Let’s consider a human composed of three entities; the form, the mind, and the consciousness.
The form encompasses the complete set of physical organs, processes, and corresponding manifestations (such as physical outlook), many of which are designed according to the instructions of active genes. The brain represents the most complex and advanced center of analysis and responses for the entire body, including itself. The level of its sophistication, functions, and performance varies for each individual from time to time and from one person to another. The brain receives and processes incoming data, analyzes it and transforms it into information, updates its past learning parameters, makes immediate decisions if required, and stores the learned parameters for a future decision/prediction.
To avoid ambiguity, I distinguish between data and information; all information is data, but not all data is information (i.e., necessarily informative). So, for instance, if I observe an abstract painting that I cannot understand, I will receive data as an image, processing it in the brain but deducing no information from it. In other words, my brain could not inform me of anything, even if I went ahead and created all kinds of interpretations I wanted unless I stored the data and found the means to extract information from it. In this case, data (i.e., 2-D image) is received through its proper channel (visual systems), but my brain’s facilities could not process it. Another example would be looking at a 2-D time series of an audio signal. The signal is informative only if received through ears; however, looking at it as a bunch of data points on a paper is non-informative data. Therefore, the raw data can not be processed in the brain because it was received through the wrong channel, i.e., eyes vs. ears.
So why should there be a distinction between data and information? The reason is that intentional or automated processes in the brain tend to emphasize or prioritize information over uninformative data regarding storage, which makes sense; for instance, if you have limited space on your hard drive, wouldn’t you prioritize what data should be stored? However, my argument is that when we receive data that is not complete, we often go ahead and create additional information (such as interpretations) to make sense of it then we store the whole thing as fact. What I’m trying to say here is that we tend to make things up and compromise the integrity of the received data; for instance, your partner says one thing, and you go ahead and interpret it the way you think it should be and add the interpretation to the original data which was their statement and store the whole thing as fact. This process of data fabrication is one of the primary causes of misunderstandings and confusion in our lives.
The brain processes input data and stores it along with any conceptual information it creates. The input data includes, but is not limited to, unbiased observations from the outside world and the changes in the chemical processes within the body, where observation refers to the collection of data through all five sensory channels. In contrast, constructed information refers to perceptions, concepts, etc., created by the brain. For instance, unbiased observations would be the observation of physical processes without any interpretation- observing a red rose in the garden without any effort to interpret the observation without adding additional information to it, such as “life is so beautiful” or “the flower shows me how fragile and temporary life is.”.
The second function of the brain is to create entities that were not collected as data through sensory channels but, as mentioned above, were created as part of the biased or unbiased analysis of the factual data. For instance, a kiss may produce a flood of sensory data, all of which can be stored in the memory centers- the memory of the kiss as is; on the other hand, the brain might proceed with creating virtual entities based on that experience such as interpreting the experience as the inception of a loving relationship, or whatnot. Again, I must emphasize that creating entities such as interpretations is intentional; hence, the responsibility and ownership that come with these contents we have formed.
Now, let’s concentrate on the virtual content.
The mind is the framework, a network of infinite connected entities, all of which have been created by the brain through life experiences. Everything you and I have experienced has been subjected to some form of analysis and formation of a mind-entity. Throughout life, we intentionally create concepts, ideas, perceptions, perspectives, interpretations, dreams, and goals, all of which contribute to the structure of a complex web of entities. These entities are virtual in that they did not enter the brain as observed data (outside and internal chemical signals); instead, they were created by the brain and stored for immediate and future decision-making. The framework of mind-entities functions as an interface between the physical form (and its surrounding environment) and the consciousness, the non-physical component of a living human. In another article, I will expand on the exciting discussion of the mind-consciousness interaction.
The framework of mind is constantly reforming and changing; whether it is evolving is entirely dependent on the individual’s intentions. This framework’s rigidity and complexity also depend on the individual’s life experiences, intents, actions, and choices. One might be highly resistant to changing the framework’s structure or open to its intentional and conscious modification. We all have met individuals open to considering the possibility that their interpretations and perceptions could be wrong, and they take action to remove and replace them with different contents. At the same time, we have met people with rigid frameworks of mind, manifesting bigotry, arrogance, and prejudice.
At any given time, the configuration of the nodes and edges on the mind’s network represents the state of mind. Therefore, the mind can take infinite states in theory, depending on the extent of flexibility of the edges (i.e., the strength of influence of one entity on another) and the activities of the nodes (e.g., perceptions, ideas, concepts, perspectives); however, in practice, the number of occurring states are finite because not all nodes and edges are active at all time. For instance, there are times that your childhood relationship with your parents directly and profoundly affects your current existing relationship with your partner; however, the effect is absent in a different experience with someone else. In other words, all edges and nodes are present but not always active.
Now, imagine how the auto-pilot unaware activity of this complex network can be exhausting and distracting, analogous to the activities of unused apps in the background on your phone consuming resources. Moreover, no matter how many active states a person can experience in a day, it could still be overwhelming, not to mention unproductive. For instance, going from a state of despair and hopelessness because of applying for jobs and being rejected to a state of elation and satisfaction of making love to someone to a state of grief of remembering the recent loss of a friend, all of which could happen within a few hours.
In contrast to the active, hyperdrive, auto-pilot states, the mind can take a stateless configuration in which all entities and their connections are inactive. For instance, when you turn off your interpretation of your financial situation, you don’t see the need to activate the node that triggers your worry about the future. In other words, inactive nodes and no need for making up any cause-and-effect relationship. It is a purely stateless experience where all entities and their connections are temporarily deactivated, analogous to the integral role of the silent gaps on a music sheet. What is important to notice here is that the music sheet needs the notes and the silent gaps to create music; both are necessary and integral, the same as the on-and-off states of the mind.
Frequent visits to this stateless configuration of the mind through various practices such as meditation ensure periods of minimum brain activity and provide a restful experience for the brain. In addition, consciously initiating the process of observing the content of the mind enables the person to watch the deactivation process. For instance, when we enter the process (state) of mindfulness, we can watch the stream of random thoughts appearing and gradually disappearing until all thoughts (nodes) are deactivated. In contrast, an unaware auto-pilot state of mind constrains us to a mental treadmill- an exhausting and inescapable condition. When we consciously deactivate the nodes and edges on the mind’s network, we temporarily step off the treadmill, rest, and get the opportunity to realize what the treadmill is doing to us.
Through episodes of mindfulness, we can transform the very machinery that creates the complex web of mind entities into a correctional/modification facility where non-constructive contents of the mind are identified, acknowledged, removed, and replaced by constructive ones. Of course, these episodes must be repeated over and over until new content is established and activated. For instance, it would take an individual with an old traumatic experience many sessions of such practices to reform the framework and evolve it into a new version- a version (configuration) of the mind that hopefully would reflect a better/higher version of the person.
The episodes of aware deactivation of the mind create a gap in which no thought is the cause for or the effect of another. During these silent gaps, we stop the mad search for building cause-and-effect or correlation relationships; we enter a phase when no achievement is attributed to one’s efforts alone, and no failure is the driving cause for guilt; we enter a state that enables us to observe the destructive elements of the mind and replace them with constructive ones— a temporary state of innocence, where we can see whom we have become and we could potentially become.
Once a significant change is established in the mind’s network of beliefs, the framework is upgraded to a new version, where the individual realizes a better version of themselves. It takes patience and practice to change and evolve the framework. The deeper and more emphasized the nodes and connections, the longer it will take to identify, recognize, reform, or replace them.
The primary role of the mind is in the context of consciousness. The consciousness utilizes the framework of the mind as the interface to interact with the physical form and its surroundings. The function of the consciousness and its ability to evolve, expand, and interact between the two worlds highly depends on the functionality of its interface. For example, no matter how advanced and sophisticated your computer is, its communication with the outside world has to go through your modem/router (well, at least for now!). The strength of the connection between your computer and the whole world of information is limited by the performance of your modem. We can self-isolate at home with the most sophisticated computer and a dysfunctional modem and be completely or partially disconnected from the rest of the physical world. Analogously, we can live in the physical/material form, assume independence, disconnect, and autonomy, and be content with the limitations of a dysfunctional mind, missing out on a whole world of possibilities accessible to our consciousness.
I end with paraphrasing Patanjali’s quote: when our thoughts break their bonds, and our minds transcend their limitations, our consciousness, individually and collectively, expands in every direction; and we discover ourselves to be greater people by far than we ever dreamed ourselves to be.
Payman Janbakhsh, Ph.D.