Difference between revisions of "Mind: A Brief Introduction"
(Created page with "We’ve evidence that people in ancient civilizations were attentive to an inner world of thoughts, feelings, and unconscious mental processes, and to how observable individua...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | We’ve evidence that people in ancient civilizations were attentive to an inner world of thoughts, feelings, and unconscious mental processes, and to how observable individual and group behaviors and environmental interactions arise from and influence these. Ever since humans around the world have continued to express interest in these topics. As nineteenth century investigators fruitfully applied scientific methods and principles to a host of questions about natural phenomena like electromagnetism and heat, and even life itself, a handful of seminal thinkers began to attempt a more rigorous scientific approach to human cognition. Twentieth century researchers developed a substantial, albeit still partial and tentative understanding, relying increasingly after mid-century on growing collaboration among scientists with backgrounds in psychology, philosophy, linguistics, computer science, neuroscience, anthropology, and other disciplines. Today these “cognitive scientists” are accumulating at accelerating pace insights to what we might term “mind,” that is, to what brains do, and to behavior born of and influencing it. Some of these are wholly at odds with understandings central to our own | + | We’ve evidence that people in ancient civilizations were attentive to an inner world of thoughts, feelings, and unconscious mental processes, and to how observable individual and group behaviors and environmental interactions arise from and influence these. Ever since humans around the world have continued to express interest in these topics. As nineteenth century investigators fruitfully applied scientific methods and principles to a host of questions about natural phenomena like electromagnetism and heat, and even life itself, a handful of seminal thinkers began to attempt a more rigorous scientific approach to human cognition. Twentieth century researchers developed a substantial, albeit still partial and tentative understanding, relying increasingly after mid-century on growing collaboration among scientists with backgrounds in psychology, philosophy, linguistics, computer science, neuroscience, anthropology, and other disciplines. Today these “cognitive scientists” are accumulating at accelerating pace insights to what we might term “mind,” that is, to what brains do, and to behavior born of and influencing it. Some of these are wholly at odds with understandings central to our own worldviews and to those of people around the globe; others are apparent confirmations of wisdom and practices from diverse societies. In all we may find means to become more self-aware, and to deliberately and consciously evolve to live and die well. |
We’ve already considered important ideas (e.g., consensus trance, linguistic relativity, cognitive bias) drawn from or closely related to cognitive science. In this class we’ll look more closely at three findings central to a consilient science-based world-view that can be bases for seeing self and others more clearly and for evolving to live and die well. The first is overlap and difference in human values. The second is roles of conscious and unconscious. The third is evidence of capacity, and techniques for cultivating awareness of, and consciously evolving self. Over millennia humans have assembled an extensive and reliable scientific world-view spanning more than 60 orders of magnitude of spacetime. Just as we were necessarily less than exhaustive in propounding that world-view as it applies to cosmos, Earth, and life—what we term “outer world”—so are we required to be selective in describing that world-view as it applies to an “inner world.” Because scientific investigation of “inner world” is a more recent phenomenon than is scientific investigation of world without, we lack evidence sufficient to support consensus about what ideas are most important. Here we consider a handful of topics we consider important by dint of their central role in world-view, and because they are at odds with what we individually thought for much of our lives. We hope that you’ll find in these food for thought, basis for action, and motivation for further inquiry. | We’ve already considered important ideas (e.g., consensus trance, linguistic relativity, cognitive bias) drawn from or closely related to cognitive science. In this class we’ll look more closely at three findings central to a consilient science-based world-view that can be bases for seeing self and others more clearly and for evolving to live and die well. The first is overlap and difference in human values. The second is roles of conscious and unconscious. The third is evidence of capacity, and techniques for cultivating awareness of, and consciously evolving self. Over millennia humans have assembled an extensive and reliable scientific world-view spanning more than 60 orders of magnitude of spacetime. Just as we were necessarily less than exhaustive in propounding that world-view as it applies to cosmos, Earth, and life—what we term “outer world”—so are we required to be selective in describing that world-view as it applies to an “inner world.” Because scientific investigation of “inner world” is a more recent phenomenon than is scientific investigation of world without, we lack evidence sufficient to support consensus about what ideas are most important. Here we consider a handful of topics we consider important by dint of their central role in world-view, and because they are at odds with what we individually thought for much of our lives. We hope that you’ll find in these food for thought, basis for action, and motivation for further inquiry. | ||
Revision as of 09:15, 18 October 2018
We’ve evidence that people in ancient civilizations were attentive to an inner world of thoughts, feelings, and unconscious mental processes, and to how observable individual and group behaviors and environmental interactions arise from and influence these. Ever since humans around the world have continued to express interest in these topics. As nineteenth century investigators fruitfully applied scientific methods and principles to a host of questions about natural phenomena like electromagnetism and heat, and even life itself, a handful of seminal thinkers began to attempt a more rigorous scientific approach to human cognition. Twentieth century researchers developed a substantial, albeit still partial and tentative understanding, relying increasingly after mid-century on growing collaboration among scientists with backgrounds in psychology, philosophy, linguistics, computer science, neuroscience, anthropology, and other disciplines. Today these “cognitive scientists” are accumulating at accelerating pace insights to what we might term “mind,” that is, to what brains do, and to behavior born of and influencing it. Some of these are wholly at odds with understandings central to our own worldviews and to those of people around the globe; others are apparent confirmations of wisdom and practices from diverse societies. In all we may find means to become more self-aware, and to deliberately and consciously evolve to live and die well.
We’ve already considered important ideas (e.g., consensus trance, linguistic relativity, cognitive bias) drawn from or closely related to cognitive science. In this class we’ll look more closely at three findings central to a consilient science-based world-view that can be bases for seeing self and others more clearly and for evolving to live and die well. The first is overlap and difference in human values. The second is roles of conscious and unconscious. The third is evidence of capacity, and techniques for cultivating awareness of, and consciously evolving self. Over millennia humans have assembled an extensive and reliable scientific world-view spanning more than 60 orders of magnitude of spacetime. Just as we were necessarily less than exhaustive in propounding that world-view as it applies to cosmos, Earth, and life—what we term “outer world”—so are we required to be selective in describing that world-view as it applies to an “inner world.” Because scientific investigation of “inner world” is a more recent phenomenon than is scientific investigation of world without, we lack evidence sufficient to support consensus about what ideas are most important. Here we consider a handful of topics we consider important by dint of their central role in world-view, and because they are at odds with what we individually thought for much of our lives. We hope that you’ll find in these food for thought, basis for action, and motivation for further inquiry.
