I will start (presentation of) my theory and along the way I think you will understand the title of the topic. I started this with the intention of exactly that, is not my intention of explaining the human brain. I don't think (that being only my opinion ofcourse) that the brain is the best starting point to explain human Psyche, because we don't know much about the human brain anyway (at this point) and about the human being overall, I.e. if it has a soul or not. My approach is desired to be a scientific one and not to dwell in metaphysic, and if I managed to do that you can tell me. Also, I don't know if my theory is original, and in which degree it can be considered original, because I didn't read that much on Psychology topic, to be aware of all ideas. Please take note, that I'm not claiming that this is, will be the first (scientific theory) in this area, the first probably being „Brain, a decoded enigma” by Tudor Moise. You can refer to that if you want. That theory tries to explain the brain and from my point a view is a good work in this field but doesn't explain Self-consciousness, even if the author tries to explain that as well.
Theory about the Human being (human Psyche).
Model: The human being = I + (Human mind + Human body + Self + Consciousness).
Legend: H.M. = Human Mind, H.B. = Human Body, S = Self, C = Consciousness., I = the "I"; all components.
Green line = Decision making process (abstract).
Explanations of the terms: I will use along the way the „human being” instead of „human Psyche” for dis-ambiguity of the terms. Please take note that here we „study” the human being from a psychological point of view. Because is a model and theory associated to the model the terms here has significance only inside this theory and not outside of it. I used those terms only so that readers can make an association with some notions that we have, but I hope, not confusion also.
The „I” term can be associated with Self-consciousness. The part of us which allows as to say „I”, and doesn't let us to say „I don't care”. Even if we say that we don't mean it. When I started this, I started from this axiom: that we care, about everything (that is relevant to us) even if some of us try to numb certain aspects. But the „I” of-course is not the same as Self-consciousness as it is understood from other areas of study.
The „Human mind” and the „Human body” it is expressed in this way because this is a study about the human being (homo sapience) and not about the animals. I'm aware of the similarities, but what applies to animals may not apply to humans. (the intention here is actually not to be biased).
The „Self” and „ Consciousness” are just terms that will be explained further.
Presentation of theory, the model,its elements and relations between the elements.
The assertion here is that the Human being is composed from a system of 5 elements/components, or expressed in another way: the Human being can be studied from this point of view, as a system of components, and the study is made by studying each component and their interactions within the system.
There are 4 components within the system: The Human mind, the Human body, the Self and the Consciousness component. The fifth component, the „I” is an emergent of the system, within the system. Even if the „I” is an emergent is a component in itself with it's own proprieties, that can be different from all the other ones. I.e H2 + O = H2O a different substance altogether. And the I works with the other 4 elements forming a system.
The term „component”: within the system all the „elements” can work individually and also collectively. And thus an element „behaves” as a component.
The Human Mind (H.M) role is to find solutions, return answers to interrogations and to establish correlations between items. HM works with concepts and the basic function of the Human Mind is manipulation of concepts. It has its own way of operating that can not be changed. HM intrinsically "learns" new concepts both through its own work, independently, and through processing tasks from the decision process. Human Mind operates independently and impartial (to all the others or to all things). The HM doesn't work with moral concepts (not it's role).
Human Body component: an interpreter of the physical human body (not the human body itself). A analogy: in It, a driver for a piece of hardware and not that piece of hardware.
The Self : a component that is „static” and it has informations (maybe data) written into it. This data is always the same, is not changing. The component it self is not changeable; immutable. The info written into it is: "Importance" and „Self-persevering”- which is to be read: I existed always, I exist, and I will always exist. (continuity may be another term for it). „Importance” is to be read correctly just „Importance” – not in a superlative form. Outside view: if we ask our selves „I'm more important than another person or less important than another person?”. If we do that is wrong and is not attributed to the Self component. What we can say is „I'm important”.
Consciousness: a component that is designed to check new values based on (against) a value system. The value system is "placed" in Consciousness and Consciousness assess what it is to be assessed on the basis of that Value system. What is to remember: consciousness is "unbiased" to the value system. It doesn't decide on the value system in any way. This Value System can be "taken" changed, modified by the H.M and the I.
The I: is in „charge” of the Decision making process and another role is Conflict Resolution between the system elements (the I included). The I is on the „other side” of the Decision making, meaning that the interactions between the I and the other components is realized indirectly.
Relations between elements: components can exchange information between them. All elements have access to the same data about „External reality”. The components operate independently of each other and at the same time together. This may appear as contradiction, but, here, the assumption is that is not. Ie: in quantum physics (from what I know) there is a principle which can be expressed: a "switch" state can be: ON, OFF, ON and Off both at the same time. This applies here also. I'm also working on a concept of „apparent contradictions” which happens/appears when decision is applied to soon (before grasping a new concept that explains the contradiction/the paradox”). This explanation derives from the theory.
Axiom 1: None of the components in the system can be eliminated (once created).
Axiom 2: I has indirect capabilities upon other components but it can not create a conflict within the same component under the law of non-interference.
This is the main „body” of the theory. English is not my native language and I apologies for any mistakes. If I did mistakes and it creates confusion please let me know. There is more to this (theory) but all the work was done in „my head” and not with a pencil and a paper. So I think you can understand my dilemma. Maybe you can direct me to the right approach here, what is necessary for a theory to be coherent, valid and if it applies to a „section of reality” that is to be studied. How can I work with a model, with this one, math can be applied to it?
As a recap and wrap up: the I and the HB components are to be considered „biased”. HM, C, Self – un-biased. What is relevant to the Human being (and to this theory): Thought (process) – Decision (making process) – Action. This being a system an „effect” cannot be attributed only to a specific element, instead the system must be understood on Overall. I.e: different regions in the brain are associated with sight, hearing and so on, but what is to be said is that if that regions are affected a cognitive function is affected (from here the association) and doesn't really mean that that specific region of brain if is responsible with a cognitive function (from what I know, I hope I don't mistake). Anyway, I think that this is known about a system. That being said you can (abstractly) associate Thought to the Human Mind component, Decision to the I component and Action as an understanding of the decision taken. Thought and Decision as processes can only be attributed to the system (overall).
Thought – Decision –Action (with Decision in the middle) work together but there are not tied (ironed) to one another. To understand the human Psyche you need to understand this processes independently. Some of us may be conditioned to tie them all together. As a religion theme: if you think of you neighbor wife, desire may appear, if desire appears Decision follows and Action (in that direction) also. So the highest you can do is to „purge” those unholy thoughts. Which is not the case, these work independently and one doesn't conditions another (like in cascade or another form).
The system revolves around the stability of the System and not related to survival (survival of the human body). The system is more stable when there are less conflicts and more instable when there are more conflicts within the system.
A simulation can be: A person wants/needs to steal something:
The I is in charge of Decisions and takes decisions in relation to the other components (and it self) and in relation with Impartiality( I won't go into details here about the Impartiality, is enough to say that it can be expressed mathematically and Free Will also. We can associate here Impartiality with O- zero).
A necessity is acknowledged from the HB and not only. A necessity like food (the simplest form) or a watch. The I needs to make a decision. The HM helps it to identify „all” the elements (such as risk) and also can provide a solution to that action ( to steal an object, in this case). If I interrogates HB it returns that that specific item is needed (food). If interrogates the Consciousness component a belief system is needed, such a Moral system. Checks the value (from the I) against the values present in the Value system and returns a result. In this hypothetical case (from outside) it can go either way. That such an action can be moral or immoral. There is no absolute in no field whatsoever so there is not an absolute here, like an absolute moral system- point of reference). In other words the Values system is related to the individual in cause and not with something outside of it. What is „outside” is the risk of getting caught.
If/when the I interrogates the Self, „I always existed, I exist and I will always exist” so a piece of bread won't make much of a difference, in layman terms.
If the I interrogates the HM about the risk HM can provide a risk assessment. Related to „If such an action is worth it” HM is impartial to that, to death (to all things) and it can go either way.
The I also interrogates it self and a decision derives. Is hard to predict here in this hypothetical case what that decision will be, considering that is a specific/singular case, disregarding past events. A decision is made as part of a strategy. The point is: the I can make an arbitrary decision (is not conditioned by the HB); can take a „totally arbitrary” decision disregarding HB component-which will lead to system instability; or a decision which falls into a strategy or in the scope of the system. For dis-ambiguity: the I has to take into account each component when adopting a decision (as part of conflict resolution) and not to disregard an interrogation. Taking into account doesn't imply following.
Intellectual property of Daniel, Irofte.
