Shackled Thought

Lately, I have become obsessed with the 'mind' or the inner experience. Not the word 'mind' or the scientific literature (psychology/neurology/artificial intelligence) par se but the internal experience we have of it. In fact, it is not even clear whether I can say a thing like 'internal experience we have' as I can't define any sharp line between what we define to be ourselves and what we define as these internal experiences. I am thinking here of the first half Cartesian duality of soul/mind and body. The difference between knowing the light frequency corresponding to color 'red' and actually seeing the color red (I hope you follow). It is remarkable, we essentially live, exist, in our minds and yet we don't know anything about it. All we can do is match our emotions or thoughts to various regions of the neural network. But what of the qualitative, internal, experience, that 'I am ME'?

I should say I am heavily influenced by these very venerable people, just so you don't consider me the the next Wacko:

Tony Robbins (Motivation Speaker), Sam Harris, Chade-Meng Tan, Richard Davidson, Matthieu Ricard, Shelly Kagan, Paul Bloom, Dan Gilbert among others. 

I do believe there are different types of consciousness, we all experience the world differently (no way of verifying until we get the ability to hook up to other people's minds and experience what they are experiencing), and each one of us perceives the world in different ways at different life stages. Sometimes, I feel the children are the most awake of us, experiencing the world in a much richer fashion, and as we grow up, we live more in a synthetic experience created by the mind (as a result of our past experiences) than in the world surrounding us. 

There are definitely different ways to perceive the world, even limiting ourselves to the senses we have. Indians must perceive it differently than Americans, than French, than Chinese and likewise. We perceive it differently under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and I am talking of how you experience the world around you, not how you handle your own balance. 

Most of us see our 'self' as situated behind the eyes, looking at the world from that vantage point. Close your eyes, focus on your breathing, and that vantage point will shift to your nose. 

Personally, I think there was a time as a child when I used to experienced the world in 3D, being actually aware that a 'chair' in front of me exists. Nowadays the world feels more like just something I am seeing and processing, and I have to respond to. 

Modern science can pin-point which emotion or thought excites which part of the brain. This prompted Richard Davidson (Professor, Psychology) decides to take a Monk (Richard Mattieu) and another regular Joe, hooking up their brains to a brain scanner, and see their neural networks' response to various graphic images. The result: The centers in the brain associated with Happiness are triggered much more (several standard deviations more) in Matthieu Ricard. You want to be truly happy you say? Why not become a monk I say.

So the brain works analogous like the rest of the body. You need strength to lift weights, you lift weights to gain strength. Similarly, the neurons in the brain are responsible for your thoughts n emotions, and these neurons can be trained by just thoughts. Enter Meditation. The age old method of training your brain which most of us consider a quaint hobby. As a logical flow of this thought trail, I am trying to read more on it and practice meditation. Richard Davidson is convinced that by 2050 they will have enough scientific precise evidence backing Meditation, and it will be in the core curriculum of all schools (making the world a better place?).

I also believe that in explaining and developing these inner experience, the eastern and Indian civilizations have gone much further than the west. But since the topic is not easily explained, the eastern texts are not as easily accessible as the direct, explanatory texts of western philosophy. Like the chicken and egg problem, Indians (including me) also always strive for a western acceptance of their own traditions(like yoga) and so these texts remain unexplained, in colloquial language which people like me, modern college grads might get. 

In a way, our 'mind' is an entire universe, with its own rules, entities and existence. Who says a universe should have physical dimensions? 

In the end, it is all about figuring out 'What am I?', which has to be answered before 'What is death?'. 

Is it not silly that we are focusing so much on our outside world, what we achieve and how the people perceive us, when the inner self remains a mystery?

On a related note, one thing the MBA had given me is an elevated respect and cognizance for the omnipresent human-institutions which exist only in thought, but determine how the world is run. We accept and learn these institutions by imitation, looking at how other people are behaving and what is acceptable. For example, railway is a technology, but without a ticketing and reservation system, concept of train stations, it would be for naught. Similarly, concept of buying-selling, of property rights. Just sitting here writing this post, I am an 'employee' of some 'company', a 'citizen' of a 'country', with an over-arching 'government' maintaining some 'law'. I am connected to support groups, of my family, friends, colleagues, batch-mates, countrymen. All this is necessary for existence, survival and meaning. But this also means, that we will never experience the 'state of nature', of what it means to be creatures, individuals, just living beings, in this universe. 

Maybe I am over-dramatizing. But that is why I am writing this blog so I can get feedback on my views and questions.