The use of the word "mind" implies the acceptance of the metaphysical duality of mind/brain; the assumption being that such a paradigm either *is* beyond question or challenge or *should* not be questioned or challenged.

But it also implies that consciousness can be completely described from the frame of reference of thought alone; thus asserting, on an a priori basis, that neither the 'unconscious' nor the "observing consciousness" is of any relevance or significance at all with regards to the description of human consciousness and the range of human experience.

I suggest that the term 'mind' simply be replaced by the term consciousness to eliminate this paradigm bias.

Michael Cecil

How could there be such a thing as a "consciousness expert"?

To be an expert about anything, one has to think about how that thing works, and such thinking requires a medium of thought -- which is the mind that carries the information of consciousness.

Michael has claimed that there is no "mind" and no "thinker." He also claims that consciousness (as pure observer-awareness, will, qualia, etc.) cannot be explained by thought (which, incidentally, I agree with).

Obviously, all the 'experts" listed in this canonizer topic are "thinkers" with definite ideas about the "mechanisms of consciousness" (to be specific, the workings of the "mind" -- which is the medium that carries the encoded *information* and *images* of consciousness between the observer-experiencer and the memory fields, brain-body, neuromuscular system, senses, etc.). How all these mechanisms interrelate have to be carefully thought out, and the conclusions reached as to how the mind actually works, explained rationally (whether, logically or scientifically) by the so called "Mind Experts."

Subjective consciousness itself (as the witness observer, perceiver, experiencer, discerner, discriminator, chooser, knower, thinker etc.) -- since it cannot be proved to be an epiphenomena of matter or neural complexity -- must be entirely left out of all studies of mind... The "mind" IMHO -- being an information carrying, radiant energy field of total space -- is a separate entity that even supersedes the neurology and brain-body (which is another state of cosmic substance altogether).

Apparently, Michael believes (as I do with respect to awareness, will, qualia) that consciousness per se, is not a subject of science. However, mind, being a medium of consciousness information, does require scientific study.

Therefore, changing the title would eliminate ALL the scientific/philosophical "thinkers" already on board, and leave only Michael -- as a self professed "consciousness expert"... Which -- if we are to believe that such "expertise" comes through "Revelation" coupled with a religious belief that Man's higher "observer consciousness" was created by God -- makes Michael a "creationist" as well as a debunker of science. Accordingly, the phrase "Consciousness Expert," then, becomes an oxymoron.

With all that in mind, I suggest that the topic name NOT be changed, and that anyone who denies the existence of BOTH the "mind" and the "thinker" (who uses the mind to comprehend and explain HOW THE MIND WORKS as well as how we subjectively experience the information of the senses) -- be expelled from this topic or ignored.

Very well stated Lenny! I agree 100 %!

Lenny stated:

<<< I suggest that the topic name NOT be changed, and that anyone who denies the existence of BOTH the "mind" and the "thinker" (who uses the mind to comprehend and explain HOW THE MIND WORKS as well as how we subjectively experience the information of the senses) -- be expelled from this topic or ignored. >>>

This is completely counter to our goal here at canonizer.com - to survey what everyone believes, especially the minority theories. In my opinion, we don't want to 'expel' or 'ignore' anyone here.

The topic itself, it's name, and the agreement statement, are intended to be as agreeable and all inclusive as possible. Perhaps someone can come up with a name that everyone would agree with? If not, then Michael still has options. He can maintain his camp here http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/81/20 expressing his belief that there is a better name for this topic. Also, he can attempt to 'fork' the entire topic and make a 'consciousness experts' topic where everyone that agrees with his POV, can also cooperate with this alternate way of thinking that is valuable to at least some people, even if it is still only a minority.

Thanks everyone for the continued participation and it is great to see this developing into a concise and quantitative representation of what EVERYONE believes.

Brent Allsop

I think 'consciousness' is better than 'mind' in this context. Ever since Gilbert Ryle's "The Concept of Mind" the word 'mind' has become confused. Also I suggest we use 'phenomenal consciousness' rather than just 'consciousness'—after all anesthesiologists can be said to be experts in consciousness!

Wow, now things get interesting. Evidently, so far, we have two for 'Mind Experts' and two for 'Consciousness Experts'. So I've created a topic in the /organization/canonizer/ name space so we can formally canonize this issue.

Congratulations, Michael, for believing there is a better way, for proposing such, and discovering that there are more people than you that think this way.

The new topic is here.

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/87

I added a bit of a description of how to try to avoid constant name changes should this be a very close leapfrogging issue in the long run. Let everyone know if you have a better way, and or a concise specification of how much of a lead should be required before we all do allow a name change. And feel free to add arguments to each of your respective camps for your position, and you can always create other camps than just these two.

Let's try to get as many people to weigh in on this issue as possible so we can have a good idea of what the best name is for everyone.

Michael, would you be willing to 'recycle' your non person camp on this issue since we can now capture your beliefs (and everyone else that agrees with you) on this issue in this new topic? (Send me an e-mail if you want to know how to recycle a camp.)

In response to Lenny, I guess I would have to say "How can there be any "mind" expert?

Which I would consider to be approximately equivalent to the question "How can there be any phlogiston expert"?

The assertion that "To be an expert about anything, one has to think about how that thing works" is, of course, traceable to self-reflection and the thought of the 'thinker' as the source of the scientific method and *all* truth. This is the paradigm that I am challenging; but not as a *replacement* paradigm (as occurred from the Ptolemaic system to the Copernican); but, rather, as a "range of applicability" paradigm (as occurred from classical physics to relativity). (I suggest, for example, that poets and song-writers do not really 'think' about things, the words of songs typically not consisting of logical arguments, but observations which are not from the consciousness of the 'thinker' at all.)

What I am suggesting is that there are other dimensions of consciousness and 'truth' conveyed by both the 'unconscious' and the "observing consciousness".

The assertion that "thinking requires a medium of thought -- which is the mind that carries the information of consciousness" is no different than the assertion of classical physics that there must be an "ether" which is the medium to carry light waves. Of course, I deny both the existence of the 'thinker' and "to think" as a verb. In accordance with Occam's Razor, there are thoughts as one particular dimension of consciousness; one of those thoughts being the thought of the 'thinker'.

Similarly, the assertion that I am suggesting that all researchers of the 'classical' consciousness or the consciousness of the 'thinker' simply be eliminated is categorically untrue; for the same reason that relativity theory was not a *replacement* for classical physics but was merely a 'range of applicability' paradigm change.

That is, all that currently occurs within the rubric of research on cognitive psychology, neurology, etc. etc. etc. could very well be considered to be under to topic of "mind" experts (if that's what you want to call it, it's no skin off my back) or the 'classical' consciousness or whatever else you would like to term it.

I am NOT suggesting that all of this research and this perspective be eliminated *at all*; only that a category be established which acknowledges that there are, in fact, *3* rather than only one (the 'thinker' or the 'mind') dimension of consciousness. (And, if the consciousness of the 'thinker' wants to deny the reality of both the 'unconscious' and the "observing consciousness"; that, too, is fine by me; just so long as another category is established in which all of these dimensions of consciousness *can* be acknowledged.)

Using Lenny's rationale, I suppose the Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein's relativity as well should be either "expelled" from any discussion on physics or "ignored" because they challenge the existence of the "ether".

It seems that such comments demonstrate just how close this society is coming to the official institution of "thought police".

Extending the analogy, I would suggest that "mind experts" would be a 'special case' of "consciousness experts" in the same way that classical physics is a 'special case' of relativity theory, in which the velocity of an object is an infinitesimally insignificant fraction of the velocity of light.

In other words, if a person wants to believe in (the religion of) the metaphysical duality, the existence of the 'thinker' or the "mind", and that the scientific method is the source of *all* information/'truth' relevant to the understanding of human consciousness, his or her conclusions and comments would be included under "mind experts".

But, if a person acknowledges the reality of both the 'unconscious' (the findings of the archetypal and Jungian analysts cannot simply be categorically disregarded as having *no* meaning at all relative to human consciousness) and the "observing consciousness"--thus acknowledging that there are other dimensions of consciousness beyond merely the consciousness of the 'thinker'--his or her writings would be included under the category of "consciousness experts".

Now, the problem arises, of course, because the consciousness of the 'thinker' has a "dog in the fight" over the determination of a paradigm on consciousness itself. That is, the consciousness of the 'thinker' is perpetually under threat of incipient psychosis (as described in the opening passages of the Second Meditation of Descartes); and, thus, is constitutionally opposed to *any* acknowledgement of the reality of the 'unconscious'. And, thus, it has no experiential knowledge of the reality of the "observing consciousness" either.

But this is not unprecedented.

For people to change from the belief that the earth is the center of the universe to the realization that the earth rotated on its axis and revolved around the sun was also simply too psychologically traumatic for the vast majority of people. Those people died; and they were replaced by those who considered this 'new state of affairs' to be simply a matter of fact with no psychological implications at all.

Admittedly, addressing the issue of the consciousness of the 'thinker' itself as a paradigm--and only one of the three dimensions of consciousness--will necessarily result in very strong opposition by the consciousness of the 'thinker'; which is, in fact, fighting for its very sanity and survival by resisting such a 'range of applicability' paradigm change. In fact, the consciousness of the 'thinker' perceives this as, instead, a *replacement* paradigm change, even though it isn't.

It may very well require a lot of people simply to *die* with their current illusions about consciousness before they are replaced by people for whom this is 'no big deal'; and it is generally acknowledged that there are, in fact, three dimensions of consciousness; and that the consciousness of the 'thinker' is merely *one* frame of reference providing information relevant to the understanding of human consciousness.

I must make this short because my second attempt; the system timed me out yesterday which was *very* frustrating.

Anyway, to my mind [notice how *right* that expression sounds!] this particular schism is a storm in a teacup. I think Brent's proposal that this particular warparty be encamped in the canoniser is the way to go. The alternative is to commit mayhem with dodgey semantics and achieve nothing substantial.

As an exponent of UMSITW philosophy, it seems perfectly obvious to me that understanding of mind and awareness necessarily entails addressing the cryptic reality of unconscious mental processes. These can be very reasonably inferred from relatively simple observations of one's own experience and behaviour. The deeper ramifications, for example the processes of unconscious projection, and the nature of remembered dreams, require much more sophisticated understanding.

The word mind, and the concepts of mental processes and mental objects do not necessarily entail a dualistic outlook however. UMSITW is basically an "identity theory" which provides a coherent and entirely reasonable account of how it is that brain events embodying cerain dynamic logical structures coinside with sentience and self-awareness. Our awareness as such is paradoxical because it is not all that it seems to be, but speaking of mind and brain is not dualistic if it is actually descriptions of different aspects of processes and levels of organisation a self-aware beings.

In response to xodarap's comment I would say that whether a monistic or dualistic theory of mind is correct is purely an empirical matter of fact. Moreover "dualism" is not confined to the Cartesian theory, as there is a new dualist theory (extended materialism) based on brane theory in physics.