Montana Freethinkers

Promoting skeptical enquiry into religion, philosophy, politics, history, and economics in Montana and beyond.

A Concise Theory of Mind: By Justin Whitaker

PREFACE

It seems obligatory that I begin by mentioning what I am going to discuss, and more importantly, by saying something about the great deal of work that this paper will not include. This paper will lay out, systematically, my concept of determinism; what I call my "Concise Theory of Mind." I will provide both a theoretical model of my concise theory of mind, as well as several empirical demonstrations so that you can witness the theory in action. What I will not include are in depth refutations of counter-theories, ideas for fully testing my theory, and the repercussions on both the individual and on society of the theory. I must leave this to future work.

CONCISE THEORY OF MIND

Determinism, as a word, tends to bring up mostly negative images in one's mind. Words like "Fatalism" and such immediately come to play. However, on the other hand one can simply take determinism as applying the laws of cause and effect to the human condition. This may seem simple enough, but it is difficult to apply to any situation in which the effect is nearly unknowable due to the near infinite number of preexisting causes.

Modern thinkers are quick to use Quantum Mechanic's seemingly indeterminate or random nature of subatomic particles to refute determinism. To this I will briefly entertain two objections; first, the idea of using the indeterminacy of subatomic particles as a defense of the theory of Free Will is absurd. Indeterminacy does not equal choice, and thus one could fit the idea of seemingly random behavior of subatomic particles into a theory of determinism. Second is perhaps a more naïve objection on my part, but one that I feel has some pertinence. That is the objection that one should not use a theory as young and undeveloped as this [Quantum Theory arose in the 1920's] as a basis to argue against or to defend other, greatly unrelated theories.

Cause and Effect and Quantum Theory aside, how does determinism play itself out in the lives of each and every person? First, I would argue that the determining factors of our lives could [can] be reduced to two things: genetics and experience. Our genetics are what we begin with, not at birth, but at conception. By the time we are born we have already experienced a great deal. Experiences continue to compound throughout our lives and by them many of us are inclined to label and define ourselves.

By the time we have reached maturity, the starting pad given to us by genetics is so far behind us that it is of no influence whatsoever. The exception of genetic illness, such as depression, may be argued to refute this; but such a condition, however mentally based it may seem, is to be seen as an external event, the response to which is still said to be determined within the framework herein. However, it must be acknowledged that what genetics gave us heavily influenced our lives to this point. It simply must be acknowledged that now we are determined solely on the experiences that have been accumulated in our early years. The example I'll give to represent this, which admittedly could and should be expanded upon greatly and will at some later point, comes from Alan Sponberg, a Buddhist Scholar and teacher of mine. It goes something like this: we start off as condition [abc] and immediately move on to [bcd] and then [cde], [def], [efg] and likewise. The idea is that in a very short manner of time we, based on this example, are completely different from the 'self' that we inhabited just a moment, or year, or whatever period of time you'd like, ago. The [abc] is of course very important, as it is necessary in the explanation of how we arrived at [efg], but one can abandon it now and focus solely on [efg], our current self. As I mentioned, this example is almost absurdly simple for these purposes, and questions like "don't we hang on to at least a little bit of that 'a', 'b', or 'c' throughout life?" or "how does the 'd' and then the 'e' come about, if not by some choice or another?" will have to be answered elsewhere. For now, just trust that this is how my theory presupposes human existence to be. For example, genetics to a substantial degree gives us our intelligence and facial features early in life. However, this is no guarantee that one who was given great genetic makeup will have developed these in the early years and thus still in some way posses them as an adult. Moreover, once one is an adult who has squandered all aspirations of intellectual development, it is foolish to view his/her genetic predisposition toward intellectual greatness as a sign of hope that he/she will begin such development. Likewise, many seemingly mediocre minds, when stimulated properly throughout childhood, have become extraordinary. Thus, it is imperative that a great deal of energy is put into stimulating young minds, from the very point of earliest development in the womb right up to maturity.

Now we have the accumulation of experiences that have made up the individual, for better or for worse. It is from these experiences alone that the person makes their next action, both mentally and physically [by 'mental action' I mean what is commonly called a choice or decision]. It is within these experiences that the individual is undeniably deterministically trapped.

This is gloomy; but there is a 'way out', so to speak. The way in which one person is determined by there experiences may be quite different from how another person is determined by a very similar set of experiences. The difference will be an experience of course, or more likely a great number of them.

One can take nearly any example of 'out of the norm' or extraordinary behavior as an example but here is a hypothetical one that should raise some social, political, and ethical eyebrows. Take for instance two women, in their early 20's, attractive, outgoing; both raised in upper middle class suburbia; both academically promising, each at a middle sized suburban university; imagine the similarities going on to quite some extent. Now imagine they are both raped, under similarly identical circumstances. Both women survive and try to reassume their life as it was before the rape. [I use such a graphic example because I think it takes such examples to really pull out the truth of the determined nature of humanity.] Now think of each of their lives heading down strikingly different paths; for instance one sinks into a hole of self-despair, cutting herself off from humanity for decades to come while the other becomes an activist for women's liberation.

One might argue, "This just contradicts the whole theory! Two similar women, encountering a nearly identical experience, and extraordinarily different results; it must point to a 'will' or free choice made by the women." Nevertheless, the argument is wrong. All that it points to is that somewhere in the lives of each of these women some very different experiences took place. Perhaps the activist was simply told "you are not a victim until you choose to be one" [something I think many of us have heard] at some point in her life, and the rape, as terrible as it was, brought this advice to full realization. Perhaps the unfortunate of the two women, despite her success, had never developed a good relationship with either of her parents, or some such thing, and the rape brought her 'world tumbling down upon her' as she might say. The point is that despite the surface characteristics of these two women being remarkably similar, such similarity is in no way stable on the level of reality. This is because in reality, and it often takes such a traumatic event as this to swiftly break through the façade of one's self to reality, they are very unique people.

Both of these women's lives were rather abruptly torn out of what I call "shortsighted determinism", that being the kind of determinism that tends to run a person's life day in and day out. Such events are sure to happen in our lives several times, whether it is a near death experience, the loss of a loved one, or the sudden culmination of experiences into the insight we call an epiphany. These events take us, to use metaphysical language, out of our bodies, out of our lives that were previously trapped in shortsighted determinism, to a different plane, one at which a much broader view of our lives, both past and future, may be had. It is only in this plane that the advice given to us long ago can suddenly take hold of us. To put it another way, the advice was a 'cause', such as that in the first woman in the example, but its 'effect' was until this point made null by the lack of an experience to which it could be applied. This is one way of 'getting out' of shortsighted determinism, the condition that, if you look at yourself or most of those around you, you will find to be a common state of existence. However, it is only useful because of its sort of 'shock value' and therefore it is of little help in the realm of prescriptive philosophy.

Another way of 'getting out' is psychedelic drugs. However, it is by no means certain that what one 'arrives at' when under the influence of such drugs is any nearer 'reality' than one caught up on shortsighted determinism. Additionally, the side effects of drugs, both physically and socially, are such that they are also of little use for one seeking applicable solutions to the problems of the human condition. The only real good in such drugs toward this purpose, and it is a good that can be more safely attained elsewhere, is that of temporarily breaking down one's views of reality such that one is prompted to begin a search [hopefully not simply leading to additional drug use] toward a more stable sense of reality.

The third and only prescribable way of reaching that metaphysically 'higher' plane is what Jean-Paul Sartre calls "Purifying Reflection." It is also tied to the 2500-year-old tradition known as Vipassana [which translates to "seeing things as they truly are" or "insight"] Mediation in Buddhism. But I must state that this practice absolutely does NOT remove one completely from the grip of determinism. What reflective practice does is temporarily place the practitioner on the higher plane as to get a fuller perspective of what it is that determines them. The good of this is that the perspective itself alters what determines the practitioner. The result is a sort of 'wisdom' in action.

To explain this let us look at someone who is quite deeply consumed by shortsighted determinism. They don't look at the bigger picture because they're "too busy." This quote may bring to mind your own past experiences, or perhaps those of someone you know. It's quite common for most people to be caught up in this shortsightedness and the results are quite often quite the opposite of what the person thought they would be. This is because 'the way they think things will be' is based only on the immediate situation. And this immediate situation is used as a factual starting point, despite the individuals actual lack of understanding of what the immediate situation really is. The person is simply accepting naiveté, accepting a view of the situation as it is on the surface that, as the example of the two women should illustrate, is most definitely not an accurate view of the situation.

Think of a person who is made angry, for whatever reason. The shortsightedly determined individual has very few options and will most likely allow the anger to brood within them and ultimately lash out. Such an individual is simply unable to see beyond the anger and the cause of that anger. They are even quite often unable to distinguish between the real cause of the anger and innocent, noninvolved objects and persons around them. However, the person skilled in reflection of the sort mentioned will almost automatically ascend to the plane above for a fuller view of the situation. From this plane they can instantly analyze past experiences of themselves or others in a similar anger-invoking situation and then react based on which past reaction brought the most beneficial outcome.

Such an ability to analyze a great deal of past experience at the snap of a finger is not easy. In history or philosophy, such a person is considered to be great, for the simple fact that they are seemingly "rising above their situation." In Buddhism, one who can do it is certainly considered to be very far on the spiritual path, and one who is extraordinarily adept at it is understandably called "enlightened" or "awakened." The Buddhist belief that all humans are capable of such a state is one that I also carry into this essay. The fact of the matter is, however, that very few people will gain such ability. In Western society today there is such an importance placed on having experiences that the experiences themselves are rendered nearly worthless. The idea of reflecting on our experience is seen as a sort of waste of time, time that could be spent out doing. And indeed, the West, America in particular, is a society of doing. However, it is generally shortsighted and quite often counteracted by other 'doers'.

Does breaking out of simply doing based on the surface appearance of things and reflecting deeply break one out of experiential determinism? No, but it expands the possibilities of one's actions. We all want to make the 'right' choices in life; to use Buddhist terminology: we all want to be free from suffering, but with the shortsightedness with which we usually live, this is impossible. Think of the 'fool' who repeatedly burns himself by placing his hand in scalding water; so too is the way most humans live their lives.