MAP OF MIND
ANIL MITRA phd, COPYRIGHT © 2001 AND February 2013
HOME | CONTACT
CONTENTS
Transferred to
another document
Introduction
What is a
map?
Sources
Explanatory
factors
Levels – rough Higher [organism]
Conscious
The metaphor of the triune brain
Not conscious
Lower
Mind, world and person
Direction of fit considerations
Personality,
tone and mood
Personality
The unconscious
On the difficulty of knowing oneself
Types
Tone and mood
Cognitive tone
Psychosis/neurosis
Dynamics
State dynamics
Personality dynamics
Note on Reality
Reality
Example 1. Originality
Example 2. All = Nothing
Ontological psychology
Example 3. The nature of belief
Mind words
Copyright
and Document Status
MAP OF MIND
Thursday 10.11.01
I have approached this topic many
times – giving lists and logic but never completing the “map”. My thought has
reached sufficient maturity; I can now give the map a completed form.
“Completed” does not mean “final”; rather it means that the implicit
structure has sufficient maturity that giving it explicit form makes sense
Various kinds of revision are
always possible: details and kinds of mental process; the relationships;
structure of mind and brain; place of mind – and concept of mind
As I use the term, a map refers
not only to a territory but also its dynamics…
§
There is a logic or conceptual aspect: the map makes it
possible to identify kinds – levels, variety – of mental elements – kinds,
processes
The concepts are not arbitrary.
They introduce illumination, identification, understanding and efficiency.
Illumination: the subject appears in focus. Identification: individuals
recognize themselves in the map. That should be natural since the “concepts”
that illuminate a domain are not ad hoc but have roots in common explanation.
Usually, common explanation will have some degree of validity. The purpose of
seeking new of altered conceptual and explanatory is to get better
explanations, predictions and so on. To identify what is correct and what
incorrect in what came before. The empirical part is in getting positive
explanations and predictions. Additionally, of course, when the conceptual
foundation is enhanced, explanation can be pushed into domains previously
unmarked. And, here, there is potential for illumination and further empirical
or experimental test. Understanding means that there is a feeling that the
concepts enable one to truly know the subject matter which is not merely
predictive. Of course the feeling of understanding may be merely circular in
the sense that it is due to the enhanced explanation that gives the feeling
of understanding. But, when there is a conceptual system that provides
explanations and predictions, matches the common understanding either by
roughly copying it or by changing it, and, also, agrees with the material
underpinnings [in this case neural science] we feel that the feeling is more
than mere feeling. Efficiency: the system of explanation allows more
explanation with less “machinery” and effort. The classic example is the
Copernican vs. the Ptolemaic systems but, of course, many other examples
could be given – that is one thing that scientific revolutions are about:
[almost] every scientific revolution is a “Copernican” [Kant used the term in
connection with his new approach to the theory of knowledge] revolution
A rational system of explanation
is one in which the explanatory factors are the state and history of the
organism [system], the effect of the environment, the causal relations. It
may be objected that this allows room for “occult” factors. When the
principle is applied not only to the system under consideration but to every
system, the occult is eliminated, isolated or made visible
§
Dynamics. The map is dynamic when state and process are connected
by causative factors that permit prediction of the evolution of the system.
Not all systems of explanation are dynamic. The paradigm of dynamics is the
relation of change to cause. Causative factors can be seen to be intermediary
BE, M&M, Mind Words, Guttenplan…
These sources have been used in the treatment in Journey
in Being
Category, concept, function,
organizing, explaining, understanding, essence words
Work out the relations among
the following factors. Mutually modify and synthesize
What is the ontological status of
cognition, feeling, and emotion? Especially consider the status of drive,
motivation
Conation
Literally, “striving,” used either
as a general term inclusive of all experienced mental activity, or as the act
of “striving” or “willing” being itself an ultimate type of experience, and
not infrequently with confusion of these two senses
Being in the world: sensing, feeling, perception
Imperatives: emotion, drives – sex, community, hunger –
binding
Negotiating: thought – freeing
Neo-cortex: negotiating
Limbic: emotion, drives
Lower brain stem or “reptilian”:
autonomic behavioral patterns
The question of absolute differences among cognition,
emotion, and conation: this issue has been worked out in Journey
in Being
Consider: evolutionary and proximate basis
Map of brain and sub-systems
Autonomic behavioral patterns
Autonomic, down through organ,
tissue, cellular and molecular
Relations to self/other
Person: with whom communication is
possible. That would bring animals, perhaps even plants, other than plants in
to the realm of some degree of personhood
§
Experience
Null: mind ® mind
World ® mind
§
Attitude
Null: reflection
Mind ® world [intensionality]
§
Agency
[action]
Mind ® self
Mind ® other
Mind ® world
Personality has to do with the
strengths, including relative strengths, of the various factors / functions
of in the mental domain – including factors that color the state of mind and
present in interpreting and coloring internal and external events… and are
include predispositions to [kinds of] action – slow, sudden, precipitous,
reflective or based in thought-feeling-emotion, gentle, violent…
Personality also reflects the
presence of unconscious determinants – Freud
The purpose of this comment is
not to discount the unconscious and defense mechanisms such as denial
For each individual there are
many “others” and, so, in reflecting on a given other, there are many points
of comparison – the other others. Since the individual sees him/herself only
from inside there is no comparison point. This points to a possible difficulty
not impossibility since there is listening and empathy and there is
introspection not as a special faculty of introspection but as in
self-disclosure
Here enter, possibly, some of
Jung’s types:
Disposition to come to a
decision, to act: perceiving / judging
Perception: sensing / intuition
Reflective approach,
processing: thinking / feeling
Self / other focus: introvert /
extravert
Tone is related to general
disposition at a given time. It is the “coloration” of mental states as
emotionally positive or negative, anticipation as optimistic or pessimistic.
Thus, when tone is positive there is a tendency to maintain a positive
emotional bearing despite negative events and to anticipate positive
outcomes. It is not “cognitive reinterpretation” thus a negative event is
accepted as such but the tendency is to maintain a positive bearing. Positive
tone implies the tendency, not absolute, to maintain itself in the face of
negative contexts; this is due to the fact that negative events would not get
one down
Tone, unqualified, refers to
emotional bearing or color
Practically, for many purposes,
tone and mood are not distinct: they refer to the same mental dispositions. I
allow a possible distinction as follows: when tone remains fixed over more
than a few days one would refer to mood. Tone is more elastic than mood.
There seems to be a need for this distinction
Although tone is the coloration of
the emotions it affects cognitive bearing and there is such a thing as cognitive
tone. Cognitive tone should, perhaps, be broken down into perceptual and
conceptual aspects. The kinds of tone interact and affect one another; the
factors of tone – constitutive and causative – are multiple
The following is a thought
Psychosis: natural reality
Neurosis: social reality
In the following, I have left room
for structural, dynamic, functional, and descriptive approaches and
traditional explanation. The descriptive includes literature, drama and art
Need for well integrated
negotiation of physical and human environment; evolutionary and proximate
relations. The environment “as it is” in the moment-to-moment: perception;
anticipation is experiment or play with the [remembered] elements of perception:
conception, imagination and thought – since the future is not given,
imagination and thought have an element of freedom and error; binding and
emotion. Foundation in physiology / neural science
General formulation of response to
particular situations
Conceptual and empirical study
Response to particular situations
Kinds
Based in general formulation – the
dynamics
Descriptive and ad hoc
The descriptive approach requires
a language of description and is, therefore, not merely empirical
Development
Relation to the world and others; here
is a dynamics
Descriptive factors, dynamics of mood
and tone
Personality dynamics includes but
is not limited to Freudian concepts of and in it. It is a good place to
abandon, or begin to abandon, folk psychology – not for neural or cognitive
science but for a more rational system of mental terms and concepts, i.e. the
idea of folk psychology is not abandoned but it is broadened, subject to
imagination, criticism, test
These dynamics have to include
reference to reality. Of course, they do – as I have noted, perception,
thought, emotion etc., and the division into state and personality dynamics…
However, there are some
considerations of reality that may have been omitted and therefore the
“nature” of reality needs explicit consideration
Reality has to enter somewhere.
But it is not as though there is the map of mind, above, and there is reality
and now the two have to be patched together. The map of mind and its structure
are rooted in “external” reality. External is in quotes to remind us that the
body is also part of reality as is mind itself; and so the map of mind comes
with a map of the map. That is what language, the conceptual, imaginative and
processing [thought] abilities are about. And, don’t let the 2nd
last sentence be mistaken as subscription to mind/matter. The absence of that
distinction and the nature of the absence are taken up in and resolved Journey
in Being
The key point is that we expect to
see the essential nature of reality reflected in the makeup – elements,
dynamics – of mind. And, given that mind is part of world, it is inevitable
that there can be a reflexive organism, one that reflects on mind and mental
processing. Obviously, the foregoing sections reflect and express reality
But, I am thinking of something
deeper – not in the sense of profound but rather the following idea:
The
ontology of the organism reflects the ontology of the world
This applies to
the structure and function of the mind
It applies to
physical structure and function
It applies,
potentially, to the contents of thought
This is deep in the sense that
the structure of the universe and the character of its fundamental process
are reflected in the organism
I choose three examples
Alternative and similar words:
creativity, freshness, imagination, ingenuity, innovation, inspiration,
inventiveness, novelty, resourcefulness, uniqueness, vision
This is essential to life. And to
mind. Without this there would be not just none of the higher elements but
none of the lower:
Perception: the origin of perception
in the infant is a creative, though not fully conscious, act
Thought
Language, logic, elementary
arithmetic, hammers, technology
Learning – learning is a creative
re/discovery, sometimes under tutorship…
A primary question: What is [are]
the element[s] of the creation of a new idea. I am not thinking of Mozart
composing. I am thinking of everyone faced with the simplest of problems.
Somewhere, a new idea enters. What is the spark of that? And what does it imply
for the brain? Here is an analogy: computers simulate random processes by
generating “pseudo-random” sequences of numbers using an algorithm. The
sequences are pseudo-random in that while some of the characteristics of
truly random sequences are reproduced they are not truly random: after a
certain number of trials, the sequence repeats itself. That cannot be the
source of something truly new. What happens in the brain when there is a new
idea or spark of an idea? There are new ideas: there was at least one human
who thought of the number one without having been “taught” by another human
Where is this represented in the
brain, the function of mind? Is it represented?
The following are taken in their
conceptual, feeling and neural aspects:
Freud’s “oceanic feeling”
Peak experience
Yoga: the meditative state that is
complementary to the Vedantic concept “Atman = Brahman”
The state of “pure action”: action in
the knowledge of but without commitment or attachment to results
Not accepting the ultimate nature of
any ultimate limit
Attitudes that orient the
individual to the real – include but are not limited to the esoteric. What is
esoteric is relative
The elements, functions, processes
[…] that enable the individual to be so oriented… or built in elements of
orientation
Belief is a core feature of mind,
the organism’s intrinsic understanding of the world as a whole and in its
details
Here is how ontology enters:
If the world is given, then the
only place in robust – not psychotic/neurotic – belief is due to doubt
“Maybe it is raining, may be not”
[Looking out of the window to
check is not neurotic. Looking out every 2 seconds would be.]
But we would not say,
“It is raining and it is not
raining”
Well we might if we mean something
like, “It is raining in London but not in New York.” But I take for granted
that “It is raining and it is not raining,” refers to the same time and place
The foundation of the rejection of
“It is raining and it is not raining,” is objectivity. The world is given
But, consider:
“It is raining”
“The sun is shining”
Well, imagine a mist coming in. It
comes slowly, so that the brightness of the sun is slowly diminished.
Finally, there is no sun to be seen. At which point did the sun stop shining?
Oh, the sun is shining in space. Imagine traveling away in a space craft.
Eons pass. The sun is just a point to the naked eye. Finally it has
disappeared from view. There was period of time over which we were not sure
whether we could see the sun. When did the sun stop shining? Oh, it never
stopped we just did not see it anymore. Now the sun goes through its paces,
consumes its fuel, becomes brighter, fades, and fades, till it no longer has
enough radiation in the visible spectrum to be seen. When did it stop
shining? Oh, “shining” is not an intrinsic quality. Now, the sun slowly
evaporates and at some point there is no sun. When did it stop existing? Oh,
the sun is not an intrinsic thing; neither is existence…
But what if the world is not
given? Of course, in the temporal mode, the future is not given. But I don’t
mean that. I mean: What if the world is a superposition of states – as in
quantum theory. Then, should not belief reflect that? What if belief states
are as quantum states? With coefficients in the “classical limit” being 0’s
and 1’s?
Is not belief actually like that.
What are you feeling when you are certain? Certain! What about the
unconscious states?
Mind words are in Words,
Language, Metaphysics which includes a system of words for metaphysics
ANIL
MITRA PHD, COPYRIGHT © 2001, REFORMATTED February 11, 2013
Document Status: February 11, 2013
Main ideas are already in and no further action needed for Journey
in Being
Maintained: interest
|