Without the aid of an observing instrument, you see the Orion Nebula as a gray-green hazy object. Even with the use of binoculars, you don’t see much color. If you use a charge-coupled device (CCD) to capture an image of the nebula, you will see a multicolored celestial object. The unaided human eye just isn’t very good at seeing color in a dimly lit object. As light intensity fades, color washes out.
Seeing with the help of optical instruments is what we have done since the telescope’s invention. We’ve added devices to help us see, and we have explored as best we can the unseen. With technology we have come to believe we can see the true colors of our universe, and we apply that belief to our own humanity. We ask, “Will technology enable us to understand ourselves and others?”
Take the brain, for example. No, make that the mind. We have looked into the brain in our attempt to see the mind. We use fMRI to image which parts of the brain are active during certain behaviors or during thinking about certain phenomena or actions. We see sections of the brain “light up,” and we map where the brain is active. “There, that’s the part of the brain devoted to seeing. And that over there is the part of the brain devoted to speech.” Yes, we have clearly mapped much of the brain, but nothing in our maps tells us about mind. Mind, not brain, carries purpose. Mind, not brain, carries intention. And intention seems to be what we are about when we examine one another’s or our own actions.
But in fact, even with the help of instruments that show us colorful portrayals of brain activity, we can’t know anyone’s intentions. Intention is always a gray-green haze, somewhat recognizable, but often mysterious. When it comes to the intentions of others, we simply apply reductionism to satisfy our desire to understand. Only the mind with intention can express its purpose, but even self-expression is hazy. Because subconscious* motivations are also at work, we can’t be quite sure that self-reporting intention is entirely accurate.
The rich colors of intention are generally hidden from observers—even self-observers—who wish to understand motivations. Obviously, mapping one hundred trillion connections among cells in the brain is quite a task, but maybe some super computer the size of the Solar System will one day complete the map and give us a very detailed and colorful image. On that day, the neuroscientist who completes the work will say, “Okay, that’s done. But I still don’t see the mind any more clearly than my ancient ancestors did when they could only look at a fuzzy, gray-green hazy nebula in the constellation of Orion.”
*The term subconscious has always intrigued me because it implies a physical layering. Why does "part" of the mind lie below (sub)? Does it (assuming its separate nature) not work as an active agent of mind in both synchronicity and function? Should I even speak of the subconscious as a separate influence? Is mind not holistic? Realize that in using sub, we have ascribed to mind a physical placement and structure. It’s a bit like putting wings on angels.
Seeing with the help of optical instruments is what we have done since the telescope’s invention. We’ve added devices to help us see, and we have explored as best we can the unseen. With technology we have come to believe we can see the true colors of our universe, and we apply that belief to our own humanity. We ask, “Will technology enable us to understand ourselves and others?”
Take the brain, for example. No, make that the mind. We have looked into the brain in our attempt to see the mind. We use fMRI to image which parts of the brain are active during certain behaviors or during thinking about certain phenomena or actions. We see sections of the brain “light up,” and we map where the brain is active. “There, that’s the part of the brain devoted to seeing. And that over there is the part of the brain devoted to speech.” Yes, we have clearly mapped much of the brain, but nothing in our maps tells us about mind. Mind, not brain, carries purpose. Mind, not brain, carries intention. And intention seems to be what we are about when we examine one another’s or our own actions.
But in fact, even with the help of instruments that show us colorful portrayals of brain activity, we can’t know anyone’s intentions. Intention is always a gray-green haze, somewhat recognizable, but often mysterious. When it comes to the intentions of others, we simply apply reductionism to satisfy our desire to understand. Only the mind with intention can express its purpose, but even self-expression is hazy. Because subconscious* motivations are also at work, we can’t be quite sure that self-reporting intention is entirely accurate.
The rich colors of intention are generally hidden from observers—even self-observers—who wish to understand motivations. Obviously, mapping one hundred trillion connections among cells in the brain is quite a task, but maybe some super computer the size of the Solar System will one day complete the map and give us a very detailed and colorful image. On that day, the neuroscientist who completes the work will say, “Okay, that’s done. But I still don’t see the mind any more clearly than my ancient ancestors did when they could only look at a fuzzy, gray-green hazy nebula in the constellation of Orion.”
*The term subconscious has always intrigued me because it implies a physical layering. Why does "part" of the mind lie below (sub)? Does it (assuming its separate nature) not work as an active agent of mind in both synchronicity and function? Should I even speak of the subconscious as a separate influence? Is mind not holistic? Realize that in using sub, we have ascribed to mind a physical placement and structure. It’s a bit like putting wings on angels.
RSS Feed