Rational, evidence-based, non-materialist model of mind-brain interaction

[Bernardo]

Since I don't refer to any of my books in the article, and since it's available entirely for free, I thought it is appropriate to share this with you:

http://paranthropologyjournal.weebly...vol_3_no_3.pdf

(See first article)

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by Bernardo

Since I don't refer to any of my books in the article, and since it's available entirely for free, I thought it is appropriate to share this with you:

http://paranthropologyjournal.weebly...vol_3_no_3.pdf

(See first article)

Bernardo,

It's a great article. You do a great job of explaining the filter model and give good evidence to support it and you also do a good job of explaining where the materialist explanations for consciousness fall short.

However, I have an objection to the idea you express in this section:

The hypothesis here is that the function of
the brain is to localize consciousness, pinning it
to the space-time locus of the physical body. In
doing so, the brain modulates conscious perception
in accordance with the position and perspective
of the body in space-time. Indeed, there
would be clear survival advantages for the brain
to evolve to do just that: by localizing and
modulating subjective experience according to
the space-time locus of the body, the brain
coaxes mind to identify itself with the body and,
therefore, contribute actively to the body’s survival.
When not subject to this localization and
modulation mechanism, mind is unbound: It
entails awareness of all there is across space,
time, and perhaps beyond.

It seems to me that you are making an assumption about consciousness and you don't discuss the basis for making that assumption. The assumption is that identity is created by matter and only exists so long as matter is organized to pin consciousness to the space-time locus. It seems to me that this ignores all the evidence (such as NDE, drop in communicators, and children who remember past lives) which suggests identity exists before birth and survives death.

If anyone is interested, I have a section on my web site that also discusses the filter model of the brain:

http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8p...allacies_brain

[Bernardo]

Originally Posted by anonymous

It seems to me that you are making an assumption about consciousness and you don't discuss the basis for making that assumption. The assumption is that identity is created by matter and only exists so long as matter is organized to pin consciousness to the space-time locus. It seems to me that this ignores all the evidence (such as NDE, drop in communicators, and children who remember past lives) which suggests identity exists before birth and survives death.

Hi Anonymous.
Yes, I recognize your criticism. It's indeed the point I am least comfortable with in the paper because, as you may know, I do think a significant form of identity survives de-localization. To use Jungian terminology, I think the ego is fundamentally tied to the brain (namely, the default mode network) and dissolves upon de-localization, but a form of identity akin to the Self archetype remains intact. I think that because of personal experience and the reports you allude to. However, mainstream neuroscience does not recognize the Self; only the ego. Since this paper was a science paper, I felt I could not stray beyond the ego, or I would risk weakening the paper for a point that, from a certain point of view, is not as crucial as detaching mind from the brain, which was my main goal. So I chose to let that one go. It does pain me, for it's not my personal opinion. Yet, I went as far as I felt I could scientifically defend my case.
This paper is a summarized version of a chapter of my fourth book, which I'm now writing. In the book I will set the case above clearly.
Cheers, Bernardo.

[David R]

I think the critique of your idea here is that you haven't attempted to explain how a personality survives the death of the brain. Hence, the attempt to question your assumptions even in the presence of your attempt to make this issue more palatable to a scientifically based mindset audience.

So, i will ask you what your personal view is regarding the post-death existence of the personality?

I don't expect you to give an answer that is rationally based or even scientifically based here.

[EthanT]

Hi Bernardo,

Great paper, I enjoyed reading it.

One question. You mentioned that the idea of a collective unconscious is contradicted by the materialist position.

In comparitive mythology, they often say that the simple reason for similar imagery/myths/symbols cropping up in different cultures in disparate regions, is that we are all "wired the same way". (Although, it seems many of the greats in comparitive mythology, like Joseph Campbell, ultimately didn't buy into this, even if it may be the standard way to talk about it in acedemia. In fact, I believe Jung himself alluded the idea that this is one way to interpret the collective unconscious)

This would seem to suggest the collective unconscious is not clearly contradictory with the materialist position. Do you have any counter to that, which could possibly put that question to rest?

[Bernardo]

Originally Posted by David R

I think the critique of your idea here is that you haven't attempted to explain how a personality survives the death of the brain. Hence, the attempt to question your assumptions even in the presence of your attempt to make this issue more palatable to a scientifically based mindset audience.

So, i will ask you what your personal view is regarding the post-death existence of the personality?

I don't expect you to give an answer that is rationally based or even scientifically based here.

My personal view is that the personality survives. Not as an ego, but as something much more encompassing and which preserves the "memory" of the experiences of the ego. Jung has called it the Self.

But in a science paper, it's not about what my personal views are; it's about what I can substantiate objectively...

[Bernardo]

Originally Posted by EthanT

Hi Bernardo,

Great paper, I enjoyed reading it.

One question. You mentioned that the idea of a collective unconscious is contradicted by the materialist position.

In comparitive mythology, they often say that the simple reason for similar imagery/myths/symbols cropping up in different cultures in disparate regions, is that we are all "wired the same way". (Although, it seems many of the greats in comparitive mythology, like Joseph Campbell, ultimately didn't buy into this, even if it may be the standard way to talk about it in acedemia. In fact, I believe Jung himself alluded the idea that this is one way to interpret the collective unconscious)

This would seem to suggest the collective unconscious is not clearly contradictory with the materialist position. Do you have any counter to that, which could possibly put that question to rest?

Hi Ethan,

The devil lies in the details :-). In the paper, I tried to explicitly say that what I meant with "collective unconscious" was something that far transcended mere genetic pre-disposition shared by the members of a species. I say this twice in the paper, just to make sure.

Jung contradicted himself on this in different writings. When DNA was discovered in 1953, Jung was having the final years of his life. The hype was huge, but nobody had yet really understood the breath of the explanatory power of the discovery of DNA. Today we understand the limitations it has in explaining specific mental contents. Back then, I think Jung got a bit caught up in the hype and associated DNA to the collective unconscious a couple of times, in an attempt to remain "scientific" (which clearly was important to him). But for anyone who has diligently studied Jung's writings and his broader characterization of the collective unconscious, I think it is abundantly clear that what he describes cannot be due to similarities in DNA. His book "The archetypes and the collective unconscious," for instance, discusses examples of reports of psychotic patients that led him to the hypothesis of the collective unconscious. The examples are highly specific narratives and imagery that fall far outside the explanatory power of a genetic inheritance.

Either way, when I say "collective unconscious" in the paper I mean something far more encompassing than mere genetic predispositions. It's ludicrous to suggest that protein coding can carry the vast, highly specific imagery, narratives, themes, and general archetypes of the collective unconscious.

[Bernardo]

Originally Posted by Bernardo

...for anyone who has diligently studied Jung's writings and his broader characterization of the collective unconscious, I think it is abundantly clear that what he describes cannot be due to similarities in DNA. His book "The archetypes and the collective unconscious," for instance, discusses examples of reports of psychotic patients that led him to the hypothesis of the collective unconscious. The examples are highly specific narratives and imagery that fall far outside the explanatory power of a genetic inheritance.

I found an example of what I say above, which I thought is worth sharing. See pages 50-51 of Jung's "The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious." Jung had a psychotic patient who described to him the following vision:

"Surely you see the sun's penis -- when I move my head to and fro, it moves too, and that is where the wind comes from."

In a book published afterwards, an author translated and interpreted an ancient Greek myth found in a papyrus. Relevant segments:

"The path of the visible gods will appear through the disc of the sun ... Likewise, the so-called tube, the origin of the ministering wind. For you will see hanging down from the disc of the sun something that looks like a tube ... it is as though there were an infinite east wind. But if the other wind should prevail ... you will in like manner see the vision veering in that direction."

If you think DNA can encode such richness and specificity of detail of narrative and imagery... well... you have quite a capacity for belief. :-) You see, nobody knows how memories are encoded to begin with. So the role of DNA in encoding memory (if any) is totally unclear anyway, let alone collective species memory with this degree of specificity. It boils down to faith in the magic powers of DNA, something that merely codes proteins, for capturing information with just 23 thousand genes that still have to encode the rest of the body...

[EthanT]

Originally Posted by Bernardo

It's ludicrous to suggest that protein coding can carry the vast, highly specific imagery, narratives, themes, and general archetypes of the collective unconscious.

I agree with everything you said, with special emphasis on the last part above.

It's like before they mapped out the human genome, many were sure they were going to find the origins of most, if not all, disease. Expecting something on the order of 200,000+ genes, they found around ~25,000, which happens to be less than certain varieties of rice!

So, if genes fell short here, as well as other areas, I'm sure they will fall short when it comes to the collective unconscious.

But, normally where folks go next is they'll say it's not only genes and "brain wiring", but also a similar set of shared experiences we have on this planet, as we develop and grow, that produce the similar mythologies and conscious/unconscious experiences we have. I guess it's the usual materialistic promissory note you mentioned, which never really fully describes these kinds of things and leaves an uneasy feeling with one's intuition.

It just that we don't seem to have a fully developed non-materialistic theory of consciousness either, despite the fact that it makes more sense and seems more complete than the materialistic theories (to me, anyhow!)

Perhaps, I am looking for the ultimate little piece of logic, or piece of evidence, that will settle the issue once and for all. I'll probably have to wait a little while longer for that, though

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by David R

I think the critique of your idea here is that you haven't attempted to explain how a personality survives the death of the brain. Hence, the attempt to question your assumptions even in the presence of your attempt to make this issue more palatable to a scientifically based mindset audience.

So, i will ask you what your personal view is regarding the post-death existence of the personality?

I don't expect you to give an answer that is rationally based or even scientifically based here.

Aspects of our "personality" change all the time. Compare the present you to when you were a child. Compare the present you to when you've had a few alcoholic drinks. Look at the change in Phineas Gage's personality after he had his accident. Should reincarnation occur my perceived personality might be radically different from one life to the next. If there is a "life after death" it's not our personalities which are important. It's whether the self survives. And no, the self is not the ego! The self is ones essence which influences aspects of our personalities.

Haven't read your paper yet Bernardo, but I will.