Window Frames

[from http://www.dailylifesinspiration.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/200901301644470.Open-Window.jpg ]

Today Sam made a lovely brunch for all of the people with whom we should be going on a cruise with at the end of the year. It was great. After that we played rockband and I tried my luck at singing again. I think I've come to the conclusion that I can sing any song presented in a monotone fashion. I seemed to do particularly well when singing The Killers and Oasis' wonderwall. What a bro.

This afternoon, we had our second round softball game. We won, naturally, and advanced to the final round. I find it odd how similar my enjoyments are to what my father did when he was younger. He played hockey, so I started playing hockey at age 7. He played golf, so I tried golf and loved it. He played squash, so I picked it up and captained my high school team to two provincial silver medals. He played baseball, and I never really followed that until this year. This softball team has really been a lot of fun and I plan on joining a men's league over the summer. My dad never did play tennis or volleyball though, so I guess I've got the old man there.
Anyway, the main topic of this post was not meant to be about my day, but rather about frames, and what they are and how they affect us.

You're probably thinking, "window frame? Like what I look out to see outside?" In a way, yes. Your personal frame is the set of perceptual maps and filters through which you see the world around you. Perceptual filters are the experiences and beliefs that you have which shape the ways that your mind perceives the world around you. Perceptual maps, then are the ways in which your mind provides the fill for the types of information that you cannot obtain through your senses, for example your "moral compass" or sense of right and wrong.

Of course, because each one of us has our own set of frames (and most people have multiple frames, depending on what type of environment they are in) we all perceive the world differently. A book that I'm reading suggests that there are five types of frames: Why frames, How frames, Result frames, Possibility frames, and Curiosity frames. Each step progressing from Why to Curiosity reflects a new stage in personal growth, focusing more on deeper, abstract topics.

Personally, I see myself as being between the Result and Possibility frames most of the time. I don't believe in failure, which is one of the critical factors leading to the Result frame, in which one does not perceive outcomes as successes or failures (this is not a Bernoulli world, after all) but rather, simply as results. The wonderful thing about results is that they are neither good nor bad. They are merely data waiting to be interpreted. "Failure is just what we call a result that we don't like." Results can be read, and feedback can be obtained, so that next time, the results are better. Not necessarily wholly successful, but better.

My philosophical interest has peaked again, so stay tuned for moar!

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.