What deceives: the senses or the mind?

reply to post by Astyanax


Yes, I don't think there is a mind in the first place. Nor do I hold the brain to be the mind. I left out my own particular definitions so as not to lose our dualist friends. Folk psychology is better left for the masses.

So, from a strictly materialist viewpoint, I should say that 'deceptions' – optical illusions, false perceptions, hallucinations and all the rest – are products of the interactive system of brain and sensory apparatus, or more broadly of brain and body. There's no way to pull them apart and show where the deception originates.

I would have to agree.

reply to post by Shuye

The senses are also not an exact "reality-reader" either, but if you consider the 'holographic universe' theory, the mind is really creating this all thing, so it has the ability to deceive even the senses.

No I don't think the mind has the ability to create this all thing. I do not consider the holographic universe.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


The mind creates the senses. Without the mind, where are the senses come to play? What interprets them?

reply to post by Shuye

The mind creates the senses. Without the mind, where are the senses come to play? What interprets them?

The body.

I haven't seen anybody yet mention the relationship between raw sensory data and abstract conceptualization (or thought constructs). Take your desert oasis example. The optical senses capture something in the distance. The 'mind', or a thought construct, arises with the notion of a "body of water in the distance". Upon closer inspection though, that thought construct is replaced by another thought construct which represents the notion that "it is not a body of water, but heat rising off the sand". So what we might consider to be a "deception", or "misperception", is not necessarily the failure of sensory intake, but of the thought construct related to that sensory intake. After being "deceived", though, the thought construct related to that sensory data may change for future reference to include a more thorough understanding of what that sensory experience could mean.

Therefore, to say "the senses are deceiving" is really to say "the thought constructs related to sensory data can often be misguided, or just flat out wrong". Or one could say, "sensory data is often misunderstood and taken to be what it is not, until further examination is acquired, effectively rendering the thought construct related to that sensory data as more coherent or consistent with closer inspection." It pretty much all boils down to semantics though.

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
I haven't seen anybody yet mention the relationship between raw sensory data and abstract conceptualization (or thought constructs). .

That is what I was trying to refer to with the difference between the "raw data" and the "interpretation" of it.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


What interprets the body?

@What deceives: the senses or the mind?

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates their own abilities in decision-making, and significantly underrates the abilities of their opponents (the "outgroup").

MANifesting MAnifesting Manifesting man...

reply to post by Shuye

What interprets the body?

I would say that the body does not need to be interpreted; it merely needs to exist and function. Maybe I don't understand what you're getting at. What exactly does it mean, 'interpreting the body'?

reply to post by Shuye

What interprets the body?

The body.

reply to post by Astyanax


What I mean is that once you take the mind out of the body it becomes a plant. The mind translates the signals which arrives at the senses, and forges a response (let it be cognitive or physical) but every response is mind related created, just as every move you currently make, including typing the words on the keyboard and observing the screen is mind related. The body does not and cannot do nearly a thing without the mind.

I can bring many examples for that, but one thing in particular on this subject would be the neglect syndrome, also known as Hemispatial neglect, which is 'the inability of a person to process and perceive stimuli on one side of the body or environment that is not due to a lack of sensation' (Wiki). People can go on believing they are taking care of themselves and know what goes around them fully well, but actually they can comb only one side of their hair, perceive only one side of the body, or draw a painting in only half of the canvas while believing the painting is complete (which is also an example of how the mind is actually the real deceiver here, especially when it's ego-driven)



Therefore the body exists and functions thanks to the mind, as without the mind, what can really tell its story? The same can be said on everything else actually, without the mind there is no world, but that's perhaps going a bit too deep and out of topic here.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Shuye

 

What interprets the body?

The body.

Quit playing the smartass.

reply to post by Shuye

Are you quite clear about the distinction here between mind and brain? What you posted shows how important the brain is to the body. It says nothing about the necessity or even the existence of mind.

Originally posted by Shuye
reply to post by Astyanax

 

What I mean is that once you take the mind out of the body it becomes a plant. The mind translates the signals which arrives at the senses, and forges a response (let it be cognitive or physical) but every response is mind related created, just as every move you currently make, including typing the words on the keyboard and observing the screen is mind related. The body does not and cannot do nearly a thing without the mind.

I am interested in your view here, but think I am missing something in it- what about all the biological processes like respiratory, digestive, circulation of blood and lymph..... the beating of the heart, for example? These processes all go on without the mind becoming involved.
Ôr else, what do you mean when you write "mind"? Do you just mean "brain", or do you include both conscious and subconscious thought?

The senses can misperceive, but only the mind can truly deceive.

As somebody who believes in a distinction between the brain and the mind, I would classify the brain and senses as both being vulnerable to the manipulation of the mind.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Shuye

 

Are you quite clear about the distinction here between mind and brain? What you posted shows how important the brain is to the body. It says nothing about the necessity or even the existence of mind.

For me mind=brain=consciousness is quite intertwined, the interpretation of the body by the mind is made of the same elements as the brain's cognitive abilities which are thought, perception, imagination, memory.
So if perception is a mind tool to grasp the physical body, then the other elements (such as sensory signals) are also perceived by the mind. Where is the feeling of your eyes watching the screen when you are not aware/attentive/perceiving it?

Originally posted by Bluesma

I am interested in your view here, but think I am missing something in it- what about all the biological processes like respiratory, digestive, circulation of blood and lymph..... the beating of the heart, for example? These processes all go on without the mind becoming involved.
Ôr else, what do you mean when you write "mind"? Do you just mean "brain", or do you include both conscious and subconscious thought?

That's why I said the body does not and cannot do nearly a thing without the mind. There is the peripheral nervous system which basically and seemingly works autonomously on the internal organs without the mind, but yet it seems that some parts of the brain do get involved, and helps regulate some of these biological processes. Including the central nervous system which helps the PNS to get a better understanding of what's going on out there (That's why we might hold our bladder for a few hours on a bus, or get our heart beaten faster when encountering a danger of some sort). So it is autonomous on some levels but not entirely, it gets its intel from the central nervous system and hence the brain, mind and so on.

Sorry about my misinterpretation, like I said for me the brain equals mind, cognition (thought, memory, imagination), conscious, subconscious, unconscious, etc. The brain seems to be the only part that's working continuously and forming the reality for us a millisecond after millisecond. Even in the state of deep sleep, when we're dreaming at night and get into the somewhat visual realistic looking world with all of our senses functioning. We can do whatever, be with whomever, have whatever experience and it will feel 100% real but then again... It's all in our head with all the brain parts responsible for depicting sensory signals and physical reactions are functioning as in the state of awakening. So how can you be any confident that this world is 100% real too? Not to mention the senses?

I'm glad that it's still on topic because it illustrates just how the mind is the ultimate deceiver here.

reply to post by Dark Ghost


The sense data is as it is, though. It is the interpretation of the raw sensory data that can be inconsistent between different perspectives. So it would really be the brain "deceiving" itself. Ultimately though, for the fluid observer even this is not true. The process of sensory data being interpreted into thought form is a fluid process. From each perspective the desert wanderer is correct (from a distance there is a oasis, from near it is heat rising). Therefore, deception would be in the rigid attachment to one thought construct, essentially over-riding the new sensory intake and thus deceiving the observer. This is called self-deception in psychology. A person holds dearly on to one belief even though other information contradicts that belief.

In short, "misperception" is simply put the limited understanding of something relative to someone else's vantage point (therefore it is something we all suffer from), and "self-deception" is simply put the willful denial of information acquired through sensory experience.

reply to post by Shuye



I think that is a fair conclusion.

Sorry about my misinterpretation, like I said for me the brain equals mind, cognition (thought, memory, imagination), conscious, subconscious, unconscious, etc. The brain seems to be the only part that's working continuously and forming the reality for us a millisecond after millisecond.

That isn't entirely true, for we know that a brain cannot do anything without the support of a functioning organism. To be conscious one must have senses, bones, skin, etc. A brain in a jar is not conscious, nor can it ever be. To have thoughts one must have experienced through the entire body, receiving input. The same with memory. No where in time or space has a brain thought on its own. I know you know this, but I just wanted to clarify for the readers.

It seems more honest to call the body the mind, for all of it is required for any mental process.

The information our 5 senses are able to collect generate in the brain an internal representation of reality. This is not to suggest we are hallucinating but however hallucinations are also the result of internal representations.

We see, hear smell, taste and feel and as a result an image of our environment is observable that we can act upon.This image of our surroundings is completely in our heads. Reality outside this experience could very well be a quantum soup in perhaps 11 dimensions of space-time.An evolving form of life would probably find it very difficult to find food that way.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


You're blaming our brains for misinterpreting data that our other sensory organs have already misinterpreted. (If there were no misinterpretation coming in to the brain, we would sense everything.)

reply to post by Bleeeeep

You're blaming our brains for misinterpreting data that our other sensory organs have already misinterpreted.

Do you have any examples of the senses misinterpreting?

I don't think the sensory organs interpret anything, per say, as they work within their limits to acquire data. What we do with that data after it is acquired, what we focus on, depends on perhaps another sense of some kind, whatever deals with the data.

It is quite probable that the brain is not powerful enough to comprehend all data, opting to construct a perpetual misinterpretation of some sort instead. For instance, when it rains, although we likely feel every drop of rain that hits us, we sense each one, we rarely remember each individual rain drop. We create a general term, "the rain", to stand in for the thousands and thousands of rain drops that hit us, for the purpose of comprehending.

I'm not sure what I'm getting at; just speaking out loud here.