Dear Friends: 

What fascinating ideas about mental processes, mind, consciousness, and science.  No idling grey matter on this list serve! 

But some of us, such as myself, are a little bit slower and need some definitions.  Sorry, that’s my reductionist training exerting itself. Please understand that the following comments deal with methods and means and not with person or persons.

For instance, how is “science” being used?  Wiktionary defines “science” as: 

science 

1.    A particular discipline or branch of learning, especially one dealing with measurable or systematic principles rather than intuition or natural ability. [from 14th

2.    Specifically the natural sciences.

3.     Knowledge gained through study or practice; mastery of a particular discipline or area. [from 14th c

4.    The fact of knowing something; knowledge or understanding of a truth. [from 14th c

5.    The collective discipline of study or learning acquired through the scientific method; the sum of knowledge gained from such methods and discipline. [from 18th c

6.    Knowledge derived from scientific disciplines, scientific method, or any systematic effort.

7.    The scientific community.  

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/science 

How is it being used in this discussion?  This is important in terms of the Wittgensteinian word game, n’est pas?  My conception of “science” is that principally it is a discipline, a method, a way of thinking, a filtration means for dealing with disparate representations of reality which tends towards finding and exploiting reproducible representations.  That is, centered around definition #1 above.  But, more often than not, the word “science” is used variably to mean, as it may be useful to a particular contention with which it is associated, any or all of the other definitions, just in case any one or more of them may affirm the contention being made. 

OK, in case that seems nit picking – wait, there’s more – as the TV hucksters proclaim. 

How are the words “mental processes,” “mind,” and “consciousness” being used in this discussion?  Again, I’ll refer to Wiktionary, since that is easily accessible by all. 

mental

1.    Of or relating to the mind or an intellectual process.

2.    Insane, mad, crazy.

3.    Enjoyable or fun, especially in a frenetic way.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mental

 

mind 

1.    The ability for rational thought. 

2.    The ability to be aware of things.

3.    The ability to remember things.

4.    The ability to focus the thoughts.

5.    Somebody that embodies certain mental qualities.

6.    Judgment, opinion, or view.

7.    Desire, inclination, or intention. 

8.    A healthy mental state.

9.    The non-material substance or set of processes in which consciousness, perception, affectivity, judgement, thinking, and will are based. 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mind

 

conscious

1.    Alert, awake; with one's mental faculties active.

2.    Aware of one's own existence; aware of one's own awareness. 

3.    Aware of, sensitive to; observing and noticing, or being strongly interested in or concerned about.

4.    Deliberate, intentional, done with awareness of what one is doing. 

5.    Known or felt personally, internally by a person.

6.    Self-conscious. 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conscious 

Clearly, “mental” as used in this discussion surely means the application of definition #1 above.  As such, I take it to be a sophisticated way to state that “something is going on in the "mind.”  Is there a more specific way in which this word is being used in this discussion?

“Mind,” on the other hand, appears to allude to a variety of psychological functions, as well as affective, cognitive, and conative states.  This wide usage and reference leaves the word’s meaning too vague in meaningful discussion. [Sorry, my reductionist opinion, to my mind (pun intended).]

And, “consciousness” – how may we apprehend its use?  The definitions above seem uniformly confined to understanding this state in a singular way – as does “mind, by the way.  That is, implicit is the perception of reference to the conscious state – as opposed to either the pre-conscious or the unconscious state. 

Which leads me to suggest the following:

                                        (Apologies, as needed, to Gregg’s more instructive Human Mind Diagrams)


In this representation, the “mind” includes all three levels of activity – the conscious, the pre-conscious, and the unconscious, as well as the sympathetic nervous system, the endocrine system, and the body in general.  But, more commonly, when we refer to the “mind” we imply CNS mental activity of which we are consciously aware.  Whereas, in terms of consciousness we are only aware of the “conscious mind” component and partially/intermittently aware of the “pre-conscious” component while, by definition, being unaware of the “unconscious mind” component and processes therein.  On the other hand, “mental processes” occur in the “mind” at all levels, while “consciousness” refers predominantly to our awareness of mental processes at the “conscious mind” level.  With extended effort, consciousness is able to access some of the mental processes at the “preconscious mind” level.  With greater effort, and some professional  help, we might access some of the mental processes at the “unconscious mind” level.

An example is provided by Martin’s email about his mathematics deliberations.  As he writes, it was when he awoke that he experienced further insight to his maths problem – after consideration of Gregg and Linda’s comments.  This suggests (to me the reductionist) that his non-consciousness “unconscious mind” mental processes were at work assisting his consciouness “conscious mind” to evolve a resolution. 

Sometimes it seems to me that humanities-type writing includes dependence upon unstated assumptions and an unclearly defined use of words.  It might be prudent to consider such as to do so may not be in the best interests of The TOK Society’s efforts.

Just in case Wittgenstein is right!

Best regards,

Waldemar

Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
(Perseveret et Percipiunt)
503.631.8044

Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)

On Nov 16, 2018, at 6:49 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Thanks, Nancy.
 
To me, this is a great topic for our list. I would be curious to hear your thoughts on how you define/characterize mental processes and consciousness.
 
I encourage others to chime in also.
 
I am in the thick of my next book, The Problem of Psychology and Its Solution. It argues directly that modern empirical/textbook psychology is anchored to methodological behaviorism, where behavior is what we measure and mind is the cause or force or whatever that is inferred. Via the UTUA language game, I am delineating a new way to define these concepts. I will say here that the three concepts are very different in the UTUA system. Mental processes are not synonymous with consciousness in my language game. Indeed, I see it as crucial that the two are separated.
 
Warm regards,
Gregg
 
 
 
 
 
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Nancy Link
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 3:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: blog on talking as a behavior or mental process
 
Hi Gregg,
 
I agree completely with what you have said in this blog.
 
I think that the study of mental processes (consciousness) continues to be seriously disadvantaged because the way that psychology was initially set up.
 
To the extent that it is seriously studied, it is studied by the psychotherapists who work with the material of consciousness.
 
Nancy
 
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Gregg Henriques <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 10:43 AM
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: blog on talking as a behavior or mental process
 
Hi List,
  Hope this finds everyone well. I had an exchange yesterday with Steve Quackenbush on the deep problems with modern empirical psychology, and it prompted the following short blog:https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201811/is-talking-behavior-or-mental-process
 
Best,
Gregg
############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################ 

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1


############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1