The mind is only an illusion

[Neffi]

I recently began to really examine the way I think. Consider afterhand how I think about certain topics, and how the thought process itself seems to happen. I came to a way of looking at things that kind of gave me a chilling realization about what reality means for us; how unimportant we are, and made me really grasp the fact that I won't live after death.

I'm not posting this with absolute certainty. Some of the specifics of how I look at it may not be entirely accurate, but all in all it's pretty well established that on some level the underlying concept is true -- that the mind is the product of the brain. Assume here on out that aside from that, when it comes to specifics I speak in theory.

Consider that we don't have a mind. The mind is only an illusion. Our brain processes things in not too different a way a machine does. We perceive a mind from the fact that we subjectively experience this processing; we can hear ourselves processing things. And we perceive some level of control from the fact that we seem to be able to initiate and change thoughts, but instead what's happening is the processing itself decides upon a reason to initiate or change its own line of thought, based on either internal or external stimuli.

We're organic machines under the control of an organic computer. The ability to think and to subjectively experience that thought (as a method of increased level of thought) is nothing more than an evolutionary development to better our survival; our ability to understand the world helps us to survive in it. And if it weren't for tons of brute-force natural selection, we wouldn't even have a perceived mind.

It really brings into question sentience and sapience. That the idea that we feel and know on a higher level than some lower animals is even significant comes into question. Does the fact that we've developed the ability to subjectively experience our own brain's processing make us better than animals who haven't? And it throws up in there air tons of theories about how we treat animals based on this. We don't have a soul, same as those animals, so why are we better? Those animals process reality on some level the same as we do, so why should the fact that we perceive our own processing matter towards our worth? (If anything it just makes us miserable creatures.)

Constructive input commence.

 

[JBeukema]

Web definitions for mind

Archive

that which is responsible for one's thoughts and feelings; the seat of the faculty of reason; "his mind wandered"; "I couldn't get his words out ...
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

by definition, it can be no illusion. Its nature is simply unknown. The question is whether the 'mind' is physical (the electrochemical state and processes of the brain) or metaphysical in nature- that is, whether we will come to understand consciousness and thought- and better understand emotion- as physical processes or be forced to acknowledge something outside of the physical universe itself

 

[Neffi]

by definition, it can be no illusion. Its nature is simply unknown. The question is whether the 'mind' is physical (the electrochemical state and processes of the brain) or metaphysical in nature- that is, whether we will come to understand consciousness and thought- and better understand emotion- as physical processes or be forced to acknowledge something outside of the physical universe itself

Calling it an illusion may not have been totally accurate. But rather, I'm presenting that the mind is merely our ability to hear our own processing. I didn't say that processing isn't there.

 

[Sparky]

I have spent time thinking about this too but I came to the conclusion - I think, therefore I am. That is all I can be sure of - that I (my mind) exists. It is everything else that we cannot be sure of as everything else is processed from information taken from sensors that we cannot be sure are giving us an accurate description of reality!

 

[WolfAU]

I find this topic a kind of pointless intellectual exercise. If life is just a dream, then unless there is something for us to wake up to, then investigating it is completely futile (ie the dream is all there is, if we wake up, we cease to exist).

Also can I ask what age you are? Alot of teenagers go through these kinds of questions as a natural part of their emotional development.

The 'mind' or 'consciousness', whichever term you use is like the GUI of an Operating System like Windows, it is a product of the hardware, the stored information and various forms of input and it allows for control over alot of protocols (the 'subconscious'). The main difference is in the different functions that Windows and the human mind are designed for. Windows is designed to be a blunt tool which does exactly what it is told to by imput and programming, while humans are designed to be largely autonomous from birth to death (not a puppet etc).

Human beings are designed to evolve and improve themselves, while Machines mostly require external upgrades. Humans are capable of things like emotions, drives/desires, actions like introspection, a sense of self worth, a desire for approval and social acceptance, a desire to be care and be cared for, emotions like despair etc. The average computer OS have no real use for these kinds of abilities or emotions. As such it is humans function to have a level of autonomy we deprive computers of.

As for 'meaning of life' arguments, an atheist spending more than 10minutes on the subject will likely be forced to conclude life lacks objective meaning, and as such what the meaning of life is largely about what you choose to accept as having meaning.

When this applies to evolution, you can say life is the goal (and thus circular and meaningless), or life is merely the mechanism for achieving something else... I like the quote (I believe by Carl Sagan) 'We are the universe slowly becoming self aware', and as such you can draw analogies to any organism growing up (just as a child matures, so too does life into more and more self aware organisms). As such maybe we are merely playing our part in some greater chain of events.

For animals, I do not assume that our cognitive capacities are so much more superior to animals, our main advantage is language and the mental faculties to create and analyse it. Through this the sharing of knowledge and ideas are possible and thus, we are capable of so much more than an organism which lacked it, even if their mental faculties were the same or superior to ours. I don't presume to be better than animals, but I am able to understand chains of events and empathy likely beyond many animals and as such I should expect my actions to be 'wiser' than animals.

 

[Sparky]

As for 'meaning of life' arguments, an atheist spending more than 10minutes on the subject will likely be forced to conclude life lacks objective meaning, and as such what the meaning of life is largely about what you choose to accept as having meaning.

I always thought that the objective meaning for life is reproduction - the passing on of one's own genes.

 

[Dumbfounded]

Consider that we don't have a mind. The mind is only an illusion. Our brain processes things in not too different a way a machine does. We perceive a mind from the fact that we subjectively experience this processing; we can hear ourselves processing things. And we perceive some level of control from the fact that we seem to be able to initiate and change thoughts, but instead what's happening is the processing itself decides upon a reason to initiate or change its own line of thought, based on either internal or external stimuli.

In the absence of mind, what exactly is this "we" that can subjectively experience, perceive and rationalise? If the "we" is the processing itself, listening to itself processing itself listening to itself etc. Then you're really just restating Hofstadter's idea of "we" being a self-referential loop (see I Am A Strange Loop by D. R. Hofstadter). If not then you have included an implicit "mind module" a la evolutionary psychology (see P. Gerrans, Biology and Philosophy 17:305-321 (2002)).

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I think you guys are missing the point... or possibly I'm missing the point, because I've been thinking along these same lines for years and years. I think most of what we call "thinking" is an illusion, because we're not really "thinking" at all most of the time. Most of what we consider to be conscious thought seems to really be an observation of instinctive or trained reactions. Most or all of the actual processing happens on an unconscious level, while what we call "mind" is mostly a superficial observation of the results of that processing.

Imagine it as a computer operating system. We think of our "mind" as the whole operating system. In reality, it seems like the part we think of as our "mind" is more like the user interface... it looks pretty, and is useful, but it isn't doing any of the heavy lifting. If you look at it that way, most animals seem to be using a DOS interface, the animals we consider having something approaching our level of consciousness are using an early version of Windows, and we're using Vista (bugs and all.)

 

[Neffi]

In the absence of mind, what exactly is this "we" that can subjectively experience, perceive and rationalise? If the "we" is the processing itself, listening to itself processing itself listening to itself etc. Then you're really just restating Hofstadter's idea of "we" being a self-referential loop (see I Am A Strange Loop by D. R. Hofstadter). If not then you have included an implicit "mind module" a la evolutionary psychology (see P. Gerrans, Biology and Philosophy 17:305-321 (2002)).

Essentially both. "We" the body, and "we" the threads of processing in our brain. I wasn't aware of the loop idea, but it's effectively what I propose.

I think you guys are missing the point... or possibly I'm missing the point, because I've been thinking along these same lines for years and years. I think most of what we call "thinking" is an illusion, because we're not really "thinking" at all most of the time. Most of what we consider to be conscious thought seems to really be an observation of instinctive or trained reactions. Most or all of the actual processing happens on an unconscious level, while what we call "mind" is mostly a superficial observation of the results of that processing.

Imagine it as a computer operating system. We think of our "mind" as the whole operating system. In reality, it seems like the part we think of as our "mind" is more like the user interface... it looks pretty, and is useful, but it isn't doing any of the heavy lifting. If you look at it that way, most animals seem to be using a DOS interface, the animals we consider having something approaching our level of consciousness are using an early version of Windows, and we're using Vista (bugs and all.)

Precisely. I'm not making the ludicrous claim that reality is imagined. To say that life's a dream is nonsense, because even if true it's still our life. And I think most of you are confused on what I mean because solipsistic conclusions are so popular -- indeed, cliched. I'm not claiming that. Merely that consciousness is nothing more than the brain's self-awareness, that all actual thought and processing happens at a much lower level, outside of our grasp except by indirect influence of processing. That our sense of consciousness -- what a religious man would call his soul -- isn't real, and the brain tricks itself with the illusion of consciousness as an evolutionary development.

 

[Sparky]

I think you guys are missing the point... or possibly I'm missing the point, because I've been thinking along these same lines for years and years. I think most of what we call "thinking" is an illusion, because we're not really "thinking" at all most of the time. Most of what we consider to be conscious thought seems to really be an observation of instinctive or trained reactions. Most or all of the actual processing happens on an unconscious level, while what we call "mind" is mostly a superficial observation of the results of that processing.

Imagine it as a computer operating system. We think of our "mind" as the whole operating system. In reality, it seems like the part we think of as our "mind" is more like the user interface... it looks pretty, and is useful, but it isn't doing any of the heavy lifting. If you look at it that way, most animals seem to be using a DOS interface, the animals we consider having something approaching our level of consciousness are using an early version of Windows, and we're using Vista (bugs and all.)

Realistically, I agree with you here but I still stand by my statement that all we can know for absolute certainty is that our minds exist. We have to accept basic axioms in order to progress further than that our minds exist.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Realistically, I agree with you here but I still stand by my statement that all we can know for absolute certainty is that our minds exist. We have to accept basic axioms in order to progress further than that our minds exist.

You can stand by it... but it doesn't contradict the OP or what I said. Of course, our minds don't "exist" by any useful standard of "existence". I'm saying that from a position of complete atheistic materialism, BTW... :lol:

 

[Weirdtopia]

Know thyself, you assume everything that you see because you don't know that it exists for sure. Are your thoughts a product of the environment or is your environment the product of your thoughts?, i think that's a question of weather your mind is an illusion or not too.

 

[JBeukema]

anyone here an empirical positivist?

 

[felixthecoach]

I was considering a philosophical question about this topic. Isn't the mind only an illusion until it's aware of itself? For that matter, isn't an illusion defined by something that tricks the mind? So saying that the mind is an illusion is something similar to saying, "The mind is something that tricks the mind." At first this sounds very circular, but then if you look at the evolution behind it, there are adaptive advantages to a brain is self aware and self deceptive (both traits that humans exhibit very well).

Wait, what am i saying? I need to go get another full throttle and some coffee...

 

[doloafing]

I read this in Sam Harris' The End of Faith (a good book, I thought, although it does get kind of difficult towards the end).

So far, it's the best explanation of consciousness I've heard. It could be that our subjective experience, our self awareness, is the product of our brains' tendency to set up an observer.

You can draw lines at the end of self. You can say, you are your body, but then you realise that you are not your hand, or your arm. These things belong to you: they are not you. So you pull back the definition of self to be the brain. Of course, it is your brain. You can't see it, but this is something you can say belongs to you. You can even continue on to the individual processes of your mind: these are your thoughts, this is your ability to recognise faces, this is your internal experience of reality.

The idea basically goes that we are not the things we can observe. Our brains are more effective at survival when they are not merely reactionary, but are capable of introspection: thus, a brain must be able to observe itself. You can turn the brain inside out looking for what might be you, but in the end, all I can say is I'm the thing observing and considering the other parts.

I probably butchered the explanation. I lent the book to a friend, so I can't go find it, but in any case, it was quite interesting. For the longest time, the issue of self-awareness kept me from moving from agnosticism (which I have a better understanding of now that I call myself atheist, and realise was only a label that said nothing useful about my beliefs).

 

[lightbulbsun88]

I have spent time thinking about this too but I came to the conclusion - I think, therefore I am. That is all I can be sure of - that I (my mind) exists. It is everything else that we cannot be sure of as everything else is processed from information taken from sensors that we cannot be sure are giving us an accurate description of reality!

Existence is axiomatic.

 

[doloafing]

Existence is axiomatic. Proof of existence is self-refuting.

Care to enlighten me on that second point?

 

[lightbulbsun88]

Existence is axiomatic. Proof of existence is self-refuting.

Care to enlighten me on that second point?

Never mind. I didn't write that last sentence adequately enough.