Cosmos Created Mind

Gnomon

's thread The Mind-Created World (a case for Idealism) seems to have run its course, dribbling along with ever finer distinctions or off-topic diversions. The longevity of the thread, though, indicates that Mind-World vs Matter-World enigma is a popular & controversial difference of opinion. This new thread is a flipped perspective on the same general topic : what is the relationship between World-at-large & local Brain & personal Mind?

My original, science-based, assumption was that the physical Brain somehow generated the metaphysical function we call Mind, or Sentience or Intellect. And a corollary concept is that “my Ideas are my own personal creation”. However, some hard-core Materialists might retort that there is "no such thing as Mind"*1. Now, those conventional axioms & presumptions are being challenged by the science, or pseudoscience, or philosophy of Noetics*2ab.

Background : I recently finished Dan Brown's new novel, Secret of Secrets, and enjoyed the intellectual thrill ride completely. Spoiler Alert! : If you are not familiar with the book, I'll reveal the "secret" hidden in plain insight : human consciousness, and its alter ego The Mind, is not generated by the brain, but is instead a signal from out there somewhere*2b. If so, what are the special "Noetic faculties" of the human animal*3? Are these spiritual signals the distinguishing factor of homo sapiens?

The key presumption is that Consciousness is non-local, but Cosmic (Pantheism). And the philosophy of Consciousness has explored a variety of angles on how the physical brain could produce the metaphysical effect we call Mind. I can understand that physical Causation is due to some universal force (energy : gravity). But, I find it difficult to accept that my thoughts & feelings are signals from some central transmitter, like the robotic clone army of Star Wars.

The book doesn't specify the exotic Source of the ideas we humans typically take proprietary pride in. So, I'd like to hear pro & con opinions of the notion of a Cosmos Created Mind. Is there some subtle signal that I'm missing? Perhaps Cosmo-God's "signals" are obscured by the blooming buzzing static of our baby brains. :brow:

*1. The statement "there is no such thing as mind" reflects a philosophical and scientific debate, not a universally accepted fact. While some, particularly eliminative materialists, argue the mind is not a separate entity and that mental concepts are reducible to brain activity, others maintain that the mind, including subjective experiences like consciousness, cannot be fully explained by physical processes alone. This perspective, known as the "no-mind thesis," claims the mind does not exist as a thing in itself but rather as the product of our thoughts, feelings, and the brain's functions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=there+is+no+such+thing+as+mind&zx=1761177271497&no_sw_cr=1
Note --- This debate seems to be talking about the religious Soul, instead of the mundane Mind.

*2a. Noetic Science :
# The noetic sciences focus on bringing a scientific lens to the study of subjective experience, and to ways that consciousness may influence the physical world.
# Noetic science is a branch of parapsychology concerned with the power and source of human intelligence. https://www.gotquestions.org/noetic-science.html
# The Institute of Noetic Sciences explores the intersection of science and profound human experience.
https://www.youtube.com/c/InstituteofNoeticSciences

*2b. From the noetics perspective "mind of God" refers to the concept that God's mind is the ultimate source of all consciousness and that the human mind can achieve a direct, intuitive spiritual perception of God through "noetic" faculties.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=noetics+mind+of+god
Note --- Like Idealism, Noetics seems to assume that Mind, not Matter, is the fundamental Substance of the Real World. Traditionally, the Cosmic Mind is called "God". But Noetics seems to be a non-traditional notion of Pantheism, as an alternative to Judeo-Christian-Islamic doctrines ; perhaps more like the non-personal universal principle of Taoism?

*3. The phrase "secret of secrets mind receiver" likely refers to the plot of a Dan Brown novel, The Secret of Secrets, which explores the idea of the brain acting as a receiver for consciousness. The term combines two concepts: the "secret of secrets," which is a narrative element of a secret project or shocking truth in the novel, and the "mind receiver," which describes the book's central premise that the brain is a receiver for consciousness, supporting a non-local consciousness theory.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=secret+of+secrets+mind+receiver[/quote]
Note --- Why is the source of mind-signals a secret or mystery? Why does the mind-controlling God hide behind the curtain of material reality?

ROBOT ARMY AWAITING SIGNAL FROM IMPERIAL MOTHER SHIP
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTSkerE7Mjdy46AR8cuOzBN3aojm3hSP1bL55BGv2MCiQBKh1EU9hdK0BR1lgxFAlFu4ccHr5zvOYEKqLyQWt5ID1131Pzdn02eon8HF8a7nw

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTSkerE7Mjdy46AR8cuOzBN3aojm3hSP1bL55BGv2MCiQBKh1EU9hdK0BR1lgxFAlFu4ccHr5zvOYEKqLyQWt5ID1131Pzdn02eon8HF8a7nw

T Clark

I’m glad we’ve finally got a credible source of evidence for your ideas—a Dan Brown novel.

180 Proof

a Dan Brown novel — T Clark

:lol:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-science-of-self/202510/the-secret-of-secrets-is-the-science-accurate :monkey:

↪Gnomon

:sparkle: wt_?

Gnomon

I’m glad we’ve finally got a credible source of evidence for your ideas—a Dan Brown novel. — T Clark

Sarcasm noted. This novel is no more scientific than The DaVinci Code, and not cited as "evidence" for any particular aspect of objective reality. But its discussion of a controversial philosophical concept is evidence of some far-out philosophical conjectures that are out-there in the ether. Quite a few prominent scientists have embraced Panpsychism*1 as an explanation for the emergence of human sentience.

I'm not buying the notion of brain tissue as receiver of divine signals*2, but I'm open to the possibility, pending further evidence. And I use this forum as place to explore unconventional ideas, honed by skeptical reasoning, not ridicule. :smile:

*1. Some scientists are exploring panpsychism as a potential solution to the hard problem of consciousness, which questions how physical matter can give rise to subjective experience.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=scientists+and+panpsychism

*2. "I find it difficult to accept that my thoughts & feelings are signals from some central transmitter, like the robotic clone army of Star Wars." ____excerpt from OP

Paine

If it is true that the

brain [is] acting as a receiver for consciousness. — Gnomon

is that not another instance of "forms" activating "matter?"

In that case, not an inversion of the Wayfarer thread.

T Clark

Quite a few prominent scientists have embraced Panpsychism*1 as an explanation for the emergence of human sentience. — Gnomon

Some scientists are exploring panpsychism as a potential solution to the hard problem of consciousness, which questions how physical matter can give rise to subjective experience. — Gnomon

The link you provided doesn’t really identify any scientists who support panpsychism, although it does identify some philosophers. Can you name some scientists who do?

discussion of a controversial philosophical concept — Gnomon

This is not a philosophical question at all—it’s a scientific one. Does our consciousness result from signals coming from outside our bodies?

And I use this forum as place to explore unconventional ideas, honed by skeptical reasoning, not ridicule. — Gnomon

The forum used to be much stricter about keeping out pseudoscientific theories. I don’t really mind that it’s become more lenient, but many such theories still do deserve ridicule.

Joshs

↪T Clark

Some scientists are exploring panpsychism as a potential solution to the hard problem of consciousness, which questions how physical matter can give rise to subjective experience.
— Gnomon

The link you provided doesn’t really identify any scientists who support panpsychism, although it does identify some philosophers. Can you name some scientists who do?

discussion of a controversial philosophical concept
— Gnomon

This is not a philosophical question at all—it’s a scientific one. Does our consciousness result from signals coming from outside our bodies? — T Clark

William James might have begged to differ with you. In his essay ‘Human Immortality: Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine’, he raises the question whether consciousness might depend on, or even originate from, sources “outside” the brain, but James does so in a way that deliberately blurs the boundaries between psychology, philosophy, and neuroscience.

180 Proof

↪T Clark

:up: :up: Yeah, (@Gnomon's) pseudoscience —> ridicule.

T Clark

In his essay ‘Human Immortality: Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine’, he raises the question whether consciousness might depend on, or even originate from, sources “outside” the brain, — Joshs

The idea that the essence of humans—the soul, consciousness, the spirit—originates outside the body is nothing new. As I understand it, that is one of the fundamental ideas in Christianity. I haven’t read the James essay, so I can’t really say what exactly he’s talking about. The usual suspect tertiary sources on the web say he did not believe that consciousness originated outside the body.

Joshs

↪T Clark

The usual suspect tertiary sources on the web say he did not believe that consciousness originated outside the body. — T Clark

In earlier works , like Principles of Psychology, his approach was mainly materialistic. But toward the end of his career his thinking became more speculative. In the essay, he proposes that the idea that the brain transmits rather than produces consciousness is philosophically and scientifically conceivable, and perhaps better fits the facts than strict materialism.

He writes:

“Suppose that our brains are not productive, but transmissive organs, through which the material world affects the spiritual. Then the diminutions of consciousness which accompany brain lesions may not be due to the destruction of consciousness itself, but to the failure of its physical organs to transmit it properly.”

T Clark

Suppose that our brains are not productive, but transmissive organs, through which the material world affects the spiritual.

For the record, I really like James. As for this quote, that’s not all that far from what I believe. The material world affects the spirit through our senses and perceptions processed by our nervous system. I don’t know if that’s what he meant.

Ciceronianus

The ancient Stoics were stubborn materialists, but believed in a rarefied form of material, generally called pneuma, which was the generative force of the cosmos. Pneuma was a part of all things, organic and inorganic, but had different grades, one of which formed the rational mind/soul of human beings.

Perhaps they were pantheists or panpsychists--I don't particularly care which. I find the general idea of such a cosmos attractive. But I agree that if there is something similar to pneuma it will be established through science, not philosophy.

180 Proof

I agree that if there is something similar to pneuma it will be established [falsified] through science, not philosophy. — Ciceronianus

:up: Like a vacuum or atom or aether ...

Cosmos Created Mind

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions