Is Mind a Construct? (A musing which has developed wings.)

[maximohudson]

Perhaps mind is only a subtler aspect of self. Perhaps the ego allows the intellect to reason, "There is no inherently existing I or self," but then presents "mind" as an alternate resting place for a subtler form of I. We are aware of awareness. We are aware of sense organs and objects of perception. We are aware of the cognitive powers of the human brain. But where is this mind? Of what is it constructed? When did it come into existence and for how long does it live?

Some will say the nature of mind is ineffable and I think, "Of course it is ineffable because like a rabbit horn it does not exist." Those who cling to the concept of mind may do so because ego, or the misperception of a self, fears annihilation in a totally awakened state which perceives mind as an illusory phantasmagorical concept. Buddhists can often get beyond the concepts of soul and divine creator, but frequently falter, it seems to me, when it comes to the construct of mind.

"Oh, but the Buddha spoke of mind," some will respond. Of course he did. He was a compassionate being and if he did not speak in terms of mind, who would have listened to his words? Mind was a concept used to describe the nature of reality long before the time of the Tathagata and when the Tathagata spoke of his AWAKENED STATE in terms of mind he did so, not because he believe that there was some thing called mind, but because it was a highly developed concept which those around him could understand.

It seems to me.

[bassai]

Space and time are mental constructs according to Albert Einstein.

Can a construct create other constructions?

[maximohudson]

Space and time are mental constructs according to Albert Einstein.

Can a construct create other constructions?

My understanding is that we observe cycles. We then compare motion in relation to these cycles. So we observe life cycles, the rotation of the planet, the orbit of the planet around the sun, etc. and then compare say the action of a journey from one city to another to these cycles. We also create standardized mechanical cycles in the form of watches and clocks. We can then lean a set of created rules for using these watches and clocks much like one my learn the rules of checkers or chess. What we do not observe is some THING called time.

So, time is a construct/concept. A very useful one in fact. Now we can observe a person using this concept of time to develop a train schedule. I would NOT say that time created this train schedule, but the concept of time was one of a myriad of factors related to it's creation. Obviously a printer was used, there were people who built this printer, those who developed it, the person who built the ink cartridge, the folks who built the road to get to the store where the printer was purchased, those who built the train system, the mass of the planet, the atmosphere of the earth, the temperature of the sun, the gravitational pull of the sun and moon, the tree that grew to create the paper the schedule was printed on and the mothers who gave birth to the men who cut down the tree, etc. etc. All of this AND the concept of time went into the creation of this train schedule.

As for space being a construct, in English there are definitions of space which one can observe. For example:

8. a place available for a particular purpose: a parking space.
9. linear distance; a particular distance: trees separated by equal spaces.
10. Mathematics . a system of objects with relations between the objects defined.
14. Music . the interval between two adjacent lines of the staff.
15. an interval or blank area in text: a space between the letters.
16. Printing . one of the blank pieces of metal, less than type-high, used to separate words, sentences, etc.
17. Telegraphy . an interval during the transmitting of a message when the key is not in contact.

In a difficult parking area, can a space [Definition eight.] in front of one's destination CREATE a sense of relief? Linguistically in English it certain can.

[WeenDwijler]

Seven of Nine would say: "State the purpose of your writings"

[Mahindrasarath]

Seven of Nine would say: "State the purpose of your writings"

Yes, if the OP can also write in Thai language, for the sake of studying.maybe he either not know Thai

[yy]

Yes, on my end I think it is... N we don't even hav to go into the metaphysics of what constitutes mind. Neuro research has very encouraging findings which suggest that the brain is plastic (malleable, adaptable). In that sense, for things which are ongoingly changeable, flexible with the influx of new information, learning etc, I feel that in itself will have made the mind a sort of construct. N I reckon these scientific findings come pretty close to what the Buddha said about impermanence and dependent origination of the mind.

There's a very good book which makes a very easy, entertaining and inspiring read about brain plasticity, based on some very credible clinical and research case studies from the field of mental sciences: The Brain That Changes Itself (2007) by Norman Doidge

[bassai]

Hi again.


maximohudson you never answered the question or offered an opinion to the question I proposed in post #2.

yy, interesting opinion, but I think your taking a materialist view and confusing the physical (rupa) entity "brain", a bodily organ, with mind where as they are two separate entities. The mind is not impermanent nor a process of dependent co-origination.

Of course the difficulty of this discussion is having an agreed upon definition of mind. Thai Ajhans use Heart and Mind interchangeably in Dhamma talks and in Pali the term used is citta.

Can a bunch of chemical and electrical impulses in an organ create something as complex and beautiful as Beethoven's 9th Symphony, as sublime as a Mozart piano sonata, or an engineering feat like sending men to the moon?

[yy]

Hi Bassai, no, I'm not confusing mind with brain. What I meant was that because the definition of mind is metaphysical, and that the brain is often the organ to which people (not altogether correctly) attribute the workings of the mind, I therefore use the crude example of the plasticity of the physical organ of the mind i.e. the brain to support the view that the mind is a mental construct. A mental construct as in the sense of the Buddhist philosophical stance of impermanence and dependent origination. That if even a crude physical depiction of the mind is impermanent and dependent on changing conditions, then what more to say about the mind itself.

[Tim]

Can a bunch of chemical and electrical impulses in an organ create something as complex and beautiful as Beethoven's 9th Symphony, as sublime as a Mozart piano sonata, or an engineering feat like sending men to the moon?

Yes! It's a wonderful mystery which should be celebrated.

[visionchaser45]

The brain is an organ and the mind is the brain at work. The mind is, therefore, a construct because it cannot be seen, touched, measured, etc. directly (i.e., it has no physical form). The unique thing about the "mind" is that it seems to be associated exclusively with conscious and semi-conscious states. Autonomic functions of the brain are not associated with the "mind" because they are typically not part of our consciousness (i.e., your heart beats, you experience pain, you breathe, etc. without giving those things any conscious consideration).