The mind as a closed loop

Does the mind function like a closed loop?
Do we center our thoughts and beliefs around certain things, and try to make everything fit into that closed circle?

In electronics a simple operational amplifier may have one fixed input and another variable input. If nothing is input into the variable input, it will usually equal the fixed input. Then we may have an offset ajustment so the output of the mind is a stable output often around 0 in an analog circuit, but usually in a digital circuit it would be a certain number of "counts" - then when we alter the variable input, the output will change accordingly. We can create positive and negative feedback loops to control the output, and we can create an amplification of the change if we so desire. We can also use capacitors and switching systems to vary the rate (time constants) of the change.

If you read the above, while it is basically accurate (on a simpe level) but what about the minds than can create these circuits? By creating our ideas and thoughts are we self programming and limiting ourselves?

Kant described the mind as having two primary faculties:
the analytical and the synthetic.
I prefer the terms: logical and creative.

The logical mind operates in much the same way as you describe,
but the creative mind is quite mystical - that is mysterious -
and perhaps it is necessary to always have a 'known' and an 'unknown'
in any human endeavor.

When the two faculties are in harmony, then equal parts of consciousness
are distributed between them. When we develop a theory about anything,
we create a logical system with the creative mind. If our theory is a good
one then it goes into an automatic state and needs little or no adjustment.

However the theory may encounter new data which it can either reject or
incorporate into its algorithm. When most data is rejected, or there are too
many new categories of data - then the model becomes inefficient and as there
are too many logical connections between categories - contradictions then arise.

When the theory becomes unworkable due to its own inner-contradictions,
then no amount of adjustment can get it to work.

In ordinary life, a person then suffers a nervous breakdown, and in essence,
the mind needs to 'reboot'. The mind must then rebuild its logical structures
to fit with new information from the beginning again.

This generation of humanity is going through a phase of information overload.

As we find out more and more from the www, we have to adjust our mode
of thinking more and more to be able to cope with the huge quantity of ideas
that are out there.

One starts to look at the computer as 'that thing' with a skeptical squint on
one's face. The www takes on a life of its own. Like we are talking to the universe
itself, constantly having to adjust the mind with more and more and more and ...

... well ... in psychology the nervous breakdown is actually seen as the epitome
of a healthy mind. With each rebuilding, the mind is becoming more efficient
at rebuilding itself. The interaction between creative and logical then operate
at the optimal state of awareness.

Mayflow wrote:Does the mind function like a closed loop?
Do we center our thoughts and beliefs around certain things, and try to make everything fit into that closed circle?

In electronics a simple operational amplifier may have one fixed input and another variable input. If nothing is input into the variable input, it will usually equal the fixed input. Then we may have an offset ajustment so the output of the mind is a stable output often around 0 in an analog circuit, but usually in a digital circuit it would be a certain number of "counts" - then when we alter the variable input, the output will change accordingly. We can create positive and negative feedback loops to control the output, and we can create an amplification of the change if we so desire. We can also use capacitors and switching systems to vary the rate (time constants) of the change.

If you read the above, while it is basically accurate (on a simpe level) but what about the minds than can create these circuits? By creating our ideas and thoughts are we self programming and limiting ourselves?

Mayflow,

This post offers the most dreadfully poor analogy I've ever read.  In the middle of explaining the functional behavior of an op-amp, you magically transform the amplifier into a mind (w/o explanation/justification) and wander completely off-topic. You are behaving like a troll within your own forum. Why?

I recommend that you expunge this post, the section, and all replies. Then sit down and think about what concepts you meant to convey. Perhaps, in time, resurrect this post with something that you've thought out, rewritten several times, which elucidates rather than confuses.  Else you will transform your originally promising forum into a haven for metaphysical crackpots who will treat any meaningless jumble of buzzwords that resonate with Dr. Caca's TV physics, as if it was insightful information.  

Look at how your post has quickly influenced JAB, who begins by referencing Kant, but immediately transforms Kant's terminology to fit his own brand of psychological claptrap.  Had you taken some military training, you'd have learned that not only does shit roll best downhill-- amidst the descent it collects more shit (from junior officers) and becomes a bigger ball, rolling with increasing mass and velocity (momentum).

Johnathan got the point of the analogy immediately. The logical and the creative. That which is pure behaviourism http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/behaviorism

and that which is intuitive and creative. If you want everything to fit into your own closed loop system, your creativity becomes extremely limited. That he relates this to Kant is yet another aspect of mind, possibly related to synchronicity. Psychoanalysis: The simultaneous occurrence of causally unrelated events and the belief that the simultaneity has meaning beyond mere coincidence. Jungian idea I believe.

Ps, I do have Military training. Specialist 4th class in the Military Police as a correctional specialist, so I do know how to deal with the rowdy types - usually be realizing they are just people like I am and if in the wrong circumstances I may be in need of assistance from them instead of the other way around. That really is a whole other topic on the mind though. I don't mind a closed loop system here or there but I won't be confined by any of them.

Greyloin is feeling a deep sense of existential crisis.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:Greyloin is feeling a deep sense of existential crisis.

Jonathan,

Insults by name-distortion were a common tactic of the stupidest and most unimaginative playground bullies, back in third grade.   I dealt with those children by feeling sorry for them, knowing that even as their bodies grew with time, their minds would remain small and ignorant.

Graylorn, think about this.

'I am not, I will not be.
I have not, I will not have.
This frightens all children,
And kills fear in the wise.'
Nagarjuna

Those third grade children may have been your best teachers, if your learning capacity is at a high enough level. It is possible to learn not to do unto others what you do not like done unto you.


CONVENTIONAL AND ULTIMATE WISDOM
Although Albert Einstein was certainly not a Buddhist, these statements sound much like it:

"A human being is part of a whole, called by us the 'universe', a part limited in time and space.
He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest
- a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.
This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affectation for a few people near us.
Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion
to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

Mayflow wrote:Graylorn, think about this.

'I am not, I will not be.
I have not, I will not have.
This frightens all children,
And kills fear in the wise.'
Nagarjuna

Those third grade children may have been your best teachers, if your learning capacity is at a high enough level. It is possible to learn not to do unto others what you do not like done unto you.


CONVENTIONAL AND ULTIMATE WISDOM
Although Albert Einstein was certainly not a Buddhist, these statements sound much like it:

"A human being is part of a whole, called by us the 'universe', a part limited in time and space.
He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest
- a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.
This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affectation for a few people near us.
Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion
to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

Meyflow,

Thank you for the Buddhist insights. I've put them in my WOM, to be cherished forever.

What is a WOM? Are just being a jerk again?

Mayflow wrote:What is a WOM? Are just being a jerk again?

This hyperlink will provide a clue.  Put on your "I have a sense of humor hat" and go from there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read-only_memory