Mental Frameworks 1, 2, 3

[Pharaoh Cat]

It has occurred to me that there are three Mental Frameworks possible, and from these derive so many assumptions that cross-communication between them is close to impossible.  Reading Egor brought all this home to me. 

(My use of the word "matter" below shall be construed to mean both matter and energy.)


Mental Framework #1

Matter: Independent of mind.
Mind: Contingent on matter.
Consciousness: Enabled by brains.
God: Unnecessary.
Afterlife: Impossible.


Mental Framework #2

Matter: Independent of mind.
Mind: Independent of matter.
Consciousness: Limited by brains.
God: Unnecessary.
Afterlife: Good bet.


Mental Framework #3

Matter: Contingent on mind.
Mind: Independent of matter.
Consciousness: Thinks brains are needed because the game requires the pretense.
Unconscious Mind: Makes the rules by which matter operates and ramifications ensue.  Indispensable to the game.
God: Another name for Unconscious Mind. 
Afterlife: Almost a certainty.


Each of the three Frameworks is logically consistent and impossible to disprove.

For example, take Framework #2.  Usually people think they disprove this by citing the correlation between destruction in a brain and diminishing of the mind.  But if the brain serves to limit, rather than enable, mind, then destroying part of the brain merely increases the severity of the limitation.  By the same token, chemical or electronic enhancement of the brain could reduce limitation's severity in the mind.  Regardless, never would the mind be free of all limit until death liberates.
 
Take Framework #3.  This too can survive the argument from correlation between brain damage and mind diminishment.  If the game requires the pretense that brains are needed, then in order to maintain that pretense, brain damage will have to result in mind diminishment, and so it will, governed by rules put in place by Unconscious Mind.

Which Framework to choose?  The first is most conducive to (1) scientific thinking; (2) living life to the fullest due to no imagined sequel; (3) keeping the eye on the ball due to no distractions from imagined fantastic speculations; and (4) relying on self and living allies due to no imagined recourse to ghosts or Unconscious Mind, so the first is best. 

[Twentythree]

It's hard to say best or worse when considering individuals views of reality. When we consider these mental frameworks form an evolutionary perspective there is no right or wrong. There is only stable. People evolved the capacity to believe in things that aren't really there, superstitions, traditions, gods, demons, goblins and fairies. At some point along our evolutionary path it was at least marginally advantageous for our genes to give our minds the capacity to believe in things without observable proof. How this has been adapted into our modern society and whether or not it has long term stability is still in question because our species is still so young. But nonetheless natural selection has found that the most stable strategy for the human population is to give people the propensity for both stark rationalism and blind fanaticism and every variant in between. There is no right or wrong, only stable, and 7 billion worldwide population seems pretty fuckin' stable to me.