Quasar

Home

Through the ceturies of human intellectual development concept of MIND has given mankind a real pain in the epistemology. The concept of Mind has been defined and redefined ad nauseam but to no avail, the mind still exists.

Aristotle said that the mind was just the instrument by which the soul thinks. Descartes dicided that the mind was that which sirvived universal doubt about its own existence: "Cogito ergo sum." Berkley thought that the mind was that which gave existence to things by perceiving them ("esse percipi") Hume concluded that the phenomena called mind was just a constructed illusion of spatio-temporal continuity based on our mental habits of association. In any case, we are still without a solid definition. It appears what has really plagued the great thinkers of the mind is ultimately the problem of mind-body dualism. It's that damned ghost in the machine idea that has everybody all wroked up. For centuries the intellectual communities have swayed back and forth between which is more fundamental Mind or Matter. It seems that neither of the two phenomena wants to reduce to the other. The field of philosophy is not the only one plagued with this problem; this was summed up by Ewald Hering while lecturing to the Imperial Academy of Sciences in Vienna circa 1870

"...the student of neurophysiology takes his stand between the physicist and the psychologist, and if the first of these rightly makes the unbroken causative continuity of all material processes an axiom of his system of investigation, the prudent psychologist, on the other hand, will investigate the laws of conscious life according to the inductive method, and will hence, as much as the physicist, make the existence of fixed laws his initial assumption. If, again, the most superficial introspection teaches the psychologist that his consious life is dependent on the mechanical adjustments of his body, and inversely his body is subjected with certain limitations to hsi will, then it only remains for him to make one more assumption, that this mutual interdependence between the mental and the material is itself also dependent on law, and he has discovered the bond by which the science of matter and the science of consciousness are united into a single whole...This, then, by no means implies that the two variables mentioned above-matter and consiousness-stand to the relation of cause and effect.... to one another. For on this subject we know nothing. The materialist regards consciousness as a product or result of matter, while the idealist holds matter to be a result of consciousness, and a third maintains that mind and matter are identical; with all this the physiologist, as such, has nothing whatever to do; his sole concern is with the fact matter and consiousness are functions of one another."

In the late 1800's as several of the physical and life sciences advanced far enough this problem of mind-body became a subject of serious consideration by more than just a handful of deep thinkers. It soon became evident that there were lawful or quasi-lawful relationships between physiological states and states of perception. At the same time though it was concluded that

"physical/physiological processes and the phenomenal events of consious life are from logically separate universes of discourse" (Fegal)

Translated into common terms

"Hey we've got the mind-body problem too!" (Warner)

The implication of this logical separation is not only that the laws of consiousness can be investigated in thier own right, but also that the investigations of the ontological relationships between physiological processes (sensation) and the phenomenal events (perception) require some explicit assumptions and that in constructing links and bridges between sensation and perception the mind-body problem necessarily arizes (Teller & Pugh). Thus, the field of psycho-physics, although a foot hold in studying the phenomena of sensation-perception relationships, was doomed to have two logically separate universes of discourse from which it must draw. It should be mentioned that an attempt was made to, in some rational way, link the physiologica/physical terms of sensation with the phenomenal terms of perception. A man named G.S. Brindy coined the term "psyho-physical linking hypothesis" to refer to the potential bridging relationships between the two universes of sensation and perception (Teller & Pugh). Such a set of relationships was never found to exist [is this still the case?]

Both the philosophers and the psycho-phsysicists agree that mind and matter (perception and sensation) seem to belong to two distinct universes, each of which refuses to be reduced to the other (if you'll pardon my anthropormorphism). Yet each of these universes seems to contain an entity which seems to be somewhat invariant as it travels between these two universes, conserving its value as it goes. This entity which I am referring to is INFORMATION. For the purposes of this discussion I define information to be characteristic of a difference. Although information is coded in many "ways, shapes and forms" it was shown by Shannon to be independent of the specfic media within which it is contained or transmitted. The necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of infromation is that there must be a medium in which it can be expressed. This being the case, (watch out here comes some creativity) I will coin the term "Expression-space" which I define to be the necessary and sufficient condition (medium) for the existence (expression) of information. It follows that since information is known to exist in both the physical realm and the mental realm, even though these are normally considered disjoint, these two realms must be contained within Expression Space. What I am attempting to do here is design a universe of discourse within which the phsical and mental realms are complimentary subspaces.

At this point I need to stress the fact that I am not trying to say anything that I believe must be imposed on reality. What I am doing is creating a functional fiction in order to end up with a system of consistent terminology and a structure for a notational system which I hope will enhance/augment the exchange of clear and concise ideas on the subject of mind-body-matter information exchanges. An attempt will be made to try to curb metaphorical biasing.

Neuro-Cosmology

Neuro-cosmology is a (fictional) functional model of the perceived universe. Since perception implies the reception and awareness of information, and since information requires a medium which allows its (information's) expression, its just one more small step to see that neurocosmology is an effort of consciousness to study the nature of the necessary structures of Expression space. Specifically, neuro-cosmology is concerned with the quasi-isomorphic mapping of information to and from the subspace realms of matter and mind (sensation and perception). It will (should) become apparent that the perspective of neuro-cosmologist will be as a resident of the mind subspace.

And now, knowingly to the dismay of those without good abstracting abilities, I will introduce the symbolic notation which will enable (force) an unprecedented level of specificity in the level of the expression of the ideas, thoughts and concepts of the mind-body-matter problem

Expression-space [symbol] (E-space) This is the whole universe of discourse. To discuss the exchange of information in the context of neuro-cosmology it is necessary to be in the E-space universe.

Space-time [] This is the subspace of E-space which contains all the information about the physical universe execpt that which is directly related to biological processes.

Biological subspace [] This is the subspace of E-space which contains all the information states which are directly associated with biological processes. This real would include all the bio-physical (physiologica) phenomena that is associated with life--sustaining functions and the functions which transpose, convert and or transduce information between the physical and mental realm.

Mind subspace [] This is the subspace of E-space which contains all the information states directly perceived by the mind. An instance of concsious self perception requires Mind-space. This is the realm of perceived thoughts and ideas. While there is no known limits to the level of complexity which can be obtained by mind-space information space, a certain level of structure is assumed to exist and as such would limit it.

Z-term [] Z term is a generic space-time operator. This is a function which accounts for all the physical (non-biological) changes in information states in the physical subspace. Z-term functions are those which the physicists and other physical scientists study. They are things like electricity, magnetism, gravity, thermal dynamix, etc. In general, anything with just physical properties is a Z-term function.

B-term [] B-term is the generic bio-subspace operator. B-term changes information states which are directly linked to the biolgical/physiologica information processing functions. Any process which is achieved by a living organism is a B-term type function. B-term type functions are what biologists and other life scientists study. Metabolism, endocrine functions and neurological processes are examples of B-term functions.

C-term [] C-term is the mind-space operator. C-term is the operation which changes one mind-state to another. There is an implication of conscious attention in a C-term operation. When one instance of couscious perception intentionally and willfully affects the generation of a specific type of mind-state then this is considered a C-term operation. Analytical thinking is a good example of this type of function. Creativity is also considered to be a C-term function, though this requires the concept of fuzzy sets.

Now with these terms in mind (pardon the pun) the next step is to specify the format or syntax of a valid expression in neurocosmology notation. The general form of a neuro-cosmology expression is in the form of a commutativity diagram, and it looks something like this:

A----------B

Where A is called the domain and B is called the codomain and f is the function/operation which takes elements of A and maps them onto elements of B. The only real rule for this type of diagram is that any path form A to B is exactly equivalent to any other path from A to B

Now using the set of symbols and the concept of commutativity diagrams the next step is to attempt to chart the vast unknown regions of E-space

First of all the fundamental expression:

PHI----Z----PHX----B----PSI

All instances of information from the physical subspace to the mind subspace will be in this form, where PHI is the object as it exists in space-time, Z-term is the information of the object being transmitted through physical substance via light, sound, smell etc. PHX is in this instance the composite of all the intermediate biologica information-state spaces necessary for information transduction (i.e., sensation). This was comprized of no less than stimuli, transmission of sensory output and neurological processing and coding in the brain. B-term is the process of sending (transmitting) the final product of sensation to the mind for the purpose of perception. It is an axiom of neuro-cosmology that this expression in the form presented above is both a necessary and sufficient condition for an instance of perceptional experience to have in it an information content which was assimilated from an external object which did in fact exist in the space-time realm (there is a world external to our senses!). That is to say that all the information we have about the outside world was obtained in this way. If it hasn't occurred to you yet it may be easier to use the following approximation when doing neurocosmology

PHI = objective, material, space-time reality

PHX = the living body

PSI = the self perceiving mind

Well so much for the para-rigiorous introduction, now for some rationalizations.

The reason for the development of this notational system was not so much to help unlock the deep underlying secrets to the nature of the universe, although I must admit that I did have my hopes up, but rather to help one think more clearly about the types of things that are usually associated with the topic of the mind. This notational system, when used as prescribed, could allow someone who is not well versed in the vocabulary of the field to become an active participant in a discussion, becuase they could be shown at least approximately where the argument is at any given time. This notation could also be used as an aid in the introduction of the concepts of the classical mind by giving a rough approximation of the specific functions and qualities attributed to the mind by the various philosophers of the past. Anyone who has attempted to try to get anything out of some of the older translations knows that a little clue as to what is going on would be very helpful. This notation is not trying to replace thinking but it sure seems to enhance that process sometimes. It seems that the writers on this subject are afraid to let the modern readers know what is going on. By this I mean that in a lot of the things I read on the subject of the mind the author is either faultering in specificity or wallowing in generalities while in both cases always floundering in ambiguity. It just seems that it is a better way to express these ideas in a way that they are more readily understood.

Now for some examples

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? This would be expressed as:

PHI1-----z-----PHI2

Where PHI1 is the tree falling in the forest, z-term in this case is the physics of the event ie., stress, strain, pressure waves propagating through the air etc.. And PHI2 is the tree at some time after. In neuro-cosmology the set of information states of the physical universe is allowed to exist independent of the pressure of a mind. Please note that this is consistent with our current world view.

Descartes " I think (doubt) therefore I am" would take the form

PSID2-----c-----PSID2 : I think

If and only if PSID E E-space : my mind is in E-Space

In the above examples of the implementation of the notation I was not trying to show how to notate those things, I was more interested in showing that they could be notate. And when they were it was obvious where the weekness and ambiguities were.

OK so much for the old stuff

In the past few years the field of research know as artificial intelligence has a gained a position as an economically viable field. Along with this growht has come the development of expert systems and knowledge engineering. In general, knowledge engineers help to build expert systems. Roughtly, expert systems are computer systems which use special search strategies to scan large data files called knowledge bases. The content of a knowledge base is a large set of highly correlated information pertaining to a specfic field or subject. Most of the knowledge that is in these knowledge bases has been extracted from the mind of some human expert rather than computed.

What is really interesting is that knowledge was synthesised from the cummulative experience of a single individual or small set of individuals. The point I'm trying to make is that somehow that information, which was originally in the physical subspace, was collected by a consicous perceiver whose realm was in the mind sub-space.

I will attempt to model this phenomena using the notation

Given that:

Data: Object of sensation, that is to say that it is the final whole formed from the integration of all the sense input for a given instance.

Information: Definition of the object by type and class.

Knowledge: The correlation of information by functional relation with other types of information

Understanding: The ability to/capacity for the intentional and successful implementation of knowledge for purposes discerned by the mind.

Belief: The perceived basis for intentional action

In E-space all the above are considered to be "information" however, in this case I am making use of some semantic variation for the purposes of showing a development, in this case the development is the synthesis of knowledge from sequences of sensory input.

It was state earliear in this paper that the required form for the expression of information exchange from the physical sub-space to the mind subspace was

PHI----z----PHX----B----PSI

The commutativity diagram can be thought of as a mapping of the information path or information trajectory. The object now is to map the specific trajectories which are thought to contribute to the knowledge synthesis.

It is generally assumed that in the early stages of life that the membership to the mind space of a normal human is not of large numbers, but as the mind gets exposed to a continuing stream of sensory input that a vast membership of highly correlated mind-states develops with each new input type there is a higher correlation probability. Given the intial mindstate to be the one shown above, the first mind state to occur

PSId = data

PSId---B---dPHXI---B---PSII

Data is processed with memory to give information

PSII: perceived information

PSII---B---IPHXk---B---PSIk

Information cross-correlated to give knowledge

PSIk: perceived knowledge

PSIk---c---PSIu

The mind perceives the utility if knowledge

PSIu: understanding

PSIu---c---PSIB

The mind makes inferences of the value of the utility and designates value to understanding

PSIB: belief

The arguments that I had, I made. Draw your own conclusions.