes in a specific area of the brain, changing the model. It would be interesting to explore the structure of the brain for a region that contains all or part of the model.

For those who think that society would become brutal and chaotic, I postulate that religious values were, at core, purely practical in terms of the society in which they were created. Contemporary “moral values” should be no less practical. Our problem now is that we are trying to blindly apply ancient guidelines to contemporary living. Instead, we must start using our own minds thoughtfully and dispassionately.

If you are brave or foolish enough, there is nothing in this world that requires faith. Faith is accepting what we know is dumb because it makes us feel better. A belief that reinforces our confidence in ourselves and our universe, that gives us hope. Even if it does not stand up to any rational test.

Life is a series of hard questions. We sometimes choose the complex answer based on at least a semblance of reality. But too many times we choose instead a lovely, direct answer that is wonderfully simple, ignoring that which is unpleasant to us.

This avoidance is natural. We would like to be happy. Our happiness is, to a large extent, dependent on the validation of our expectations. If we can create a model of the universe in our mind that guarantees us a better world, that tends to be our favorite.

---

On Our Histories

From the beginning, from the big bang and perhaps before, our lives are formed in the maelstrom that is the corporeal world. Imagine a small piece of the present. Follow it back through time, witnessing all the influences that have formed it. See how those influences have interacted with each other, through time and space, all the way back.

On the micro-micro level of reality, with (perhaps) indivisible particles that are in constant motion and interaction, we must accept that life is nothing but electro-physical interactions. There is no god to change the electro-physical reality.

Because electromagnetic forces travel at the speed of light, our whole universe can be thought of as a unified system of influences, linked inseparably. There is no real separation of here and there, before, now or after.

Defining a chunk of world as being autonomous is self-deception. Instead, I try to imagine myself as like salt in a bowl of soup. I am here and there all at the same time. I experience all things simultaneously, although some things seem stronger than others. The faces that I see are my own face, the experiences of others that I see are my own experiences turned inside out.

---

On Science

I read an essay by Vaclav Havel about how western civilization has made the transition from the spirituality of the pre-renaissance to the science of linearity in the industrial age. He suggests that we must move on to a third level where science and spirituality co-exist.

I don’t think that is necessary.

The problem lies not in our science, but in the layman’s outmoded Newtonian science. We must make the transition to an Einsteinian view: Because all matter and time is inextricably linked, we cannot assume that anything is independent of anything else. Havel seems to require that the "link" be outside the natural realm. I find all that unnecessary, and probably undesirable.

On Free Will

We are in a constant state of change - it is inevitable. If we know the mechanisms of our change, then we can control it to a great extent. Those without that knowledge are buffeted by events, those with it can flow with, around and through them.  Still, we are all just a collection of (theoretically) predictable elementary particles, so "free will" becomes a tenuous thing.  Are we destined to a certain future?  Probably.  But even if we can't change what is our destiny, we are absolutely destined to change.