|
Newsletter News
Briefs
Product Listing FAQ
on InnerTalk® Satisfaction
Guaranteed/ Become an Links
| Contact Us
Member |
Towards the Fringe
by Eldon Taylor
One of the most important
questions each of us will at some time in some way deal with has been
stated in the admonition: Above all else, know thyself. How does one
know themselves?
Each of us sense a state
that is the "stuff" of self, but what do we mean by that? Serious
thought usually yields the idea of mind. The self is somehow inextricably
tied up with mind. The world around us changes, the body changes,
over time one looks different than they did in their earliest memories
of self. It's relatively easy for all of us to imagine being without
a body, at least in some spiritual sense, and yet the notion of self
somehow remains constant throughout. Why?
What is mind? Is mind
a thing? Does it exist independent of brain? If it does, what do we
mean by exist? Does it have a location, a size, a temporality? Is
it the "stuff" of the universe? Is it energy--subject to the laws
of energy? Does it make any sense to talk about mind in this way?
How do we know there are
other minds? Of course, we all assume that there are--but why? We
can't see them or touch them or weigh them or even measure them. As
close as we can get is the tracing of what they do. Electrical activity
in the brain, behavior, intelligibility, memory--the tracings of mind?
And what about memory? Do any of us know ourselves without memory?
What would that entail? Is it possible?
I think not. Memory is
the key to how we know ourselves. Without knowledge of ourselves,
we're not apt to infer that anyone else has knowledge of themselves.
Let's imagine an isolated
scientist working on time travel. Somehow he is successful at opening
a time/space corridor and travels at near the speed of light for one
hundred earth years. To him this journey takes much less time--approximately
ten years. Somehow he is vaulted back into contemporary time, the
time of earth. However, he hits his head upon arrival and suffers
amnesia. He has no identification. His appearance seems odd (strange
clothing) but apart from that he is just a human being with a head
injury. He is taken to a hospital and diagnosed as an amnesiac. He
is given the name John Doe as an operating identification until his
true identity is discovered. Pictures of our scientist are circulated
in the media, but no one comes forward to identify him. Time passes
and he acquires new friends, a job, a home and so forth. Then one
day his memories begin to return. "Wow," he announces to his friends,
"I remember. I'm Albert Einstein."
Who do you think will
believe him? Let's supcounted his scientific contribution? Of course
not. Just as General George Patent, who knew of his prior military
lifetime, was not discounted as the military genius that he was in
the lifetime as Patent (especially not by the Germans) so an Einstein
asserting Newton memories would not have discounted his genius.
Let's change the scenario
a little. Imagine that our 100 plus year old returned scientist had
a love for the piano. He sits down to the piano with no memory of
playing in the past. However, just as with all amnesiacs, his motor
memory is intact. The first thing he plays is a Bach fugue. He plays
it perfectly. One would certainly conclude that he had been a piano
player, a musician, or something akin. Suppose his skill was extraordinary.
One might then begin to search the record of missing musicians who
fit the identity of our scientist. Now, think of Bach. A so-called
child prodigy that apparently did sit down and begin to play just
as though he were remembering an ability.
What is information that
we have no memory of how it was obtained? Generally, with the exception
of demonstratable genius, it is suspect information. That is, if I
do not know how I know something, then perhaps I don't really know
it. The memory of how information is acquired seems critical to the
credibility of the information. Memory again. What is it I don't remember?
I remember a favorite
song. I haven't heard it in years. I have been unable to find anyone
that remembers it. I don't remember the entire song or the title.
I do remember certain lyrics and the tune. No one recognizes the lyrics
or the tune. Does the song exist? Now I don't mean exist like a chair
or a house exists.
Imagine we watch a video
cassette. It contains the digital data that represents a motion picture--a
wonderful film. The film is very touching. It is the best we have
ever seen. The acting is superb. The characters live on the television
screen for two hours. Then the tape comes to an end and in some Mission
Impossible self-destruct style, disintegrates. Only you and I have
seen the movie. No one else has heard of this movie. No one else has
seen this movie. No one has heard of the actors. Does the movie exist?
Well, it exists in our
minds. We can replay it as we wish--can't we? No, in fact, memory
research shows us clearly that each time a memory is recalled, it
is altered. Sooner or later, the movie becomes a shadow of itself
in our minds. Whole scenes are lost, detail is altered by recall,
and so forth. Does that imply that now part of the original movie
is dead? It no longer exists?
If mind is memory, then
how do we know ourselves? If mind is not memory, is it possible to
know ourselves? If I remember myself being other than I am at this
moment, fully recall the feeling and thoughts and behavior, do I become
the me I remember? Am I both? Do we not see ourselves as constant,
even somewhat predictable, based upon our memories? Who are we then
if we lose our memory?
Now the animal is strange
to us. Is this our dog? Before you object to the dog being self-aware
in the first place, what is the difference between the memory loop
of the dog and that of the human? If memory is self awareness, is
the dog self-aware?
Most would object to reducing
the awareness of a human mind to that of a dog. The principle argument
would no doubt have something to do with the difference in cognition.
The human being is self-aware. This is a circular argument. It is
no more than a tautology if self-aware means memory. No, for there
to be a difference, there must be a fundamental difference in the
memory. Perhaps the dog does not lay in front of the door thinking
how it can be a better dog. Therefore, the dog might fail the test
of self-improvement memory. Perhaps the dog cannot think about itself
at all. Okay, now it fails the memory of thinking about itself test.
Is the human condition
different only because we reflect on ourselves in a unique memory
manner? Is it our method of memory, or type of memory, that sets us
apart from other animals? Is our use of tools, our development of
science and technology, our interest in religion and so forth, only
a unique self-reflective pattern of memory? Perhaps our brain evolution
produced the capacity to hold a new kind of memory--ala, the development
of homosapien sapien.
I once prepared a paper
titled Memory Dependent Wellness. Today, I wonder if the paper could
not be a little more inclusive. Perhaps its title should be Memory Dependent
Self. Perhaps, if I wish to change something about myself, self-correct,
self-improve, then I should look to change my memory of self.
|
Articles Online Books
|
