The Tree of Life
The tree of life is inside you, the reader. Or rather, it is you. It is the pattern of your self which is written physically into your brain. The pattern of all your past, and possibilties for the future. The difference from a normal tree is that this one dances with energy, meaning and change. At every moment the tree adopts a different form, combining parts of the branching patterns it once knew or has since grown, or is even at this moment growing. Whenever you think something, whenever you know or feel something, there is a matching pattern of activity in this tree of life. It will not reform identically in the whole of your life. One moment's experiences and opportunities, it would seem, can never, ever, repeat exactly. It is the crossroads where the material, physical world may appear most strongly as something other than physical.
----------------------
Philosophers have asked how a lump of fleshlike material, such as the brain, can
possibly be aware of anything, or be a 'self' such as we experience - how 'immaterial' thoughts
and perception can exist in a purely physical universe. A complete materialist cannot see any
problem here, .. the awareness is considered as a so far unexplained effect of complex brain
function, or an evolved part of it. He need only point to the way a damaged or drugged brain
can change the so called immaterial thoughts and self. He can show how the brain is
responding when thought or perception occurs.
It is a logical picture and is accepted widely as true .... along with the contradictory view
that we have a soul or spirit or some such. Understandable, since there is an instinctive
feeling that the materialist approach could be missing something .. as many philosophically
inclined scientists would agree. So here is another way of looking at the matter, which
dawned on the writer more than 10 years ago. For all the writer knows it is a common
approach in some studies, but it seemed original to him anyway. ( the author is pleased to
insert a note here, that over recent years he has seen material which bear out what he has
written, though none seem to have approached it in quite the same way) He is going to try and
play a trick on the reader as well. This will be explained in the second section.
A human brain starts with far more nerve cells than it finally uses. There is a trial and error process in all learning of the brain, and in very early life, the much used brain cells and the links between them live, and the unused are lost. So early experience and very basic preferences - presumably like; how to find 'satisfaction' ; how to avoid pain - set which links and starting pattern will be yours. ( plus there are genetic effects) From then on the number of cells only slowly diminishes with age, but the links between them may grow richer and more complex until the day the brain ceases functioning altogether. (Though, as has been more recently discovered, replacement cells can grow to some degree in adults.)
It seems to be fairly well known now, how the links between brain cells are affected by
other cell's activities. The conclusion is that no cell stands alone - it is subject to 'passed on'
messages, and effects from the surrounding brain, and reacts accordingly. When a particular
combination arrives on it's receptors it sends on a signal in a particular way. From this
simple process the whole of the way we act can be logically deduced - when the process is
seen as working in an enormous, interconnected network.
It all depends on the idea that nerve cells select a pathway, which in turn causes other
cells to select, and so on, in endless interaction. Because there is so much to say about the
consequences of this, ( it really does apply to everything ) I have shortened the original
material so that a reader will more likely continue to the second half ! If in doubt, or
wanting to understand more, the reader might be best to apply the ideas to some occurence or
interest in their own life .. rather than just search the internet, where there is lot of material by
well known scientists but which is based on assumptions which can be questioned.
It is common to talk of the brain's complexity. This is not in the numbers of cells, though the numbers are very large, with estimates from ten thousand million, to a million million . But it is in the way each cell can be connected different ways to many others, that the real complexity develops. In how it can then react different ways according to the combination of signals that arrives at it. That is where the possibilities spiral out of comprehension when all the local combinations are multiplied against each other. It is the different pathways made from those combinations, upon which the tree of life dances.
There are particular parts of the brain where particular functions concentrate and the study
is fascinating, but it leads one to miss the overall picture. For the sake of a general principle I
will avoid description. Picture then, a particular input arriving at one point in the giant
brain web - say, signals like that arriving from an ear when a loud noise has occured. A
whole set of signals spread and pass on from that point and can be seen in a suitable brain
scanning device. It looked to me remarkably like a shock wave was crossing the brain . But
the signals do not just blindly proceed. According to the basic process of each cell affecting the
other, a preferred and established route is easier, and the signals will follow a particular
course. In short, the signal becomes tested/sorted/ matched /dealt with, according to what
earlier experience proved to be most useful or rewarding for the particular character of the
input. If the input does not 'fit', there may be action initiated to learn more.
At the same time other signals all over the system are balancing against each other.
Originating from the eyes or hands, the general sensations of the body, the effects on the
receptors in the brain from circulating peptides etc. (which link the 'mind' with body states ) ....
whatever. Each of the inputs is sending signals radiating out into and across the network of
cell links. There are more coming from memories and current 'sense of myself', and from the
knowledge of the current real life situation, all reacting and sending their own signals around
the net.
I picture this as an massively complex set of signals, acting as fast as the quickest reflex response, and acting, and continuously interacting, everywhere - though more concentrated in (shifting ) areas. Like ripples in a continuously disturbed pool, becoming more and more complex - or fading to insignificance at the arrival of larger and fresher ones. Balancing, juggling against each other, more synchronised and rythmic at times, selecting some paths over others, racing here, diverting there, switching in whole networks of other activity, or held up by lack of 'corroboration' ..... they are in an intense flickering dance upon the physical network, so that the network physically changes with time as new links are grown in areas of intensity. Just try and get a sense of the complexity. The fact that the signals are not permanent or even stable for long. It is the movement, the change of general balance of activity, that makes our life and self dance. .... ( though the conscious awareness appears to remain fairly smooth and sometimes be in total still clarity- in startling contrast to what physically occurs in the brain)
So that is the first picture. A vast, complex mass of changing branchlike patterns, a fleeting dance of interacting energy.
This can be related to dreaming. There is a particular nerve in the brain stem which
effectively isolates the brain from the spinal column, preventing brain activity from driving
the rest of the body. (They cut it in a cat, - or was it dog? - and the cat acted out physically
it's cattish dreams.) If you picture the nature of the brain network as above, with it's
constant interacting impulses, what is most likely to happen when the above nerve disconnects
the body, while the 'self ' or normal centre of input and control in the network, is switched
so low as to go 'off line' for sleep?
The nerves are still there, with all their pathways. They surely continue. ( controlled to a
slower rate, and into several periods ) Will they not still sort, still find balance? - but
through the whole depth of the system, since there is no overiding new input. Stronger
impules freshly laid in would assert themselves, maybe in conjunction with old or obscure
patterns, the whole system flowing on to a new balance. Laying new pathways ( learning) even
though there is no conscious attempt to do so. The potential of the signals, I would guess,
tends to a levelling overall, a reduction of tension, and a settling out effect, but with random
sudden bursts of some strong set of connections. Personally, I find this also makes dreams
a very understandable occurence. Does it not even feel after a good night's sleep that your
brain has 'settled down' .. integrated the latest data .. cleared the decks ?
Here is another observation. I wrote this over quite a few days . And in the morning, immediately on waking, my brain churned out a lot of new words and ideas to fit in with it. Some missed out ideas had been connected, put together by the operations of the brain sorting itself out in the night. So 'I' am not writing this .. it is happening all by itself. Even as I write now, words seem to come from nowhere according to some plan held further back in the brain. And new ideas spring too from nowhere, more words follow. An automatic process, but quite high in the scale of the brain? A result of many layers of the network selecting and influencing each other? Of course, but how far then, do automatic functions go? ( As an example, this writer's brain understands and arrives at new thoughts in a long drawn out process. Some familiar things of course are very fast, but new material requires apparently slow, evolution and sorting.. at least for this brain. )
Now the second crucial picture. Picture the complex brain network at a moment when someone is engaged in a hobby they like doing. Think of the most active parts. They will be a set of patterns and branches within the tree of life - particular links within each of the function areas of the brain. e.g. sub patterns at the basic level for the particular physical skills involved, the patterns of experience stored when dealing with the same situation before, the knowledge built up, the feelings that go with that - which motivate the hobby. The 'sense of the world around' and the state of the body and chemical messengers in the bloodstream, will generally be oriented to a similar balance to what it always has been when doing such activity.
Similarly when one is at a normal day's work in a familiar environment. The links and
patterns through the network will be in a similar balance to usual, the memories normally
associated will be physically closer to those links - more easily accessed. The feelings will be
similar on the whole. The whole thing will be triggered by the familiar actions, the familiar
input from the senses, interactions with others.
In short, one will operate in that part of the network in your brain, which is put into
action by the surroundings, mixing with your internal intent, and memories. I am implying
that it is not strictly, a conscious, choosing, way of being. The very simple process of the
most easily accessed links in a brain trying to link again, will do it all. We are most
commonly on automatic pilot - though it does not appear so to us. This is because 'me' - the
very concept of yourself - is part of the process. It also flows and changes and in the process,
experiences what it calls choices.
So the links related to some particular situation, to memories and knowledge - and to
the rest of the body, are connected most easily then. In fact, I will suggest that other
non-related memories and knowledge can sometimes be virtually inaccessible .... there being
no easy linkage to them.
I suggest that many of the associated links operating are the memory. And that is
why memory is spread through the brain ... it is a pattern based on function, and 're-living' of
old links that have integrated into the total network through use and 'importance'. ( An
'important' piece of information is judged so because it relates to many existing links - and
therefore it will integrate well.) So memory is not a seperate place of storage. Which, if you
recollect the potential number of connections between the brain cells, accounts for the sheer
size of memory.
I imagine that one cell may link many different memories through itself, depending on
the particular paths which it completes at some moment. Though it is known that some items
( like a word ) can disappear with the death of one particular cell I suggest that it is actually
the particular vital linkage held by that cell which enables the memory. There are tricks of
memory retention and access, which bear out this 'linking by closeness to a function' approach.
-----------------
A conclusion I reach is that with one well established set of brain patterns, working in
familiar surroundings, there is a complete 'self.' It has it's own dominant memories,
knowledge, skills, feelings, way of acting, and relationship to the world as pictured outside
that immediate environment. Obviously true in experience?
I am pointing out that this self , though it feels complete, is but part of the persons whole
potential. As may seem obvious now you are reminded of it - but you do not remember this
normally. One feels at the time that any such self is the real, and only 'me'.
This implies that within one individuals 'tree of life', are several (or many) patterns which can act with the strength of the self or ego. It would be excellent if these patterns were totally consistent with each other and shared the same set of values. I think that is not the case. For a start, the one particular activity around which a matching sense of self grew, is valued much more when that self is active. And it may have to 'choose' to go against another interest. As when you are wrapped in a hobby or pursuit and become aware that another function is required. For a moment another set of links and self start to appear. There is a brief awareness of this .. then the links of the self which you currently are, sweep it all away, in continuation of the pursuit.
I can imagine too, that there could be quite contrary interests .. as there are in this writers
being. Without wishing to suggest anyone is positively 'deviant', I think that in one brain
network, some very odd and obssessive selfs can arise. Strengthened over a lifetime, and
defended by all the links to the sense of self or ego. And at odds with values built into the
system when another more normal self is engaged.
But the critical point is they exist as links and patterns written physically into the
network. They have their weight and potential - in the physical sense of being able to alter the
network, all the time. Now remember the old idea of a 'subconscious mind'. Yes? Aha?
Think of the nerve network, and all that potential brain action just waiting to be triggered.
Some outer or inner stimulus letting it sweep into action to become your current sense of self -
and all the while having some effect on the rest of the network below awareness. Linking and
relinking with other patterns.
Suppose some of the patterns of these 'selfs' are so in contrast with others that the
impulses are juggling constantly. Think of nerve cell links forged perhaps during some
drawn out traumatic experience, how they would persist, perhaps normally 'sealed off ' or
'ignored' by links built around from the more normal 'self ' patterns. I'm inclined to think that
problems most likely would arise from some single, very strong alternate 'self'.
In any case, if you want to understand psychology, normal or abnormal, your own or
anyone elses, I believe you would find it useful to include the simple logic of linking brain
behaviour given here. A good psychologist will have a lot of very valuable experience and
wisdom - this country's national radio programme, for example has a knowledgeable women
talking regularly about such matters, - yet I can't help noticing how the linking theory of 'self' ,
explains much of what she says.
Some possibilites of the brain are limited genetically. I remember hearing that perhaps
half the genome is devoted to the brain struture. ( ?) In anycase, since we know how
common it is to have widely different body characteristics from heredity it seems certain that
there will be wide variation in the brain and it's function. For example, sense input being
directed to the wrong area for dealing with. - e.g. different numbers or sounds can appear as
different colours. (synaesthesia) Then there's all that left/right brain stuff, in different
proportions for everyone probably . Or 'creativity'... or extrovert versus introvert ... etc.. or
those 'psychological' conditions which turn out to be absence of some vital chemical, or region
of the brain .. etc.. etc..
It would be interesting, and possibly disconcerting, to hear of all the so far recognised
variations based on the genes. But unusual links may also appear by reason of learning
some method of 'self modification' of the brain - when driven by strong desire and reinforced
by the reward of success. Even with a more restrained and conscious approach, such as
meditating, it will doubtless give rise to links within the system which alter the general
balance. It is quite startling that the basic functioning of a brain may be modified by links built
through acquired knowledge and desire working together. Lifting oneself by one's own
bootstraps is possible! .... Though it should be noted that it will be limited by the initial
knowledge and desires.
There may be affects too, just by sheer random action of links. Some illusory states and
mis-perceptions. I remember a peculiar and intense ... "sandy, gritty, slowly stirring motion,
image/body feeling sensation, at a reduced impression of size" of one's own body very
occasionally, when meant to be going to sleep.
Now to something I hope you will find provoking. It is possible to detect to some
degree, the beginning of a carefully contrived 'decision' process. It seems that before you
are aware of it, the dance in the network of your brain that will produce a 'decision', has
already started. ( about a second earlier, though some say half a second. .. whatever ) This
indicates, when combined with the idea of a vast selecting network in the brain, that our
awareness, and choices, happen to us.
We do not make our choices strictly speaking, by conscious, deliberate, intelligence as
we may have believed. Yes, it was intelligent, but by virtue of physical nerve selections and
balances happening in our brain that we do not know about. Happening before the result
arrived in our consciousness. The intelligence belongs to the system as a whole, not to
some part of it. It is not mere cause and effect, but cause and effect selecting, as we have
set it to select, over a lifetime of preference and habit - building the network and patterns which
will now live in us.
From the earliest, we have written and re-written day by day what we will be and how we
will act later. The real choices of one's heart and mind are there. They may be overlayed and
modified by all sorts of social pressure or influences or problems or interests and discoveries.
All those 'selfs' mentioned earlier. Or we may have formed some overiding purpose or
passion.
Whatever has gone on in that internal jungle, it must act as the state of network allows at the
current moment .
As we have sown, so shall we reap. Absolutely. Unavoidably.
Does that leave anyone truly free choice? Are all decisions predetermined? Well, if we
arrive in some situation, is there anything stopping us from doing what enters our mind as the
best course? What more freedom could we ask than that? We see a possibility, and if we see
it as the best or right thing to do, we may follow it surely. (though there may be experience of
conflicting desires ) But that does not contradict the fact that all the possibilities we can now
see were laid earlier, going all the way back to the first preferences, and are accessible in a
particular way at this moment.
In which moment, I presume, the system selects in exactly the same way as it does in all
the reaches of the brain. Potential is weighed, selected, - a result inevitably ensues, as normal
to the system. The strongest nerve/link combination wins. But the players in this particular
drama of nerve and link selection are labelled;- 'my ' desire, 'my' fear, ' my' hope of reward.
'my' moral duty. If the links associated with moral duty are stronger, it will win. And the
same for the other impulses.
So it's predeterminded, in the sense that all relevant impulse and 'self' motivation
available at that moment will do the choosing - with inevitable, cause and effect outcome.
If someone deeply believes that a 'moral rule' or virtuous impulse should overide all else, ...
then it will ... for them. If they want others to follow the same rule, they will have to build into
the other's network the same patterns ( same degree of 'belief' and 'attitude' ) as in their own
.. a challenge !
Awareness of internal mind processes is usually of a narrow field I think - of fleeting
thoughts, perceptions and feelings. Sometimes chained together, but often quite random and
disconnected ( you will have to practice self observation to confirm that) . But one can be
aware that a choice has come from the whole system. It may thus appear as if it were
coming from something 'outside'. ( unless it really can do so?! ) It is certainly from outside
one's normal awareness range. It can occur when there is a deep response to some external
challenge and many patterns are suddenly called up and engaged. The sense of self can be
radically changed.
Times of disaster and crisis too, can either stimulate great positive change, or else the
individual's system is so tightly attuned to the familar environment and routines as to be
rendered incapable by the crisis ... all the links for the usual motives and the normal sense of
self are no longer being engaged. Apparently, something like an earthquake demolishing
your physical world, can demolish the interior one.
The writer thinks that many people, if not all, could agree that a such a thing can also
happen in reverse;- an internal earthquake making the external world strange and difficult to
negotiate. The normal system links are all but unavailable to the new patterns of self
operating inside.
Or an internal change may spring from new beliefs that point to a different knowledge
and 'truth' than you have previously lived by. Hints only at first, because the new patterns,
which will become new beliefs and life, are inlaid one by one as the new knowledge arrives (
it can be over years), then they start to link in stages. There can be times of emotional
turmoil as the ideas are 'fought over'. Then some stimulus closes the final links and there is a
tidal wave of change, sweeping through the system, establishing a new balance. Switching in
a whole new set of patterns as they become dominant over the older sets. Not just the
thoughts, but the feelings, the way the body is, the way the world seems, the 'self' you are, -
everything.
It seems too, that strong emotions to do with the sense of self, (and the corresponding
chemical messengers) are necessarily involved or released, which help re-inforce and 'lock'
the new balance. It can be part of a sudden conversion to a religious faith - the new beliefs
having been accepted in stages previously. Apparently the same process can result in a
devastating 'de-conversion' to a materialistic belief.
A similar change can happen with an idea or understanding which illuminates a lot of the
old patterns in the brain, making sense of them suddenly. There is a rush of expansion within
the connections and it is rather pleasurable - sometimes much more than pleasurable. Having
a brilliant new insight or idea. A eureka, an epiphany!
There is a question about how much delusion is possible in the network of a mind. Is the person who acquires a faith and belief just being fooled by the system of the brain and the need for self worth? How can we know what is true?
What follows is a description of a change which apparently linked just about everything together, but on a new and unexpected basis. Such a change may mean absolutely everything to the person. By that I mean as much as anything can ever possibly mean. It is not a mere pleasure. The effect could be said to be the 'reward' system and chemicals of the brain being triggered 'full on' by the large scale linking, together with the joining of emotional connections which were were behind the new patterns as they were established. That is, the reward system simply can't go 'fuller on' !
Whatever the exact cause, to the sense of self, the change becomes the ultimate of ultimates. It can call up every good, every depth of love and bliss. The world inside and out is transformed towards the ideal possible for that system. It may display a sublime and subtle sense of beauty. There can be the most wonderfully natural sense of goodness and rightness. All the soft qualities; gentleness, delicacy, tenderness, love, peace and mystery etc. The mind is alive, the heart overwhelmed and fullfilled. And it can be so very strange in some ways. Depending on the individual again, there may be memories of knowledge, and something beyond all explaining. There can be severity. There can be a particular magical flavour or quality that is the essence of it for that person alone. The precious jewel for which one would sell all.
All the seekings and wonderings and longings ( and narrowness and foolishness) of a life may unfold upon that self. Hints of a change at first, knowing something is afoot, but not able to define what is really going on. Then a more obvious sense that things are happening. Too many co-incidences. (perhaps because the new patterns are finding significance in things that had none before) A time of totally blank absorption, staring, taken completely from all past experience, almost without a sense of self at all, then a sense of knowing, and consenting.
Then, over months, there might be periods of total change for that individual, as though some floodgate has opened within . There are no words possible ... or only the vague words in the previous paragraphs. And there is, while the state lasts, all the positive things of life linked in . To comprehend the state, the reader has to .. what? ... find it in themselves. Is there any hint, or memory, of finding something which could leave you feeling you have finally arrived? That there is no where else you ever need go. You are completed. The journey is over, - and yet it now all begins. That you may rest in this moment of existence forever, and life will be different forever.
Does it sound like a good thing?
It depends. One is playing with fire. The strength of such change 'locks' the nervous
system balance in it's new form to a large extent. But suppose there are 'flaws' within the
particular system, and inconsistencies. The individual has seen, felt, known their 'ultimate'
possible. It is not something one can hold - or do anything about. It is not without a certain
terribleness. It is a gift, and part of the way things are, part of the world drama. And the
drama says the experience is not going to be given beyond that glimpse and taste .... and the
system is still left 'locked on' towards that which it now knows has been the reason for
everything. Can it just accept?
Some systems might accept, through a faith and lifelong tendency, another not. It may
totter on, and on. Unable to act properly - for there is no reason left to act now. There can
be periods of apparent normality as parts of the old balance and system assert themselves.
Then, from nowhere it seems, links are closed by external stimulus or inner train of thought.
The experience is relived - and then with it crashes back all the loss. There comes the wanting
to end the sheer pain and hoplessness of it all.
There can be a sort of automatic minimal life. Sometimes, the system is so without
hope, it absolutely gives up, feels warmly anaesthetised. There are very strange occurrences.
Then the memory of the change can distort. There is a strange passivity inside. Sometimes
resentment and an embracing of the darkest side. And then, gradually over years, there is only
memory that there was something... one can't remember the subtle experience itself, except
in bursts. What is left of the person gradually starts to engage in the world again.
It is like the common pattern of grief. Defensive webs and links built to avoid the pain, form in the tree of life, diverting and preventing access to the 'reliving' of the possibilities lost. "Wasn't it, after all," thinks the mind, "just some emotional storm? Surely these things just happen and then pass? " So the individual may carry on .. . with parts missing, aware of the fragmented, dissassociated self that now exists. With the old central core rendered inactive, (along with most that had been linked to it ) the more peripheral patterns of the mind, are left to link as they may. Some things may capture interest quite strongly, but there is no 'will' left to strive. By chance connection within or stimulus from outside, the original transforming experience may break through occasionally ... when it does, it is the same flavour .. but the rest of the system learns to turn from it quickly .
It seems caution is in order. When something as potent as the full driving force behind our 'self ' goes wrong, it goes wrong badly. In the worst case, the person cannot ever experience happiness and fullfilment again. Yet it is a good example of the workings of the brain network;- that thinking around, or writing around a 'problem', creates new links in the network which diverts the normal mind/self away from the danger area. It is also the way an individual may live out the rest of their time ; - building a new set of links around what is left.
However .. if it does not go wrong .. one cannot stress enough one's own conviction, that
there is an absolute 'kingdom of heaven' possible within. For any particular brain system,
the particular patterns of a life, it is the best that can ever possibly be. There should be basic
similarities for different people - after all, bliss is bliss - but there is a flavour through the
experience, a subtle thing, unique to the individual.
One hopes that it has the potential to make those life dramas, experience of which could
be best described with 'aauugh!' , a bit more acceptable. Of course it would be better if the
'aauugh' disappeared altogether ... but then, how do these 'aaughs' get into the picture? Maybe
they have to be, if there is to be a universe and awareness at all.
As to it's reality ....??
Suppose that the things seen in such a change seemed more real than anything . Beyond all
imagination, (or later memory). But it would seem that way, wouldn't it, if it was your own
system, and it was being switched on to it's 'maximum'.
Does the reader feel that no one can possibly say ;- 'this way of being, or way of
experiencing is an ultimate, and that nothing could ever possibly be better.' ?
The answer would have to be;- first, you experience something similar to the above ... then
see what you think.
Perhaps all one can usefully conclude after this writing is that we can be mistaken in some beliefs about ourself. The reality of our brain as a network system means our knowledge, abilities, feelings, bodily reactions and our memory are flexible; available according to our situation. And subject to re-writing over time. We are not perhaps what we have thought we are. Compared to the image we might have had of ourselves, we are, to a large extent, like a helpless 'witness' caught up in a vast machine following it's own laws. A machine reacting to, and part of, a larger universe. And there just may be very rewarding states of being, and ways to live, possible for an individual - beyond just 'normality'.
----------------------
A 'philosophical' follow up
Perhaps you found as you were reading this, that there seemed to be some truth in
parts ? Well, there was to be a trick, wasn't there. It was to be the same trick that science,
and our general education plays. I didn't say anything wildly innacurate as far as I know, but I
deliberately used an unspoken assumption all the way through.
The assumption is this; - in the physical happenings in the brain and body there is a
complete explanation of our awareness and existence. It is such a close match of activity that
there seems room for no other possibility. I wrote of the changes in our brain and nerves
as though they were thoughts. I made it seem possible by using particular words. You will
see the same thing done in many articles on the relation of brain and body . The trick works
because we just know, for certain, that mental experience happens to us. No questions arise
therefore, when people talk of the physical brain operations in human terms; of 'feelings',
of 'thoughts' , of a sense of the 'world', a sense of 'ourselves'. They speak of nerve signals
from the eyes becoming an 'image' in the brain, or others becoming 'sound'. Of 'emotions'
being controlled at x, y or z. Of 'choice'. These are all words of our experience.
But they do not exist at all. Not anywhere in the real 'physical world' that you
normally conceive of. The world in front of you, this very moment as you read these words,
is just a set of objects in space (and time). You will never see or measure there, a 'thought'
or 'feeling'. Physical objects and forces, are supposed to be the only reality.
If you were to investigate closely your own living brain, at this moment, you would see
chemical and electrical changes in a bundle of fibres. Patterns, reactions, selections of activity,
or whatever, it makes no difference, it is still solid ( if a bit slushy) material substance,
changing it's state slightly. There is no possibility of seeing a 'thought' or 'feeling'. They
simply do not exist. Not in the world of space and time we have defined. The solid one
that we can run into. That will continue after our flickering light has gone out. The material,
or energy world.
But we know we have thoughts and feelings. It is the most real thing to us in some ways.
So where are the thoughts, the feelings existing? You answer possibly ... in our heads.
Sorry, there is nothing there but nerve cells and chemicals swiftly changing. ( It might seem a
good answer to say in our heads because it feels remarkably as though we do in some way live
in our heads. Or as though our perceptions are centered there anyway. )
I am trying to get across the point that there is an impossibility here. If the picture of the
universe as so much matter in space and time is correct, and the only thing there is, then there
are no 'thoughts' or 'feelings'. They are really just reactions of cause and effect inside part of
some bio-organism ( human) whose body then physically reacts in some way to and with the
world around.
There need be no 'you', ( as you know for a fact you are) involved. It would all proceed
perfectly well without this 'awareness'.
We may as well consider ourselves to be completely imitation, bio - humanoid machines,
programmed to act and react exactly AS IF we cared about things, and had feelings and
thoughts.
But you would not be able to tell if we had real feelings or not. Not ever.
You have to BE the existence knower, to know whether you exist.
You don't believe it, do you.
There just has to be something more. Or something stated wrongly. Okay, what? I'm
waiting!
But is this raising any questions? Is the 'problem' above clear? I hope so, because that
was one reason I started writing this. It is a matter I had read about and which got stuck in my
head, and to which I had a hint of an answer.
The direction of the answer is that the knower of existence, me/ you, has incorrectly
understood both the nature of 'ourselves', and the world which is seen around. We have an
apparent impossibility because we got the basic concepts wrong.
People with a 'new age' view might agree with that, quoting the mysteries of subatomic
physics and quantum theory to show that the world is not what it appears to be, or perhaps
more intending to support the assumption that we have an immortal, free choosing, soul.
I'm not convinced, ( partly because no one seems able to really explain quantum nature - or a
human soul !) but at least they see the problem. The materialist on the other hand, implies
one just has to wait and science will have it all explained down to the last little carefully plotted
brain function ... rather missing the point.
The writer believes at the moment, that it's quite true that the fleeting actions of the network of our brain and body together correspond exactly with the thoughts and feelings we have. ( though you could never exactly prove it because of the inaccesibility of all the nerve data) . The cause and effect links, the selecting, the vibrant flow of the changes is somehow our experience. I think it does let one understand and predict the nature and behaviour of a human. That's the other reason I wrote this; - because I found the process and concept fascinating - and enlightening.
It could be taken further by trying to explain self awareness in 'mechanical' terms.
As if a human were a form of artificial intelligence. One could picture this AI 'robot' making
a 'model' ( a representation) of the world around, and then building within that world model, a
model of itself .. discovering what the relationship between the two is. What constitutes it's
good. If you arranged, as with humans, that the much used paths become dominant, it all
becomes over time, a physical set of inner robotic memory/actions that refers to a 'self model'.
I believe it is true that we have built an interactive /functional model of the world in our
brain and have built layers of referring actions ( rather like computer labels for sub- routines)
inside that model. And hence a model of the relationship of the two - and , from all the
writing above, several or many versions of the model (more or less comprehensive) which
come into use depending on circumstance.
On cogitating further during the usual waking in the middle of the night - it is probable
that the human self model is tangled with the whole brain. So that the memory/function links
ARE essentially, the idea of a self ... which gains it's strength and motivation from the current
set of memories, knowledge and feelings that are linking together. Consider too, the
extraordinary fact that we can actually direct attention through memories. Call up images 'at
will' - or more accurately ;- when the operating system links become channeled towards a
particular situation and interest, the older links that are related are re- activated, and may
produce, as in dreaming, a 'one step removed' replay of the reality.
Related to the self model idea, I remember some years ago looking at library books on a bottom shelf, having to crouch right down. Finally one stood up quickly. The next memories are of the gradual arrival of a 'self' (unidentified and very simple ) and the extraordinary putting together of what /who 'I' was. And the wonder of the nothingness before. Quite pleasant really. Presumably the links which are the model and memory of oneself were coming back on line as the blood returned to the head. One wonders exactly what this body did in the missing ... half second ... eternity! Why was it not flat on it's back!
The idea of a model in the brain which could be called 'me' is logical. But it's simply
not enough in itself - for I have just played the same trick again. I used the human words of
experience to imply that the actions of some physical model, or representation, could be
something else entirely. It's a cheat, there is still no way to explain how that purely physical
pattern/ model becomes an 'experience' - an awareness such as we know.
Just about every night for many years it has been my habit to write odd thoughts down
before going to sleep. I had the notion that if you just kept at it you could solve any problem.
And one of them was this brain question. How could you make it clear in your thoughts that
there is, or is not, some sort of human spirit? Is there only a material/energy world? How do
you find such a truth beyond doubt? Any truth in fact.
If you were one of the people who believe in and apparently experience directly the
existence of what they call a 'spiritual dimension', there would be little question. Personally, I
think I would still doubt my own experience, as I do about some particular events. The
mind/brain network can produce almost any effect. But as to it's truth ... how could you
know? Are humans doomed to never really be certain about many of the most important
things?
In reading back through the nightly scribbles I made, it was obvious how the writer
changed his state and knowledge - and ablity to think clearly and accurately. How could I,
the current dithering, drifting person, possibly have experienced what was written down, and
yet be like I am now? One assumes that the situation at the time of writing, the state of 'self,'
and consequent degree of links possible to knowledge within, was responsible .
So it looked to me that to answer some of the questions and find a new concept of
yourself and of the material world - you would have to actually change in yourself in some
way. One might even need something fairly radical in the way of new experience, else you
will be bound to the same concepts you normally have.
Which would mean also, that even if you found an answer, you might not be able to tell
anyone else in a way that meant anything to them. They would also have to change in a
similar way.
Briefly, here is an example of one way to see things differently.
It is done in the present instant of experience.
This one. Now.
And again, this next instant.
The idea is you look at these letters and words on the page. See them? The shape of the words and letters. The spaces between. That larger gap.
And you hear them too. Like a voice in your head . Listen to that voice for a moment as I
write on . Do you hear the words speaking in a voice - which is actually your own voice?
Or a version of it. Chatting along happily. Hear the words.
As you feel suddenly that there is something going on here. As you realise this writer is
actually in some weird sense, here with you. Talking right in your head. Yes? Do we
have communication - other being of this universe? Does this voice seem quite close?
And after that the reader could take a minute to stare about at the world where you are and just wonder what it is you are looking at. Try and see how you define it to yourself. Why do you call it what you do?
That is one way to look at the present flow of experience. And if you have the
desire recurring over a long enough period, one may look in that way and hold a question, and
learn from it.
This is what happened prior to some of the writer's nightly scribbles. It is a way of
making a different set of connections, around a different basis of experiencing. While staring,
as it were, at the existence around you. It takes time, and the result still has to be considered
for whether it logically true, or self deception of some sort.
As well as ideas, it is clear that perceptions change. An artist discovers that the eyes can learn to see better, and so can the other faculties of appreciation be 'tuned up'. It raises the question again of what is real. I am not thinking about some weird drug- like experience of changed perception but rather of discovering the simple goodness of existence, it's 'realness'. That may indeed become 'other worldly' ... at the same time. It is a very curious universe out there.
Here is a typical quote (1.) from a book on the brain ;-
"There is no real world outside for each individual - only the world the brain constructs."
Such sentiment is used two opposite ways. One is to justify a materialistic approach ( only the
physical brain exists, so anything else must be fancy) ; the other is to justify flights of fancy (
because everything supposedly real, is ultimately 'all invented by the mind' ).
Neither is quite accurate.
The inner model we construct when young, of the physical world, may be a model, but it
is tested for accuracy at every stage, survival depends on it. It is as real as it could ever be at
that basic physical level. There is a world appearance that does follow laws of behaviour.
Perhaps what could be said is that internal selections, and limited linking by particular self
concerns, can prevent us from perceiving all that is presented to us. Which can then become
a fixed habit of limited perception. Or else, the concerns of some strong 'self ' can lead to
the links spinning a web of imagination; unreal future or past worlds that absorb one's
energy.
On the other hand, the flights of fancy may have something to them as well.
Here is an attempt to be provocative.
If we are blind, does that mean the universe is no longer there? One assumes it remains!
We know also, that we are not always able to see the finer qualities in the world around.
Beauty and such like have fled, leaving us in a cold and meaningless place. Just because we
are temporarily blind, though, does not mean that such a reality might not still be there. You
could say indeed, that the universe acts, consistently, as though these 'abstract' or 'subjective'
things are real as anything can be. We need only be in the necessary state of health and good
heart and mind to perceive them and - behold - there they are! (Yes, I realise that part of the
experience is awareness of the 'reaction' in your body and mind, but it does appear that the
reality outside is different as well. Very much so. )
I wonder if it came as a shock to realise that that is quite a logical way of thinking. It is
very scientific in fact. If you wish to measure a scientific fact you must use the correct
instrument. Likewise with a universe that might be more than it appears, you will need the
full human instrument to measure it. (Or at the very least you will need to consider the fact
that the human instrument can measure such things)
Such an approach seems dubious because that part of experience has acquired the label
'subjective'. One person's beauty is not another's ... therefore it cannot be a true attribute of the
universe. Sorry. Missing the point. Just because one person cannot see a particular quality
does not make it non- existent. That person is simply not currently able to percieve in the
correct way while another can. Isn't that annoying? Presumably for every aspect of this
universe there is someone (or something?) who can recognise the beauty. And people can
learn to appreciate a very great width of beauty.
One had better be clear that beauty can occur in many ways, some fairly severe. Not
merely 'attractiveness', but something with a hint of awe and terribleness to it. Or rather
overwhelming. And it is there in quite mundane things as well.
You could argue that these 'appreciations' are related to self and to need, and evolutionary
survival. ... the so called abstract qualities are nature's necessity. I think that is partly true, but
it misses the point again. It assumes the concept of materialism at the start. That is;- there is
only the physical world, and hence these other things are 'illusions' spun in the mind to lead us
to act.
But note again, it is purely a result of a biological/scientific way of thinking to call awareness
and beauty 'mere' illusions of nature. You could look at the same facts and say instead that
the universe appears to be of such nature that these 'abstract' things are the most critical, the
most important and valuable ... the most real part of experience.
Which leads one straight back to the question behind all this writing;- how does a physical brain mechanism become the sense of knowing that we actually experience? And therefore, how does some combination of body and brain states let us know an experience we call beauty, or goodness or love?
For whatever the universe truly is, awareness is an integral part of it. We know of no
purely physical universe, because what we have always known is .... a universe which we are
knowing. It never just exists in pure physicality .. as if no human existed. Even if we think
we imagine it so, .... WE are imagining it. And further, imagining it as something being
observed. Do you see the distinction? When you picture some object, one is picturing it as a
thing seen or known.
Suppose there is a cold uninhabited universe, no people, no life. Nothing except basic
solid objects. Just bare planets, suns etc. All the physical laws of action and reaction, time
and space. However you picture this , it is not the world as just a physical thing. Well yes,
it is what you have normally thought of as 'just a physical thing' but it is not so. It is as an
object of your experience. It is not something one notices till someone points it out.
What we learn to call in our minds the objective or scientific, real world is .. 'the real
world being seen.' It is an abstraction from something larger. Since the whole theory of a
lawful, material universe springs first from sheer 'knowing of existence' this is the only way it
can be for us.
And from that point of 'knowing of existence' a whole world of philosophy begins ....
despite all the doubts and critics. The so called 'physical world' is just that .... so called.
It is a label for, or a concept of, forces and materiality, which exists within a larger 'something'
which we call loosely 'experience'. Within that same 'experience' is all the other qualities
called mind and beauty and feelings.
'Solid' materiality , and 'abstract' mind, appear contradictory ... because they are contradictory
concepts. Not because the reality itself is contradictory. To go deeper into this will involve a
person altering their perceptions of 'what is' as they cogitate. There is no other way.
When this was first written, some years ago, this writer was aware of the contradictions in the
mind/ matter concepts and had only a vague sense of a possible direction to a solution. More
recently there has begun finally to arise a new concept of what this world is, and what it
means to say it is 'real'. Further, that what we call 'awareness' and the very idea we are
something, or someone, which is 'conscious' of the world is misleading. But dearly though I
would like to explain, words are not coming easily. The writer suspects he has come within
reach of finding his own solution to the old riddle of mind and matter.
It is astonishing .. subtle. The way we normally think seems to be both true .. and untrue. Very, very curious. Or perhaps, it is sheer delusion!
Yes, well, as for the rest, I was only trying to be provocative, and it got far too wordy. It is the common failing of philosophy. Ideally, one would start understanding the universe from self evident truth and avoid all speculation. The catch is that we do not grow up in a philosophical vacuum. Everything we are taught, and hear from others, carries with it assumptions that influence us. These days, it is usually scientific materialism, with some attached vaguely philosophical notions, and traces of older institutional religions. Or there may be a set of 'new age' beliefs, many of which, though they are supposed to be new, have been around in some form for about as long as humans have. Plus, apparently, there is a growing tendency to an even less compatible, fundamentalist style of religion, based on the authority of some holy book or person.
So it may be necessary to use reason and arguement to approach truth at some stage, just to nullify anything false we may have learned - or at least to understand it properly. That is why I put in the above arguement about 'knowing the world'. We are brought up to believe so firmly in the physical world it is necessary to know it is a theory within a greater fact. All we ultimately know for sure is ... knowing, or existing .. depending on which word seems right to the reader. I then pointed out that from that standpoint, you could say that the so called abstract qualitites are just as real as the physical world.
Still, whatever the approach people have been brought up with, the individuals holding the views deserve respect. I have often felt critical of something, and then been put to shame upon meeting a real person who holds such beliefs. Yes, there are dogmatic minds that are closed ... my own can be ! But there is always something more behind it all. Mind you, it might be very hard to find that something if you meet the person in the wrong circumstances.
I end for now with an expression of goodwill to believers and non- believers alike.
May the dance in the tree of your life, lead you to hope, to peace in your soul, and to your
true heart's desire.
So far this has been mainly about the physical nature of the ' tree of life'. The exploration of
the last ideas, of how the inner tree of life, and the world, may be something more than
material, is to continue, hopefully, on the pages headed ' the meaning of it all ' with
perhaps some parts on the page 'relativity and all that quantum thing.'
D. Lawrence. (last modified August 2006)
Link back to home ( index)page 