Mind and Brain
Much learning does not teach understanding
Heraclitus, Fifth century BCE
Much learning means little wisdom
Lao Tze, ~Sixth century BCE
2,500 years later..
How is it we have so much information, but know so little?
Noam Chomsky
How does Mind relate to Brain? The ‘mind-body problem’ has always been the Big One. Every philosopher has wrestled with it. Religion says God did it all, so don’t bother your pretty little head about it. Science (here meaning Materialist science) claims that brain creates mind, but with no evidence to support this notion nor any logical theory to make the claim from.
§ The best ‘theory/evidence’ I have heard is the circular illogicality of ‘But we all have brains, don’t we? And we all have ideas, don’t we? So it must be the brain that makes the ideas!’ I’ve heard several Materialists say this, but I’ve sometimes noticed a note of doubt in their eye as they say it. Perhaps they wonder if there may be a loose cannon somewhere in their armoury?
It is not logical to assume that A (‘brain’, for example) causes B (‘mind’, for example) just because A and B are associated in some way. As a silly example: trees moving their branches (A), and wind (B) are clearly connected. But it is not rational to claim that wind is therefore caused by trees waving their branches about. All scientists are very aware of this problem of deciding what is Cause and what is Effect, and they strive intently to get it right… except, it seems, at the very deepest levels of the philosophy within which they do and interpret their work; which is a great shame.
The essence of the mind-brain issue must lie in ‘meaning’, I think.
‘Meaning’ is as abstract as you can get, having no material existence at all. A Materialist is nonplussed if you ask him how chemicals create meaning out of nothing but themselves. He may enthuse about DNA and future developments, and complexity theory, and ’emergent’ qualities, and may get excited about fractals, but he will have nothing to offer if you press him for details or for references you can check out.
§ If you do have evidence for chemicals containing meaning, you should claim your Nobel Prize immediately by ringing the Permanent Secretary at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences: Tel. Sweden 08-673 95 02.
Clearly, DNA/neurotransmitters/currents are vital to the functioning of the brain, but that’s not the point here. It’s not the mechanics we’re interested in, but the principle of how purely material entities can possibly carry or ‘be’ meaning.
Of course brain cells are living entities and not insensate DNA or neurotransmitters. But we must not forget that Materialism claims that these cells themselves spontaneously self-assembled from insensate chemicals and nothing but insensate chemicals.
§ ‘Somehow these very ordinary atoms (of eg oxygen, carbon, iron, zinc, etc) conspired miraculously to organise themselves into thinking, breathing, living human beings.’ Professor Jim Al-Khalili, on BBC4‘s The Secret Life of Chaos.
A collector’s item for gobbledegook-hunters: ‘conspire’; ‘miraculously’; ‘organise themselves’…
§ ‘Lightning was probably the force that created the first life on earth.’ Heather Couper, Astronomer Royal.
Why should unintelligent lightning be a more acceptable Prime Mover than a Vast Intelligence, one wonders? It’s the Dogma speaking…
A (Materialist) neuroscientist who has restrained his outrage so far, might jump up at this point and yell ‘But what about neural networks? One brain cell might not amount to much, but what about a vast inter-linked network? Who knows what that might achieve?’
I understand the Scientist’s irritation, but again ‘complexity’ is not the point, just as it was not when discussing DNA. Neural networks do illustrate how complex a brain might be, containing, as an average brain apparently does, some hundred thousand million neurons, each networking to possibly thousands of others,
§ It has been calculated that if every neuron in your brain were to connect to its maximum capacity, then the number of connections would be far greater than all the subatomic particles in the entire universe. Your brain is the most complex known structure in the universe.
It is estimated that there are also a hundred thousand million stars in our galaxy; and a hundred thousand million galaxies in the universe. A curious coincidence.
but all of these are reducible to chemicals in the Materialist philosophy. The question remains: how can a mass of 100% abiotic chemicals, no matter how galactically interconnected, store the memory of a scene at the seaside, with kids running about in multicoloured outfits, ski-jets racketing across the bay, and a girl in a distracting bikini walloping a lifesaver about the chops with a large wet fish, in principle? If there is no theoretical principle, then it must be foolish to look for proof, as there can be no proof.
§ This is the same argument that Materialists use against investigating the paranormal. But what I am trying to point out (in broad principle at the moment; in more detail later) is that the paranormal is backed up by evidence and some sort of consistent theory, as witnessed by all the closely linked Yogic/Esoteric doctrines, whereas Materialism is backed by no evidence at all and a serially paradoxical and therefore irrational theory. That is a very great difference.
Philosophy, Religion and Science have not come up with a solution to the Mind-Body problem. The Yogi, on the other hand, does have a solution which is rational and self-consistent. He starts with ‘meaning’ (and therefore Mind) being quite separate from Matter. This is a more rational starting point than the magic required by Materialism, but is not in itself enough to resolve the problem. If meaning and Mind exist apart from the Body (brain) then the obvious question Why does Mind need a brain at all? And what about all that DNA and the chemical neurotransmitters and the enormous skeins of electrical activity that fill every brain?
Let us accept for the moment the Yogic/Esoteric doctrine that Man’s purpose in this world of polarities is to better his character, meanwhile raising his vibes, and to thus increase his personal power and personal responsibility for himself and his actions: to become fully autonomous, in other words: ‘a god in the making’ as some say.
§ For example ‘Ye are gods.’ Jesus, quoted in John 10:35.
Jesus and Buddha both insisted on growth via personal responsibility of choice of action, rather than expecting ‘salvation’ via rules or rituals. The Christian reformation aligned itself unwittingly with Buddhism when it taught that Man should put childish dependency behind him. Now he should grow up and take responsibility for his own life (or ‘growth’, ‘evolution’, ‘salvation’, or ‘enlightenment’.)
Let us also assume that the medium through which self-improvement occurs is the absolute Law of Karma and Reincarnation: your errors of selfishness will haunt you until you correct them. When perfected, you may leave this mortal coil and move on to greater things.
Next, the Yogi’s train of thought develops the ideas touched upon in the previous chapter: that this world is the world of polarities: male/female; light/dark; left/right; positive/negative; left-brain/right-brain; etc, all summed up neatly in one of the meanings of the ‘qi symbol’.
In this case the symbol represents the principles of polarity: the dark cold yin (feminine, moist, passive, negative, etc) and the bright hot yang (male, dry, active, positive, etc), held as complementary opposites within an all-embracing circular whole, or unity. In other words, this world is the realm of relativism. (A rule of particle physics that says that ‘for each particle, there exists an antiparticle’, would support this.)
The other world, the Yogi says, is the ‘holistic’ world of perfect unity, as in the rim of the ch’i symbol, and the circle enclosing the Celtic cross, where all poles are reconciled: where ‘yoga/union’ has been achieved, and the act of ‘re-ligare/re-connection’ has occurred.
§ Hence the ‘unified’ androgyne (male + female) figure that crops up in alchemy, the Tarot system, and on Indian temple carvings, etc. Wiccans represent the temporary polarity/duality of This world as the God and the Goddess.
The brain is not a creative item, but the opposite: its purpose is to keep information out of our limited This-World consciousness. The Yogic/Esoteric doctrine sees this world as an educational system: the Higher world is the world of ‘panmentia’ (all-knowledge), from which rays of Intuition occasionally descend to ‘enlighten’ us, or at least help us to solve a crossword clue, according to our receptive ability or readiness; and we earn our higher ability or readiness by our own actions. It’s the parable of the seed and the fertile ground again.
§ Sorry about the new word, but I think we need one here. ‘Omniscience’ which would seem like the obvious choice actually means ‘The condition of knowing all things’. I’m suggesting ‘panmentia’ to mean ‘the knowledge-in-potential of all things’. A person will achieve ‘omniscience’ after accessing panmentia. Does that make sense?
§ The four layers of mental stuff:
1) Data.. which, when mechanically sorted becomes…
2) Information.. which, when intelligently organised becomes…
3) Knowledge.. which, when intuitively integrated becomes…
4) Wisdom (meaning).
I guess the Esoteric addition would be:
4) Wisdom: which, when intuitive integration is perfect becomes…
5) Omniscience (of Panmentia).
Clearly, unrestricted access to information above our capability to integrate would be a disaster, as victims of a bad LSD trip can testify, along with anyone who has weakened ‘the veil’ that the Yogic/Esoteric doctrine speaks of, perhaps by occult dabblings, and has thus allowed access to the conscious mind for creatures and ideas that are best kept outside, in the sub- or super-conscious.
§ As a frankly extreme metaphor: imagine that dogs were suddenly capable of understanding how to ride a bike, without all the background knowledge and wisdom that goes along with bicycles, like driving on the left, road courtesy, oiling the chain etc. The M25 would become a shambles overnight. Psychiatrists regularly have to deal with people who are convinced that they are God or Jesus. Too much information crossing a weakened veil, into a brain/mind complex that hasn’t been properly prepared to receive or correctly interpret it, is a recipe for disaster and delusion, a Yogi would say.
Several paranormal and mental occurrences might be half-explained via the brain-as-filter breaking down or being over-ridden somehow, producing everything from angelic visions to hallucinations and some sorts of schizophrenia, if Drs Wickland and Peck (see Chapter 18) are even half-right.
§ ‘The veil’ is a real physical thing, the Yogis say, but of a highly refined nature (cf etheric/astral/mental matter, as in Chapters 17 & 18). The brain has etheric etc bodies just as the body as a whole does. The chakras are closely involved in how strong the veil is. No space to elaborate here. There are lots of sites on the www concerning chakras. Try http://www.healer.ch/Chakras–e.html
In dreams, we access these filtered-out elements more freely, and can even use them to further our development, as noted by lucid dreamers.
Modern neuroscience has found areas of the brain associated with filtering mechanisms that allow us to pay attention in distracting circumstances. Maybe this is a connection? Maybe there are more connections to come? Thus, one might guess that at least some of the chemical and electrical activity in the brain is symptomatic of the filter in action.
One might also guess that as a person raises his vibe, so does he facilitate extra connections between particular neurons. Perhaps a Perfected Man has a perfect net of connections, and thus accesses panmentia.
But the precise relationship between Mind and Matter remains a mystery.
PET scanners and fMRI machines show that various areas of the brain light up when a person is shown pictures of patterns, puzzles, family, buildings or erotica. Sensory stimuli of all kinds can affect the brain most powerfully, and in a broadly predictable manner.
§ But only ‘broadly’. People stubbornly refuse to react like machines. Some react strongly to a particular stimulus; others weakly. Some refuse to react at all. We really are all different, and may not reasonably be treated as only biological machines, or Richard Dawkins’ ‘living objects’. It is a fact that some people are actually allergic to penicillin, and others have been killed by ingesting a tiny grain of peanut, of all things.
The left parietal lobe, for example, is concerned with spatial sense and navigation; the temporal lobes seem to be connected to the processing of sound and speech. The amygdala is associated with fearfulness. Thousands of these correlations have been reported, but nothing in the brain is simple. Every ‘fact’ discovered raises a dozen other questions. (Picture thanks to ?)
One puzzle is why do we have two brains? Our left brain seems to be mainly associated with mathematical and coping abilities, while our right brain seems to be more concerned with emotional and relationship issues.
§ Left Brain: verbal, mathematical, intellectual, sequential, processes linearly, logical, objective, plans ahead, analytic, introspective. ‘Male‘ (so to speak).
Right Brain: visual, tactile, feeling, intuitive, holistic, processes in chunks, subjective, spontaneous, imaginative, relational, extroverted. ‘Female’ (also so to speak).
Iain McGilchrist would find this Male-Female division howlingly inappropriate, but I think it will do for the moment. See Mr McG’s brilliant book The Master and his Emissary for a more detailed and respectable explanation of L and R brains.
The present book is written by one left-brain for another, being mainly concerned with logic. But the LB needs RB Intuition to integrate the information and ideas in it. Most men do seem to be left-brain dominant, and most women do tend to be more right-brain dominant; but women are also better at using both sides of the brain at once.**
Another simplification would claim that the left brain analyses while the right brain synthesises. I wonder whether one day we’ll discover that the Left Brain is primarily used by the ego or Lower Mind, while the Right Brain is largely for the Higher Mind? And would this explain why women (mainly Right Brain dominant) are generally more sensitive and intuitive than Left Brain dominant men?
Just to add to the puzzle: each brain tends to affect the opposite side of the body. Thus, your left-brain controls your right leg. What’s more, it seems that left-handed people may or may not have the same left-brain and right-brain function balance as right-handers, and it seems that our nasal functions do not cross-over at all.
Professor John Lorber reported that only a minority of the people he’s examined with hydrocephalus (‘water on the brain’) have motor problems on the opposite side as the problem in the brain, meaning that the crossover effect is usually missing.
These examples show how hard it is to make Laws concerning anything to do with the brain, and none of the Sort-of-Laws go any way to explaining how the chemical pudding in the skull relates to the fundamental core of our mental being: ‘meaning’. And we must always remember that ‘Lorber student’ who had only a rind for a brain. (More shortly.)
***
Even ‘memory’ is hard to pin down in the brain. We all think that memories are stored in our heads, but science can’t find them. Not for sure, at least.
Wilder Penfield discovered in the 1950’s that if you touch a certain point on the brain, certain memories can be reliably re-lived, sometimes with associated sounds or smells. More recent work, using lasers and ‘optogenetics’ appears to be able to pinpoint a specifically induced memory to a specific group of neurons, in genetically-engineered mice, at least. This is intriguing, but there are two snags for the ‘brain holds memory’ theory. Firstly, re-calling a memory by prodding a neuron does not prove that the memory lies at the point of prodding. When you press a door bell and a voice answers you, that does not prove that the voice lives in the doorbell. What we know is that prod and memory are somehow associated. We do not know how. Secondly, if memory were somehow held in the (chemicals and electricity) of the brain, you would expect to be able to find one memory per cell, or something similar. But it doesn’t seem to work that way. When recalling something, the brain cascades with light in an fMRI scan. Patches and stripes of networks and brain areas ‘talk to’ each other.
It is sometimes suggested that memories are somehow encoded before mechanical storage in the brain. But if so, there arises another problem in that we need a force (or many forces) to do the encoding. What is this force? Where is it held? What is the code? Where are memories encoded? How does it allocate coded memories to cells or complex and diversified networks? How does it distinguish between sight, sound, and smells? What controls this force? How does it control it? And how does it organise the retrieval system to pick out the one single useful answer you are looking for from the millions of memories that we have access to? Or, even more mind-bogglingly, from all the thousands of elements of sound, sight, colour and movement that went into the memory of that day at the seaside, wet fish and all? Materialism has no answer to any of these problems (and to be fair Idealism has only a broad theory to offer. But it’s a start!)
There is some light on the horizon, but from an unexpected direction. The Daily Telegraph reported on March 15, 2008, that a woman claims to have ‘changed completely’ since having a kidney transplant. She used to read ‘low’ novels but now she prefers Dostoevsky and Jane Austen, and became snappy for a while after the operation. She is clear that these changes are a result of the transplant. This is not a unique case. The Daily Mail of 31 March 2006 reported that a certain William Sheridan’s artistic ability blossomed from the stick-man level to drawing beautiful landscapes and wildlife pictures after he’d had a heart transplant. He later discovered that the donor had been an artist. Dr Gary Schwartz, a professor at the University of Arizona, says he has documented 70 cases where he believes transplant recipients have inherited the traits of their donors.
§ In fact, it seems to be a well-known phenomenon, now usually called ‘cellular memory’. People have reported changes in taste for food, music and art, and in sexual, recreational, and career preferences.
How can this be? Materialism suggests only ‘hysteria’ or ‘hallucination’ or some other ill-defined term which does not explain the enduring precision of the changes in the recipients’ personalities and tastes, or the mechanism whereby lumpen chemicals might generate a preference for Dostoevsky. The hypothesis that the Yogic/Esoteric doctrine would support is that the donor organ, the physical lump of flesh, does not contain the memory and attitudes, as such. Instead the memory/attitudes etc reside (as some sort of vibration-complex (or morphic field?) in the astral/mental bodies which infuse and surround the physical organ, and travel with it on its journey from donor to recipient.
§ This suggests that memory may be a holistic thing. Let’s suppose an aptitude for skiing, say, can be transferred along with a kidney. It is reasonable to suppose that kidneys have no special relationship to the piste. Thus one might reasonably expect a liver or heart transplanted from the same person to also take along with it a love of skiing. One might then surmise that our whole body is suffused with our emotional and mental aptitudes and desires, as a sort of huge (Yogic Emotional/Mental body?) hologram, presumably operating at the cellular level. And our memories too? Those holy relics come to mind again. So too does morphic resonance.
It does also make one wonder about the possibility of importing into our own body the traumas and distress felt by a slaughtered animal.
It would be easy to test whether a partial ‘personality transplant’ can accompany an organ transplant (or multiple transplants… it seems we have 78 organs or maybe more, depending upon your definition of an organ), but I don’t think Materialist doctors will be queuing up to do the work. After all, ‘These things can’t happen, and therefore they don’t happen’, seems to be the working rule. But some brave soul will dare to do the simple thing one day, and just check. Then he’ll have the much trickier job of getting his findings published and not burned.
§ Just for fun…. It would seem that the Left Brain (LB) is excellent for recording and systematising ‘worldly’ things: ie, it is the tool of logic and science. Hence, we might say that it is the creator of stasis in the Mind: ie, it offers a world of certainty (or at least, attempts to) based upon measurement of ‘things known’ created in the past. Conversely, it would seem that the Right Brain (RB) is the realm of what one might call ‘otherworldly’ (intuitive?) things, meaning all kinds of things, but principally ‘creativity’ (ie ‘things as yet unknown’)…. and thus the future.
Taking the above as reasonable, might we thus suggest that LB stasis might very well lead to predictability, frustration, and even boredom in our everyday life? While the RB offers creative freedom, options, and excitement? What do you think?
Hobbies? Music? Knitting? Writing? Even sport? All attempts to break out of the routine LB predictability and into some kind of necessary creative freedom?
More Mind and Brain…
The last thing man will understand in nature is the performance of his brain
John C Eccles
Just to add to the bewilderment of how the brain/mind works, perhaps we should spend a few moments on the mystery of vision.
We see through the eyes. Light bounces off things and enters our eyes. It passes through the lens, registers on the retina, and is then converted into electrical signals at an estimated rate of ~9Mbps: a decent broadband rate. Note: ‘visible light’, is converted into invisible electrical pulses.
If you find this material interesting, your friends might, too. Please tell them….CG