KARL  JASPERS  FORUM

TAs 102-104 (Vimal)

 

Response R8 (to C7)

 

 

( MIR  VERSUS  WORKING-MIR )

by Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

5 March 2008, posted 15 March 2008

 

 

Re [1]

I don’t know the terms ‘MDR’ and ‘EMR’.

I have not been in nirvana either, but from descriptions I understand that it means emptying one’s mind, and that would mean disappearance of mental structures, which agrees with the idea that mental structures are formed (and dissolved) in the mind.  Kant said that we cannot know MIR but that it is needed for thinking, which agrees with the notion that it is a mental tool.

 

RLPV:

MDR = Mind-dependent reality = subject-inclusive reality;

EMR = electromagnetic radiation.

I agree with you.

 

 

Re [2]

What do you mean by ‘experiences that are not SE’ ?  Who experiences them ?  This is rather unclear to me.  If they are supposed to be mind-independent (you seem to say they are SE-independent) they imply naive MIR-belief.  You say they are similar to ‘strings’ which would mean that they are ‘physicalist’ mind-independent matter – but you also claim not to be a materialist, which would imply the opposite.

 

RLPV:

the term ‘subjective experiences (SEs)’ are those experiences that satisfy essential ingredients of reportable awareness, such as wakefulness, attention, re-entry, working memory and so on in neural nets.  The tern ‘proto-experiences (PEs)’ are those experiences that are not SEs.  [I have ignored dream, drowsiness, and other states of mind/brain for future discussion.]  For example, we have SE of redness.  For example, consider the red light falling on the skin of primitive amoeba-like animal (floating in the ancient sea) (Humphrey, 2000); this animal detects the red light and makes a characteristic wriggle of activity; this behavior may be considered as its PE.  Neural-nets experience SEs. The term materialism implies simply non-experimental matter, which is MIR-belief.  The term physicalist includes dual-aspect entities: non-experiential matter as material aspect and PEs as mental aspect.  Strings, fermions, bosons, and all inert matter are simply carriers of SEs/PEs.

 

Re [3]

‘Matter is already there’ :  that means materialism.  There is an important difference between structuring and inventing reality-experience.  (From my paper ‘Brain in mind’, 2007  :)

 

RLPV: agreed

 

“ There is a difference between “structuring” and “inventing or creating or causing”.  This is decisive for questions such as: do we only structure the world, or do we also create it ?  The conflation of the two is not compatible with the 0-D-structuring view.

 

RLPV: ok.

 

(i) We do not create the acoustic nerve or the planet Jupiter; there is no place for invention, since there are reliable earlier spontaneous (non-deliberate and non-verbal) subject-inclusive structures, such as visual-gestalt forms.  Deliberate verbal structures are, or can be, added to them in order to include them in deliberate world-and-self-and-all structures.

 

RLPV: ok. But the acoustic nerve or the planet Jupiter can be described as MIR and MIR-belief.  Although we do not know MIR, we can imagine, such as objects in the ‘sea’ of EMR.

 

(ii) But we have to invent structures where working-structures are needed or desired, but no earlier spontaneous structures are available: to create a song, to structure our identity or self (to a degree), a political constitution, or a religion, etc.

 

RLPV: ok.

 

This does not imply that the former, (i), are pre-structured (ontic MIR-) objects: they require our structuring – mainly non-deliberate, but also deliberate – and can then be treated as as-if- or working-MIR (the latter, (ii), can too).

 

RLPV: ok.

 

All of reality is our subject-inclusive structure, within the limits of operational possibilities: the structures do not arise by themselves. But only some of it is our creation in the sense that we make it.  The traditional way to distinguish between these two kinds of structure is to assume that the non-invented ones are mind-independently pre-structured.  But, as just discussed, there is no need for MIR-ontology-realism; it is replaced by von Glasersfeld’s criterion of the “viability” of the structured items, as per feedback during use of the structures.

 

To repeat: all of reality is our structure and must be able to pass the feedback test, but we invent only some of it. ”

 

RLPV: ok.

 

 

Re [4]

From where does the ongoing experience come ?  It is what we have, our start point.  It is ‘given’, as some people put is, but given in an unstructured state, all structures include the subject’s activity, either automatic or deliberate.  If you say they come from somewhere else then you are in MIR-belief, for instance materialism, subject-exclusive objectivity.  But one can say that, in a working-objectivist view, they are dependent on biological processes (i.e., as-if-MIR).

 

RLPV:  How can we have them? Given by whom? 

 

Re [5]

MIR-belief is human construction but erroneously believed to refer to something outside SE.  The corrected version is as-if-MIR (or working-MIR, where the tool-nature of this MIR notion is clear).

 

RLPV: ok.

 

Re [6]

Crystallization of matter within mind :  see [3] above.

 

RLPV: ok. But we need to unpack it.

 

Re [7]

‘Most neuroscientists will say that the ‘neural net’ is a materialist entity’.  That is quite true :  they do because most neuroscientists are materialists, i.e., subject-exclusive objectivists.  And the consequence is that they cannot deal with the mind-brain problem.

 

RLPV: ok.

 

-------------------------------------------

 

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute,

428 Great Road, Suite 11, Acton, MA 01720, USA

Ph: +1 978 263 5028; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

Emails: <rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in>, <rvimal@mclean.harvard.edu>

URLs: <http://www.geocities.com/rlpvimal/>, <http://www.geocities.com/vri98/>, <http://www.geocities.com/das00m/>