Revelationary

Today, as I was writing a philosophy exam comparing the different solutions we have proposed to the mind-body problem, I came across an idea that I find immensely attractive.

I was writing an essay about the problems with the functionalist point of view and had a sort of epiphany.
While pointing out the flaws in the functionalist ideal, I came to a conclusion that is different than anything I have studied so far.

My problems with the solutions to the mind-body problem that we have studied are many. I do not believe in the dualist mentality because I do not believe the mind exists as an entity separate from the brain. I don't subscribe to  behaviorism because it supposes that mental states are the predisposition to behave in a certain way. This is rather restrictive as it claims that all physical behaviors are based on mental states. The mental states are the cause for the behavior. However, not all behaviors are caused by mental states and not all mental states have corresponding behaviors, so this theory must be wrong.

Functionalism also fails because it reduces mental states to be defined as the causal relationship between an input and a related output. This fails because it does not explain the underlying phenomena of feeling. Two people in the same mental state (note that the "same" mental state in two subjects may be composed of different inputs and outputs) may experience the state in completely different ways. This theory assumes that a person's mental state can be inferred by observation of the inputs he perceives and the outputs created, which of course is incorrect.

I would like to propose a new theory of mind. To begin, I'd like to address the one major flaw in all the aforementioned theories: the idea of the mental state. The word state comes from the Latin word "stat" which is the verb "to stand" or remain constant. The mind is anything but constant. It is dynamic; ever changing. This is why people who have set routines still experience things differently from day to day. My recommendation for a new theory of mind does away with the idea of the mind being static. The mind is never in the same state for more than an instant, so it makes no sense to refer to mental states and their effects on behavior.

Instead, I believe that the mind is a type of processor; one with an infinitely complex circuitry design. This processor is hardwired to produce a certain output (or number of outputs) when a given input is received. These outputs can be both physical (realizable in the physical world) or mental (which I will define as only being inside the brain. This includes things like the chemical balance of the brain). This theory explains differences in perspective by saying that each individual's mind is hardwired in a different way, and some inputs cause the circuitry to morph, creating new relationships between inputs and outputs.

Behaviorally, this circuitry idea of the mind works because it allows limitless possibilities for why behaviors occur. Can there be multiple circuits that lead to the same output? Absolutely. In the same way that a calculator can compute 2 and 2 into 4 and also 1 and 3 into 4, the mind can process different inputs into the same output. This model also allows for the same input to cause different outputs, because the circuitry is infinitely complex and the chances that -- at any second -- an input identical to a previous one occurs is virtually zero. This theory even explains the different minds of creatures with the same physiological makeup as ours, as well as those whose physiology could not be more different. How? Every creature simply has a different processor; a different circuitry.

Anatomically, this relationship makes sense because basic studies of the brain reveal that the neurons firing in the brain carry a slight electrical charge, exactly the same way circuits in a processor carry electrical current. The nervous system is electrical as well, and it follows logically that sensory inputs (touch and feel perceived by our nerves) can easily be processed by the mind.

The true beauty of this theory is that it does not remove the human element from the mind. Let me focus on a few highly contested topics about "human" minds: Emotion, Ideas, and Free Will. Free will still exists, but as a by-product of one's ideas and experiences.  I cannot repeat it enough: the brain is infinitely complex. What we call "free will" is simply how our mind processes that vast array of data surrounding it and produces an output that it sees best suits our situation. Ideas are produced in the same way, except perhaps our mind fetches inputs from further back in our memory, or a new input causes a change in our circuitry that allows previously separate data to synthesize into a new form. This is what happened to me today while I was writing that exam. One of the thoughts that I produced as an output from being prompted the question that I was answering must have changed my mental circuitry a little bit to allow me to conceive the mind as a processor and that exactly such changes are indeed possible. A revelation!

People are protective of their emotions. They are almost always the first topic to come up when one is asked the difference between man and machine. The fact, however, is that our emotions are caused by chemical imbalances in our brains. These imbalances can certainly be inputs (or outputs) and must absolutely play a role in our processing power. Perhaps adrenaline greases up the neuron passageways in our brain, allowing it to process data faster. Perhaps seratonin changes the passageways to slant toward negative thoughts, and sadness. Again, the complexity of the circuitry is infinite.

I have spent close to an hour organizing my thoughts and writing this essay on my theory of mind. I'm interested to hear your thoughts about it. I'm sure you'll all have something different to say. I've provided your mind with enough data to fill a bucket with inputs so start that processing and let me know what comes out.