Mind vs. Brain Part I: We are only Human

"Be master of mind rather than mastered by mind." ~ Zen Proverb

Why do most of us blow our diets and financial budgets with chocolate cake and impulse buys?  Why does the investor herd seem to buy high and sell low rather than buy low and sell high?  This behavior is not only more the rule rather than the exception, but it is precisely the opposite of what we know is in our best interests. 

Why is this?  Do we have some kind of built-in, self-destructive genes that seem to wreck almost every plan we make?  The short answer is, yes...

I've been looking for a way to introduce a series of posts that will illustrate (and provide steps to overcome) the human condition that inspires self-destructive behavior -- the same condition that inhibits our ability to become our ideal self -- by falling prey to media noise, social conventions, and self-inflicted inertia...

A recent Los Angeles Times article, Does your brain have a mind of its own? (hat tip to Donna at Changing Places) provokes the kind of thought that makes for a good starting point for my new TFP blog post series, Mind vs. Brain:

Human beings are, to put it gently, in a unique position in the animal world.  We're the only species smart enough to plan systematically for the future -- yet we remain dumb enough to ditch even our most carefully made plans in favor of short-term gratification...

If we are, as the selfish-gene theory would have it, organisms that exist only to serve the interests of our genes, why do we waste so much of our time doing things that are not, in any obvious way, remotely in the interest of our genes? 

How can one explain, for example, why a busy undergraduate would spend four weeks playing 'Halo 3' rather than studying for his exams?

Our attempts to pursue our goals are often thwarted by the fact that evolution has built our most sophisticated technologies on top of older technologies -- without working out how to integrate the two...

Still, all is not lost.  Even though our short-term desires are pretty good at grabbing the steering wheel of our consciousness, our more recently evolved deliberate minds are powerful enough to regain at least some measure of control...

Our conscious, deliberate systems will never have total control, and our memories will never be perfect, but as they say in Alcoholics Anonymous, recognition is the first step.  If we come to recognize our limitations, and how they evolved, we just might be able to outwit our inner kluge.

"All that we are is the result of what we have thought.  The mind is everything.   What we think we become." ~ Buddha

While I do not agree with all of the points in the LA Times article, it does a fine job of framing the human tendency that places us on the path of perpetual self-destruction rather than the one toward self-awareness and, ultimately, to self-improvement of the highest order.

Once we simply recognize, as the final point in the article illustrates, that we have limitations, but more importantly how they evolved, we have taken the first step toward self-awareness or what I refer to as our knowing...

As most TFP readers may have already guessed, the next step is to begin the process of properly aligning our knowing and our doing, which may be aided by philosophy's power of thinking about thinking and ultimately lead us to victory in the battle for our minds...

What are your thoughts?  Can you share any examples, articles or philosophical quotes that we can build upon to strengthen this Mind vs. Brain series of posts?

As always, I would be quite interested to hear them...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related Posts:

Mind vs. Brain Part II: Priorities, Pursuits and Productivity

Mind vs. Brain Part III: Habits of the Reflective Mind

Comments

[Charles]

You can see and hear Gary Marcus discuss Kluge with Carl Zimmer at the following link:

http://www.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10137

Charles

[The Financial Philosopher]

Charles:

Thanks for the link! It was certainly interesting. You have, yet again, given me another place (bloggingheads.tv) to find more interesting thoughts and ideas!

Thanks again...

Kent

[Oz]

This post reminds me of a picture of the soul that Plato gave in his Republic. He posited that the soul was formed of three parts: reason, spirit, and desires. He did not say any one of the three were intrinsically bad in themselves, but they were only good when they worked together in harmony; with reason ruling, spirit rousing the person in reason's aid, and desires obeying the first two as necessary. While I don't completely agree with way Plato divides the soul, it does give an interesting account of how a person can knowingly do something that is bad for them: when one of the three parts is in conflict with the other or out of balance with each other. If we believe in this, we can explain short-term selfishness and shortsightedness by saying our desires are not in harmony with our reason and spirit.

Your consistent referrals to Buddhist quotes makes me wonder if you're not a fellow practitioner as well! Either way, I believe you're right in he need for more awareness or mindfulness.

"If there is any holy book in Buddhism it is the holy book of meditation that you read in your own heart in the stillness of your mind"

If you get the chance and are willing, the above quote was spoken by one of my favorite monks, Ajahn Brahm. Thank again for the post, looking forward to more in the series.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sxK7iqG2XQA

[Charles]

Here are some additional links concerning insights on thinking about thinking, perceptions and mental biases, and cognitive dissonance:

From the CIA, "Psychlogy of Intelligence Analysis": https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/psychology-of-intelligence-analysis/index.html

and an interesting discussion between Joshua Knobe and Laurie Santos about cognitive dissonance: http://www.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10783

Charles

[The Financial Philosopher]

Charles:

Thanks again for sharing the links and knowledge. I have found more useful information from readers than mainstream media, as I would expect!

Oz:

I like to balance western and eastern philosophy. If were to describe my philosophical "foundation," it would be Plato's ideas of being, knowing, and acting. Where my philosophies part with Plato's is his world of "becoming," which was later spotlighted by Hegel and Nietszche. I agree, as Plato believed, that this "physical world" is misleading, but I believe that it can also be properly aligned to ultimately lead to our "ideal self" or proper "being."

Eastern philosophy does not necessarily address "the world of becoming" directly but, instead, incorporates the word into the usage of metaphors, such as "becoming the path." In other words, I prefer to use "becoming" as part of our "acting," or as a verb, instead of a noun that describes the physical world.

Do you think this makes sense? I am still working through these thoughts...

[donna]

Well, self-awareness doesn't really lead to self-improvement; it leads to acceptance of one's self as one is, without the need for improvement. Sure, things could be better, or worse -- but the fundamental self would remain the same.

It is when you stop becoming and simply start being....

[The Financial Philosopher]

Donna:

I love your point! Self-improvement, as most people view it, implies that we must change "who we are" to become a "better person." This, I agree, is absolutely a flawed view.

Self-awareness, ideally, will have us embrace our being (who we are). The only change, or "improvement," would be our doing (what we do).

My point, better expressed, is that, once we obtain self-awareness, most of us will realize that our actions, or our "doing," is not in alignment with our "being."

Self-improvement then would not imply that our "being" is flawed but that our "doing" is leading us further away from it. Our self-awareness (knowing) will help us identify this misalignment.

Perhaps self-improvement would be better defined as the act of aligning our being (who we are) and our doing (what we do) and this can effectively be a better definition of "becoming."

What do you think?