.png)
Measurement of mind is too frequently considered to be an idle
enquiry by a section of scientists. This is not because it lacks significant
support from the learned but perhaps because the controversy has dragged on for
centuries. An explanation of mind, howsoever workable, shall be gladly welcomed
appreciably by thinkers and leaders of science alike. This book aims at
interpreting psyche in understandable terms, keeping away logomachy (arguments
about words). Mind is interpreted in two diagonally opposite ways by two
schools of philosophers, standing poles apart.
Prima facie (primarily) to prove the non-spiritual or worldly
nature or character of mind on scientific principles is very shaky and
difficult task. Notwithstanding the indirect and rare lacuna (missing part in
logical argument) of mind, it can be established in clear and comprehensive
term. The task indeed is suitable with the set beliefs or principles of a
rational person.
An unprejudiced, detached thinking blended with allowable
imagination should be implemented in our quest (search) for the unknown.
The laws of physics hold out no promise to un-riddle (solve) the
whole mystery surrounding the psyche. Matter (smallest fundamental particles)
itself has eluded physicists and also their most powerful electronic
microscopes and the like instruments. Of course this cannot be a reason why
science/physics should not be continued to be exploited to have glimpses into
the unknown (i.e. science still can be used to a greater extent in trying to
understand the psyche, non-matter). As it is foolish (absurd) to attempt to
insert round peg in a square hold, it is wrong to attempt to satisfy the
growing human choice of consequential reasoning by keeping away science. Idealists are likely to face a miserable
failure because of their very hard disregard to the rationale. Limitations of
reason accelerate their nonreligious (undue) respect for science, which they
consider as sorties (quick raids by force). They are reluctant to employ
methods of physics even for an approach to the deepening enigma (ever growing
riddle) of mind.
Expression ‘failure of science’ is virtually (almost) a misnomer
(inappropriate name). Indeed, intrinsically (within itself) science
predominantly implies (means) observation and inference thereof. Therefore,
science in capsized (upturned, upset) situation, simply speaks of –Omission of
our observation capacity or Impotency (incapability to conceive) of our power
of synthesis at a given moment.
In this aspect, logical imagination based scientific attitude
provides us a broad hint. We may note here that scientists tend to
encourage logical imagination. The logical imagination is used more
particularly when the observation confuses the understanding of the description
(observation is not sufficient to make correct description). Physics is the
pillar stone of science. At some threshold (limit), physics declares its
incompetency (inability) to observe obviously evident matter and this provides
a positive proof for existence of non-matter.
1. Materialists – They have been commitment to the dogma
that the entire macrocosm (universe) derives its basic constituents from matter
in various shaped and shades.
2. Spiritualists – They have a total opposite stand. They
have their firm belief in the dogma that matter is not a truth (illusion) and
what essentially true is mind, the spirit.
3. Scientists – They stand divided
on the issue. Many of them stand divided in their own mind and the rest
adapt to an indifferent attitude.
Physics strongly lends its constructive
support to establish this non-matter which is known as ‘mind’ in common terms.
To use a simile, it is nothing short of a senseless statement to emphasize that
science can establish the existence of light but not of darkness. Once science
reaches clearly last limit of light but perceives something beyond it, then the
cool affirmation that ‘non-light’ is established in terms of science is true
statement which cannot be challenged.
However, such a situation does not issue license to idealists to
put forward the theory of variety of minds based on the dreamy, imaginative
thinking. Chapter two and five give arguments which forbid such excess in name
of science.
Mystic idealists have always put forward their favorite theory of
multiplicity of mind, soul or such non-material entities. The inner pure mind
is considered as idol by spiritualist. If we are called upon to suppose that
such a divine purity in us remains impotent and renders itself powerless before
the odd occurrence of emotional burst, then it all speaks ill of the pure inner
mind, soul, etc.
For mechanical materialists everything is matter. For
spiritualists everything is non-matter. The only disadvantage to the later
(spiritualists) is that they attempt further classification in the field of
already what is admittedly unknown. If every smallest entity of this universe
is either wholly matter or non-matter, then gentlemen, friends and foes meet,
since in any case such campaign ends in substitution of noun with the same
connotation and these terminates the polemic. If both are serious about the
dual they cannot go on with negative definitions respectively of matter and
mind.
The task on our hand at the moment is to hunt out a commonly
acceptable description of mind not subjected to denial/dispute by two representative
hostile groups
It takes a time of about 8 minutes for travelling the sun rays from
sun to earth. But my look to the Sun and correlated thoughts do not require
eight minutes to reach to the Sun. In fact, they may not take time – not even
one-eighth of a micro-second. This obviously leads to unavoidable conclusion.
It will be seen that Eddington leaves his notion of ‘mind-stuff’
very indefinite. It is pertinent to note that authority like Heisenberg too
endorses mind beyond laws of physics and deductively (it is) non-matter.
Heisenberg in certain terms places psychology that peeps in mind,
beyond the scope of physics. Physics deals with matter and once the claim of
physics over psychology is abrogated then in Heisenberg’s opinion, mind must
pass into non-material realm (region).
We see no prospects of affording ourselves to count upon the
modern psychologists for an unambiguous clue to mind.
Freud defines mind and takes himself in the direction of mystic
verbiage (mysterious style of expressing the same thing in different words) in
the same breath, he says: “consciousness appears to us as positively the
characteristic that defines mental life. We regard psychology as the study of
content of consciousness. This even appears so evident that any contradiction
of it seems obvious nonsense to us. Yet it is impossible to avoid this
contradiction or to accept the identity between the conscious and psychic. The
psycho-analytical definition of mind is that it comprises processes of the
nature of (i) feeling, (ii) thinking, and (iii) wishing. It maintains that
there are such things as unconscious thinking and unconscious wishing. But in
doing so, at the outset, psycho-analysis has lost the right of the sympathy of
the scientifically minded and self- restraining people and has become
suspicious of being a fantastic cult occupied with dark and mysteries which
cannot be understood”.
Both spiritualists and Marxists (materialists) insist that what
remains imperceptible (unrecognizable) to them matches respectively with mind
and ‘highest’ or ‘finest’ form of matter. That is the crux of the problem. It
looks strange that both show confidence in their notion. At the same time, both
of them go with the stream that the remaining entity is unknown in all its
details and perhaps unknowable.
Einstein has insisted that our notion (general understanding)
about the physical world will never be final. Lenin has also endorsed that
Nature is infinite. To dig out (excavate) the secrets of Nature and being
overpowered by her un-understandable vast kingdom to give it a name either as
‘matter’ or ‘mind’ finally turns out to be a subjective notion (concept) about
the ‘unknown’.
As Lincoln Barnett puts it, “matter and energy are
interchangeable. If matter sheds its mass and travels with the speed of light,
we call it radiation or energy. And conversely, if energy congeals (contracts
into fluid) and becomes inert, and we can ascertain it as a mass, we call it
matter. Up till now science could only note their transitory properties and
relations as they touched the perceptions of earthbound man. But since 16th
July 1945, man has been able to transform one into the other. For on that night
of Alamogordo, New Mexico man for the first time transformed a substantial
quantity of matter into the light, heat, sound and motion which we call energy.
Yet the fundamental mystery remains. The whole march of science towards the
unification of concepts such as follows still leads to the unknown”.
The reduction of all matter to elements and then to a few
types of particles
The reduction of forces to the single concept of energy
and then
The reduction of matter and energy to a single basic quantity
(From wiki: Reductionism is a philosophical position
which holds that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts and that
an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents)
Evidently both the spiritualists and the Marxists (materialists)
irksomely (annoyingly/irritatingly) count upon their conjectures (guess or
speculation) in admitted unknowable and unknown. There is no reason for the
detached scientist to go out of way and justify anyone. While one uses
aggressive language with the aid of some scientific phrases and the other
clearly and humbly admits his limitations. There awaits very complicated
confusion still. On one hand the spiritualists or, to be precise, many amongst
them adopt a belief in mind and also in matter as separate, real entity. And yet
others insist on Trinity, (soul, mind and matter) or such other terms. The
materialists on the other hand will not reconcile en bloc to the term
‘material universe’ without suitable modification as (because), Mechanical
materialist would hasten to supplement the expression by the words “with a
motion externally supplied” while the Marxists would insist on describing the
matter having ‘inherent motion’.
At the end of 19th century the study called the photo-electric
effect showed that different types of radiation behave as streams of minute
particles, known as photons. Each type of radiation is characterized by photons
of strictly definite energy. The shorter the wage of electro-magnetic
radiation, the more energy do the photons of this radiation possess. Each
photon is capable of being absorbed by an atom of matter, in which case it
gives up its energy to the atom and one electron of corresponding energy is
ejected.
Using this effect as a basis, it was very easy to explain both (i)
the photo-electric effect and (ii) the ability of different radiations to
ionize gas. Numerous experiments showed that photons, like particle of matter,
possess a mass that is computed by dividing the energy of the photon by the
square of the speed of light (E=mc2 i.e. m=E/c2). It then
became possibly in certain sense, to co-relate particle of radiation (photon)
and particle of matter. True, there still exists an essential difference
between particles of matter and photons.
·
Mind can be in motion.
·
In the ability to
sustain restless as a hyena (cruel, untrustworthy and greedy person) in an
active life, mind is associated with brain, which in turn links with the entire
organism.
·
Mind incorporates
and/or possesses, and/or is made up of, and/or is the same as emotions,
sensation, thought, knowledge, consciousness.
The cautious though candid description may bring round the
dissident groups to chime with it.
Thought (an expression of mind)
cannot remain purely and absolutely individual in strict sense of the term when
we set the eye upon an object and brood over (look closely, completely,
minutely).
To supplement the above, Eddington, Russel and Heisenberg are
referred to.
Eddington – Besides the direct knowledge contained in each
self-knowing unit, there is inferential knowledge. The inferential knowledge
includes our knowledge of the physical world. It is necessary to keep reminding
ourselves that all knowledge of our environment from which the world of physics
is constructed has entered in the form of messages transmitted along the nerves
to the seat of consciousness. Obviously the messages travel in codes, e.g. when
message relating to a table are travelling in the nerves, the nerve-disturbance
does not in the least resemble either the external table that originate the
mental impression or the conception of the table that arise in consciousness.
In the central clearing station, the incoming messages are sorted and decoded
partly by resulting image-building inherited from the experience of our
ancestors, partly by scientific comparison and reasoning. By this very indirect
and hypothetical inference all our acquaintance with and our theories of a
world outside us have been built up.
Russel – Describes seeing the table – The light waves cause
occurrence in our eyes. These caused occurrence in the optic nerve and in turn
caused occurrence in the brain. The unbroken chain between the object and brain
is undeniable.
Heisenberg – (Book Physics and Philosophy) Quantum theory does not
allow completely objective or subjective picture of Nature and our self.
Observation itself changes probability function. Heisenberg therefore would not
consider a complete dis-union between subject and object in the process of
thinking.
Thinking and seeing – Simultaneity
We have seen the difference. But again, none can deny simultaneity
between thinking and seeing. Science goes from known to unknown and it is very
right to investigate what happens when we see while thinking.
Mind independent of matter
·
Light travels at the speed
of 3, 00,000 km/sec.
·
Considering the distance
between the Earth and the Sun, the Sun ray we ‘see’ has already travelled about
8 minutes from the Sun, i.e. we see the Sun in eight minutes (8x60=480 sec or
approximately 500 sec).
·
But we can ‘think’ of the
Sun in a fraction of second, i.e. our thought can reach the Sun in a very short
time, i.e. our ‘thought’ travels at the rate of 500 times than the Sun light.
Thinking is much faster than seeing.
·
Thought (mind) can travel
transcending the limiting speed of matter. (which presently is considered as
speed of light)
·
This fact asserts that
mind is “non-matter which can transcend the limiting speed of matter which
presently is considered as speed of light”.
Matter can’t exceed speed of light, while thoughts (i.e.) can
exceed. This is enough to assert that limiting speed of light proves mind
independent of matter. This is a historical definition of mind on most
rational concept which should be acceptable to all.
(Note: This is an attempt to make reader friendly interpretation
of the book “WHAT MIND MEANS” based on my perception. Readers are requested to
refer to the original book to cross check their understanding.)
Vijay R. Joshi.
No comments:
Post a Comment