In particular, there is the question as to whether the mind is a 'blank slate', as suggested by John Locke and Stephen Pinker. — Jack Cummins

Pinker's book, The Blank Slate, explicitly argues against the notion of a blank slate.

I don't believe that 'mind' can be reduced to psychology, because it is at the core of human existence. So, in the light of cognitive science and neuroscience, how, and what do you see as the overriding and outstanding issues of the philosophy of mind in the twentieth first century? Is there any essential debate beyond the scope of psychology? — Jack Cummins

The brutal fact of the matter, Jack, is that as far as mainstream science and academic philosophy is concerned, 'mind is what brain does'. In the mainstream, it is viewed squarely through the perspectives of neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and pyschology, and those who dissent are invariably characterised as fringe or new-age - the author you cite would doubtlessly be described as such by a lot of people.

Surveys in academic philosophy, as Banno frequently points out, show only a very small percentage of respondents support or advocate for philosophical idealism (from memory, less than 2%.) The majority, presumably, operate under a paradigm such as reductive or non-reductive physicalism or something of the kind.

There is a US University department, the Division of Perceptual Studies at University of Virginia, founded by past-life memories researcher Ian Stevenson, which is devoted to paranormal psychology. You'll find their published books on philosophy of mind and paranormal psychology here. There's also a thriving industry of books and videos devoted to these ideas, they're certainly not bereft of an audience, but most universities won't go near them.

As far as 'mind fields' are concerned, I think Rupert Sheldrake is one source, although his ideas extend beyond philosophy of mind per se. He is often derided as a crackpot - Steve Pinker and others say he's a pseudo-scientist - but he at least has a seat at the table, so to speak. His website is at sheldrake.org. This video interview also seems relevant.

A question I ponder is, if there are fields other than electromagnetic fields - the existence of which is clearly demonstrable - how would they be detected? By what instruments? Sheldrake's 'morphic fields' are related to earlier ideas of morphogenetic fields which have fallen out of favour, but were regarded as part of the mainstream at the time. One analogy I think makes kind of sense is the body/mind as being more like a receiver or transmitter of consciousness rather than the originator of it. But of course that leaves a lot of open questions. (It is one of the ideas discussed by Sheldrake in the video cited above.)

I am hoping that I am not raising a stale and overtired area of thinking, especially in relation to the mind-body relationship, as well as between idealism and physicalism — Jack Cummins

Afraid so, but don't let that stop you.

I don't believe that 'mind' can be reduced to psychology, because it is at the core of human existence. — Jack Cummins

I agree but for a contrary reason: I think body is "at the core of human existence" and that "mind" is a description, in part, for what our bodies – brains – mostly involuntarily do (i.e. our 'subjective' way of talking about ourselves and others). Just as 'existence precedes essence' in existentialism, body enables-constrains mind is the basis of embodied philosophy (but given your more 'esoteric' preferences, you"ve ignored for years the links and lists I've offered, Jack, so I won't bother referring to them again) that deflates or eliminates reliance on 'folk psychology' (i.e. dis-embodied subject (soul) ... and the prevailing apologia e.g. psychoanalysis, psychotherapy ... Husserlian phenomenology, Kantian/Hegelian idealism, Cartesian dualism, Platonism). I suppose my stubborn anti-supernaturalist bias is why I can't grok subjectivist (or spiritualist) conceptions of "mind". :sparkle: :eyes:

update:

From a 2023 thread Consciousness question ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/756241

:up:

That's useful to know as I was reading, 'The Language Instinct'. It may show my weakness based on reading about Pinker's ideas and attempts to put ideas into categories, especially thinkers such as Pinker and Dennett. I hope that this does not mean that my entire thread will be dismissed because as far as I see it the question of what is inherited as 'mind', is a central area of thinking underpinning all psychological theories.

Try an analogy.

What is radio broadcast? "Radio broadcast is what radio receivers do."

Common sense - you never hear the radio except when there is a radio receiver, and it has to be turned on, like a functioning brain.

Except it's obviously false; the broadcasts come from elsewhere, and permeate space, and the radio receivers make it locally manifest when they are tuned to the appropriate frequency. At least, that is the faith I have been brought up with - I have never actually seen a "broadcast".

It is not that I don't see the body as essential to existence. After writing the thread I have become physically unwell, with a sore throat and possibly a fever. It would be a mistake to separate such bodily illness from mind. Dualism may be an illusion, but it does come down to whether mind or matter is primary and Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness' does describe the centrality of body for being.

Disembodied existence most probably doesn't make sense in many ways, although at times I am not certain of this. I do believe that ghosts are disturbances in energy fields rather than the literal souls. However, there does appear to be an essential lifeforce, like the spark of consciousness or animation. Of course, this is not unique to human beings, but mind as in reflective consciousness separates humans. It is bound up with language and this gives rise to ideas, although it is possible that the ideas exist independently of human consciousness. That is debatable though, as indicated in the recognised question as to whether there is a sound of a tree falls and no one is around to hear it.

You can look at mind as the manifestation of brain-consciousness. Or you can look at mind as the correlate of the products of the "sciences of the spirit" (Geistwissenschaften). From a scientific standpoint, it is evident in both. Which is why Nicolai Hartmann can say "the same mode of being, reality, encompasses everything from matter to spirit." (New Ways of Ontology)

Some people are only able to intuit the evidence of mind as it correlates to their own thoughts. Which leads to an organic limitation. Some people are able to intuit the evidence of mind in this broader sphere, which aligns with a broader, "spiritualized" conception of mind. The fact that mind evolves cybernetically (as growing knowledge) over generations testifies to its trans-physical nature

I have read Sheldrake and found his approach interesting with the idea of morphic fields as a memory underlying nature. At the time of reading his writing I did think his perspective would be a foundation for belief in reincarnation, even though I am unsure if Sheldrake would go that far.

The dialogue between Buddhism and neuroscience is also important and I understand that the debate about physicalism and idealism exists within Buddhist thought. It is probably hard to ignore the basis of physical embodiment in the scientific sense because so much about the brain, with the main issue being whether mind can be reduced to brain entirely. The consciousness may have a certain transcendent nature.

The idea of radio broadcast is important and it is as if the brain and senses are the machinery of consciousness. It does go back to the issue of whether the brain and nervous system are a filter as in Bergson' s thinking, which was drawn upon by Aldous Huxley in 'The Doors of Perception'.

The concept of spirit is important although Hegel's idea of it as imminent is an important contribution. The idea of spirit is a often associated more with religious viewpoints but the idea of 'manifestation' is a relevant concept because it implies something as a source of life, and that may be the central basis of belief in 'God', but not necessarily in the form of the anthromorphism. It is more along the lines of the anthropic principle.

So, in the light of cognitive science and neuroscience, how, and what do you see as the overriding and outstanding issues of the philosophy of mind in the twentieth first century? — Jack Cummins

Yikes. Talk about a loaded question…….

If the conditions are limited to cognitive science and neuroscience, wouldn’t it be science of mind? Which leads to a contradiction, insofar as the science of mind would need to empirically decide the absence or impossibility of that which is necessarily presupposed, but never intended for empirical status, susceptible to, thus legislated by, methodological naturalism, re: scientific rigor.

If philosophy of mind, and because philosophy proper has no use of empirical experimentation, the light of neuroscience would seem to be pretty dim with respect to purely abstract conceptions, in spite of the gross reifications by which they arise.

So…overriding/outstanding issue? Neglect of lane.

However, there does appear to be an essential lifeforce, like the spark of consciousness or animation. — Jack Cummins

"Appear" to whom? Like aether, phlogiston, qi ... elan vital has been debunked as a "force" or "energy", so are you speaking metaphorically? The philosophical significance of "essential lifeforce" is lost on an Epicurean/Spinozist like me.

“Mind” is the limited and naive theory of one’s own body from the perspective of someone who is unable to observe what is actually occurring. The hypothesis represents the subjective disconnect between states of feelings and states of affairs.

I am certain that if our senses pointed inwards our so-called inner lives would be less of a mystery. In there is a multiplicity of parts and movements we just aren’t privy to in the present arraignment. All one can do is try to make sense of the odd feeling here and there, maybe the discomfort emanating from an illness or pain, insofar as whatever causes them is able to reach the sensual aspects of the body and make itself known—a niggling fever could be the only evidence of a much greater malady, for example

Since we are unable to observe what is occurring in a majority of the body, the nature of our subjective lives is always one of grasping, the result of trying to understand inward while forever looking out.

What do you expect from me as I am a psychonaut, so I see myself and others as being spirit. What may make matters worse from your critique of me I do have some sympathy with the idea of a subtle body, or astral body. This is based on some experiences of astral projection, although I realise that such experiences are not to be taken as literally 'out of body', with the body as a container..Nevertheless, I think that there is some 'truth' in the idea of chakras, but it may be a kind of symbolic realm, as opposed to the causal order of the material world.

I am certain that if our senses pointed inwards our so-called inner lives would be less of a mystery. In there is a multiplicity of parts and movements we just aren’t privy to in the present arraignment. — NOS4A2

What form do you imagine such internal sensors taking? After all, if we had an internal eye and light source to look at our brain as a whole, I wouldn't expect it to provide much interesting information.

In a very meaningful sense we do have senses pointing inward, in that we have neurons in our brains which monitor and report on the goings on in other parts of our brains. I suppose a case might be made for it potentially being beneficial to have such internal monitoring to a greater degree, but natural selection tends to weed out features like heads too big to pass through a mother's birth canal.

Personally I wouldn’t imagine such a being. The best way to go about such monitoring is to utilize the senses of others, and maybe some invasive technologies, should they ever become safe enough.

My question arises because neuroscience has changed the thinking of mind completely. There was so much more of a unity between philosophy and psychology prior to major developments in the twentieth century, in psychiatry as well as psychology. There had been so much mystification about mental states and even attributing mental.illness to 'demon possession. Ideas of biochemistry of the brain and CT scanning changed so much.

So, it may be getting to the point where science almost makes the pictures of nervous system explain everything, with philosophical issues getting missed. Some of the central conceptual issues may still remain at the underpinning of different approaches and cognitive models are often seen as far more accurate theories as opposed to the psychodynamic thinkers. The crossovers between the approaches may be important as well as the empirical approach of evidence.
.

Subjectivity is often the area of psychotherapy and there may be an important aspect in research. However, one's own mind is not possible without some basis in subjectivity. Feedback from others may be useful to some extent in gaining some objectivity through others' perceptions.

It may even lead to an understanding of one's own blindspots but the ego may stand in the way and allow for limited insight into mind and self as a doorway of self awareness and the layers of subconscious which may be masked by the nature of the persona. This may go into the territory of social psychology and and awareness of social processes, including the dynamics of projection.

At the time of reading his writing I did think his perspective would be a foundation for belief in reincarnation, even though I am unsure if Sheldrake would go that far. — Jack Cummins

See this interview.

His theory of morphic resonance posits that there is a kind of collective memory accessible to individuals, which can manifest as memories that seem to come from past lives. This theory sits at the intersection of science and spirituality, suggesting that phenomena often attributed to reincarnation could instead be understood through a shared, collective memory framework.

Sheldrake's approach allows for the acknowledgment and acceptance of memories of past lives without necessitating belief in reincarnation as the migration of a soul or person from one body to another across lifetimes. Instead, it suggests that individuals might "tune into" memories from the collective past, which could explain why some people have vivid, detailed recollections that seem to be from lives they never lived.

This idea finds a parallel in Buddhist teachings on rebirth, where continuity from one life to the next is not that of an individual, but rather a stream of consciousness (citta-santana) conditioned by karma. In Buddhism, there is no static self or soul that transmigrates, but a causal matrix of mental and physical conditions forms as a being, due to actions and intentions set in motion in previous lives.

I am hoping that I am not raising a stale and overtired area of thinking, especially in relation to the mind-body relationship, as well as between idealism and physicalism. — Jack Cummins

I'm afraid that most respondents to "Mind" questions will divide themselves along the lines you mentioned. My personal worldview --- and mindview --- is somewhere in the middle of that Idealism---Realism range, but some critics tend to put me into whichever category best suits their high-minded position and superior/dismissive attitude.

FWIW, I recently wrote a blog post*1 on the unapologetic Idealist, Bernardo Kastrup : link below. His book is compact & concise, as he cogently argues pro-Idealism, but not necessarily anti-realism. I don't consider myself to be in either camp philosophically, but this forum will try to force you to commit to one or the other political position. :smile:


*1. How Does the Brain Create Mind?
In his book, Science Ideated, computer scientist Bernardo Kastrup argues with philosophers about the nature of the Conscious Mind.
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page14.html
Note --- click where indicated by an arrow to see hidden images

What do you expect from me as I am a psychonaut, so I see myself and others as being spirit. — Jack Cummins

Same as every other member of TPF, Jack, I expect from you what I expect from myself: good reasoning and valid arguments rather than unwarranted opinions or superstitions which are more suited for social media gossip than rational discussions. So you're just a "psychonaut" :sparkle: and not a (non-academic) philosopher?

Maybe this will interest you, Jack; maybe not ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/891620

:lol:

... somewhere in the middle of that Idealism---Realism range ... — Gnomon

Clarify, if you can, why you believe "Idealism and Realism" are disparate conceptual positions on a continuum which are different by degrees rather than different in kind.

:up:

Though there is value in it, and I mean this respectfully, why restrict the discourse to an analysis of the present state of scholarship?

Take dogs, for instance.

Save for my deficiency in Scientific terminology and precision, is this not what our dogs are in Reality? As much as we fantasize about their human qualities. If we’re being honest, isn’t it this? That for dogs, they are not these human-like experiences of love and desire to please, arising out of some advanced empathy, or out of any of the other qualities we superimpose upon them.

But rather, aren’t dogs really an organism which evolved (was bred?) to bond with humans? For them, a most-fit-for-survival-trait. And how are they driven to so bond? Is this where the love etc. comes in? No. They evolved to receive feelings of bliss when we engage in bonding, react positively toward them, and negation of bliss if our bond seems threatened.

There is no story to it but the ones we superimpose upon that natural bond with our Minds’ Language. Signifiers are constructed to displace what is Real. Dog wags tail and licks face: the Signifiers “good boy, I love you too,” displace what in reality was a triggered response to the treat, the contact, or so on.

Now folks may stubbornly reject that, but imagine you accept it, if only for safe passage to the next paragraph.

Now. Why isn’t it obvious that it’s the same for all organisms, sentient and sophisticated ones too, including humans? Why have we, in all our millennia of mythologies and philosophies not settled upon that we are not in God’s image, endowed with an independently willful soul which must be located, but that we are only a conceited ape?

We too, in Reality, are beings driven by evolution to respond to triggers in various ways. What is real human consciousness? Aware-ing those processes, those triggers, drives, responses, organically. What is beyond that for humans, no less than for dogs, is what Mind, a system of evolved Signifiers, superimposes on those drives and responses. Signifiers become the almost exclusive triggers for organic responses, like feelings and movement; empty, fleeting images stored in memory, autonomously constructing Fiction in ways evolved over dozens of millennia, and still evolving, and displacing Reality; usurping sensation, displacing it with perception, feelings with emotions, and image-ing with ideas.

What is Mind? A layer of autonomously dynamic Signifiers displacing being with time and its Narratives. Consciousness, for Humans is displaced by that fiction. Not Real. Always, only Becoming.

What is Reality? For the humans, as for dogs, it is the Organism in its organism-ing. Always present. Being.

There is no story to it but the ones we superimpose upon that natural bond with our Minds’ Language.
.........
Why have we, in all our millennia of mythologies and philosophies not settled upon that we are not in God’s image — ENOAH

Well, I'm not sure how much flack I'm gonna get for this, but you went and reminded me of something. And it's not inappropriate for the site, even if it doesn't necessarily belong in this thread.

Arguably, the best thing that the world of comic books has ever produced is a twelve-issue series called Watchmen. In it is a character named Rorschach. We learn his origin in issue #6. He was trying to rescue a little girl who had been kidnapped. When he found the kidnapper’s house, he found out that the girl had been killed, butchered, and fed to the dogs. Rorschach handcuffed the man to a pipe, and set the house on fire. He left a saw with the man, but told him that he’d never be able to cut through the cuffs in time. Implying that, if he wanted to live, he’d have to cut his own hand off. Then he went outside to watch the scene. Here's how he describes that moment:

Stood in firelight, sweltering. Blood stain on chest like map of violent new continent. Felt cleansed. Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in night. Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever, and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion, bear children, hellbound as ourselves, go into oblivion. There is nothing else. Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us. Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world. Was Rorschach. — Alan Moore

:up:

That is Mind. In one of its seemingly infinite possible forms of becoming. Right on.

And yet, did it occur to Moore, brilliant as "The Watchmen" is; has it really occurred to any of us, especially in this locus of history, that we, too, are just superimposed creations; not just our world, but all which we consider our selves; and, that we are not bound by our creations, be they dark or beautiful. We are not that.

We are--from the perspective of our Fiction's arrogance--that dumb lump of flesh. Not "no meaning, save what we choose to impose," just, no [place for] meaning. Life, free from our evolved, autonomous need for fabricating meaning, the thing making both dark and beautiful out of what is simply Natural, and inherently meaningless, alien to meaning.

What is the goal of trying to discover a way to think about the mind - or that thing that brains do…. (At least that does seem true)…. Is there some problem we need to solve with this information that is fruitful somehow beyond the questioning?

Is the mind connected to physicality of some sort, or is it detached somehow? Some sort or somehow. Therein lies the question. There is unlikely to be a logically deduced certainty, because the raw materials - the epistemological grounds for thinking about it - are lacking. We have no foundational substrate here.

To truly understand the mind we would have to be able to create one. Or at least be able to test one out and put it through some use cases and tests and train it different ways and have control sets (scientifically speaking), and then get a better idea.

Then we would understand how the mind is physically connected to the brain, or how it is not - but how it persists anyways given a certain set of conditions. Yada yada yada….

And then we would have our answer - which would be an answer given to us as a side effect of a better and more useful goal: creating an AGI… or more dangerous, depending if you believe in Asimov and the 3 (4 if you like the universal one) laws of robotics. But certainly we wouldn’t need to logically understand mind before we could embark and succeed on such an adventure? Or would we? Haha

Let’s talk about it more in a few thousand years…. At least a few hundred as we are at zero on the progress meter for developing an AGI. Because iteratively arriving at an AGI is logically impossible. Just as answering the mind question is with logical iterations.

Until that happens this whole question seems like a blind spot.

We too, in Reality, are beings driven by evolution to respond to triggers in various ways. — ENOAH

Isn't that 'biological reductionism'?

Is there some problem we need to solve with this information that is fruitful somehow beyond the questioning? — Metaphyzik

There is a subject, philosophy of mind. I believe you referred to David Chalmer's homepage the other day, that's his main subject matter.

What is the goal of trying to discover a way to think about the mind - or that thing that brains do…. (At least that does seem true)…. Is there some problem we need to solve with this information that is fruitful somehow beyond the questioning? — Metaphyzik

I don't know whether or not there's anything fruitful behind the questioning. But there doesn't have to be. The questioning is enough, even if there is never an answer. It's what humans do.

The meaning and purpose of a problem seem to lie not in its solution but in our working at it incessantly. — Jung

Data: I am curious as to what transpired between the moment when I was nothing more than an assemblage of parts in Dr. Sung's laboratory and the next moment, when I became alive. What is it that endowed me with life?

Crusher: I remember Wesley asking me a similar question when he was little. And I tried desperately to give him an answer. But everything I said sounded inadequate. Then I realized that scientists and philosophers have been grappling with that question for centuries without coming to any conclusion.

Data: Are you saying the question cannot be answered?

Crusher: No. I think I'm saying that we struggle all our lives to answer it. That it's the struggle that is important. That's what helps us to define our place in the universe. — Star Trek: The Next Generation

I've been out here now for some days, groping my way along, trying to realize my vision here. I started concentrating so hard on my vision that I lost sight. I've come to find out that it's not the vision. It's not the vision at all. It's the groping. It's the groping, it's the yearning, it's the moving forward. I was so fixated on that flying cow that, when Ed told me Monty Python already painted that picture, thought I was through. I had to let go of that cow so that I could see all the other possibilities....... I think Kierkegard said it oh so well: “The self is only that which it’s in the process of becoming.” Art? Same thing. James Joyce had something to say about it too. *draws sword* “Welcome oh life! I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience, and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscious of my race.” We’re here today to fling something that bubbled up from the collective unconsciousness of our community.........

The thing I learned folks, this is absolutely key: It’s not the thing you fling, it’s the fling itself. — Chris on Northern Exposure

There is a subject, philosophy of mind. I believe you referred to David Chalmer's homepage the other day, that's his main subject matter. — Wayfarer

Yes I’m aware and am looking forward to reading it. I was just setting up the potential AGI answer.