UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 8 to Meditation 537
Assume, for the sake of argument, that we'll never completely understand our own minds.

by: George Rush

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This discussion has been continued.

Edith Sitwell, Emerson Pugh, and others assert that the human mind, in particular consciousness itself, is too complex for human minds to understand. They may be right; let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we'll never completely understand our own minds. That doesn't mean we can't learn more about them. In just the last few decades many interesting facts about the brain and mind have been discovered. The view I'm defending, called micropsychism by Prof. Galen Strawson, would be another interesting scientific fact about the brain/mind (if proven true). But none of this adds up to complete understanding of the brain/mind; not even close. So "Sitwell's principle" isn't violated by the micropsychism hypothesis.

JT: Science has made many discoveries about the brain, the mind, and consciousness ...

- Science has made many discoveries about the brain, that's very true. Amd almost every discovery about the brain implies some fact about the mind. Psychology has also uncovered some useful facts about the mind more directly, by studying subjects (for instance, in the field of visual illusions). However, I claim science has made no discoveries about consciousness (a.k.a. awareness, or experientiality) itself. According to noted figures such as Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Pinker, science doesn't understand consciousness at all.

JT: Perhaps, if our descendents evolve enough, they will be able to understand how our minds function, but their minds will still not be complex enough to understand their own.

- Yes, that's possible.