Our multiprocessing minds

The key to understand our philosophical understandings of our worlds, is to understand that we cannot understand our multi-processing minds, but that it underlies our language, as well as our thinking | speaking | understanding of the world.

The picture we have of our MultiProcessingMinds may be somewhat clear, while the consequences of its reality, are not.

it is crucial to recognize the vastness and complexity of the human multi-tasking mind.

We are unaware of most of these "processes" (an intentionally vague word to start with). and furthermore it is not to be taken for granted that we can adequately speak | think of them. At the very least we should be aware that we may need new ways of speaking and new ways of understanding language in order to most adequately speak | think of them.

Traditional models of the mind, or the soul, tend to be simple. Often, as in Plato and Freud, it is made of three parts. Or maybe there are 12, in a circular mantra of definiteness. What if the mind has 14,500 parts?

In most cases the mind has a metaphor where the parts can be thought of as something like a person talking. The latter makes our explanation somewhat circular.

The mind, MTM, is bigger than we thought, and is doing much more stuff. There may be thousands of simultaneous processes, or processings.

The basic understanding goes something like this: Our brain, the creator of our mind, is constantly running a number of processes simultaneously. We are constantly processing (listening, transmitting, understanding) at multiple levels at once.

It is like listening/transmitting to many radio station at once. It is like background monitoring processes in a computer, triggered by things we are not clearly aware of.

The simultaneity of all processes cannot be understood by one of those.

When we think of "multitasking" we think of a person doing two or three tasks at once, and that is the limit of the conscious mind. But the multitasking|multiprocessing mind it might be far more useful to think of thousands of processes (or "tasks") happening at once.

These processes underlie the more simple processes of the conscious mind of which we are aware.

A list of these processes will include basic human concerns status, threats/power, relationships, sex, gender, the unexpected, hunger, bathroom functions, awareness of situations, awareness of contexts, understandings, appropriate behaviors, conscious thinking, and more.

A whole slew for taking care of changes and contexts. Being able to recognize contexts is an important human skill.

Our mind is more like Minsky's "Society of Mind" except that this is equally a metaphor and the components of such a "society" are not like the "persons" who make up a human or even an animal society.

We should also recognize that we hardly understand how a human society works.

And that "tasks" is also a metaphor. Not deliberate tasks of conscious humans. Nor are they simply enumerable.

As Minsky said in his extended metaphor of building blocks, the complex processes|tasks|skills are no doubt built upon and with other processes.

What follows from the existence of the multi-processing mind, coupled with our limitations in understanding a multi-processing mind?

  • the activities of the mind are far more complex than we can comprehend with the comprehending part of the mind. It is more like a swarm of activities.
  • our understanding is linear and so cannot understand the many-things-at-once aspect of the mind, and due to the same cerebral limitations, the many-things-at-once aspect of the world.
  • our understanding is a verbal conceptual one, and we do not fully understand conceptual understandings of abstract words, for the same reason mentioned above, language works using the many-things-at-once aspect of the mind.
  • one of the important sets of processes in our mind is the ability to "understand," to speak and think in language. The false picture here is that language, the core truth-carrying aspects of language, is somehow descriptive.
  • We also live in the glib assumption that we can somehow describe everything and anything. We are unaware that human understanding uses Active-Family-Resemblance to make sense of whatever another person is saying. In fields that are limited in consequences (or verifications) this leads to multiple incompatible understandings without any awareness that this is taking place.
  • If thinking and reflection and sentence-making are but one subset of processes, it is impossible for our mind, our consciousness, to keep up with all of our overlapping sets of processes,
  • We have no simple way to describe or understand the simultaneity of our mind. It is like a swarm. Or like thinking in complicated rubrics. Both our stupidities and our glories use these features of words. Multiprocessing is the death of simplicities.
  • Simplicities should not be held onto, even as an ideal.
  • It is not clear we have names, useful names, for this. Even though we, as conscious human beings, are a product of massive multiplicities, it is not clear we can understand this, except as a relatively disengaged high-order generalization.
  • These processes are not discrete. They cannot be simply enumerated, except as a convenient misleading ways of thinking about them.
  • We have no simple way to describe or understand the sheer numbers of these processes, We can understand three, or seven, but only our somewhat simpleminded mind would assume we have just a few processes. Given the immense complexity of our mind, with its hundred billion neurons, it is not unreasonable to think there are thousands of these processes occurring simultaneously all the time.
  • We cannot track all the judgments we make in real time. Our minds are multitasking while tracking is but one task. We make all sorts of subconscious judgments.
  • Multiprocessing mind means death of linear exposition. It cannot be assumed there is bit one path, one way, one proof. In multiprocess thinking, we do not further the thinking by counter-examples,
  • Our answers are multi answers.

[ back ]