Consciousness expansion

[The_Idler]

"belief" is not necessary,
simply act as if the most logically probable situation is the case -_-.
that is, the mind has a physical, biological foundation.

So don't damage your brain, because you will ALMOST CERTAINLY subsequently suffer from irreversible mental problems.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Many need not 'understand', just 'observe', 'be'.
Those who need to feel as if they 'understand' will find 'something' to 'understand', even if only fantasy.
What is understanding? A feeling that one sees certain patterns at the moment. That one 'knows' the 'Truth' about something? Ego? Are those patterns not subject to change in another moment?
And, yes, there are places where the mind cannot function on a logical and rational and linear level. Intuition, for one, is a good tool..

In my own experience of people I've met who struck me as very wise, systematic understanding is a very important component of their wisdom, but not the whole thing by a long shot. The truly wise see that there will always be a limit to what they can understand, and situations in which their understanding is of little use.

On one hand, I respect the singleminded passion and devotion of those who have dedicated their lives, careers, personalities, and thought processes to the detailed understanding of systems. (I speak as a medical student, coming from a family of teachers, and whose fiancee comes from a family of engineers.)

On the other hand, a minority of the people I've encountered who've put all of their eggs in the 'understanding of systems' basket have struck me as wise, in a global sense, and many of them (though hardly all) manifest deficits, if not downright foolishness, in other aspects of their personalities.

I'm not disagreeing with you, namelesss, just piggybacking off the point that you made.

 

[Max Power]

(I speak as a medical student, coming from a family of teachers, and whose fiancee comes from a family of engineers.)

Meaning your kids are all going to be mega-nerds.

 

[FreedomOfTheMind]

If the universe exists within Consciousness (by the infinite perspectives), then why does perspective exist in the first place? Does perspective exist so God can know himself through the experience of the perspectives? (im using male pronoun for lack of better word) Why do we find ourselves in this physical reality? What is the point of the illusion in the first place?

 

[The_Idler]

well, it's probably just a biochemical representation of physical information,
in existence due to how effective it is at allowing the overblown chemical reaction that possesses it to better exist within said physical reality, therefore increasing the chance of said overblown chemical reaction creating more of itself, via the replicating chemical code that has precipitated the chemical reaction, and said biochemical representations of physical reality.
Therefore consciousness is successful.

 

[eEz]

'Collective unconscious', what an absurd notion, and also oxymoronic.
Odd that you have 'noticed' that (become aware of) 'unconciousness' (that which no one can be aware of, cannot be 'noticed'... if there is even such a thing, which I seriously doubt), has 'done something'. Makes no logical sense.
Perhaps you can show me what I am missing in this equation, if I am missing something...
!

I think he meant subconcious maybe? maybe not

If one effected the other then on average people with physically bigger heads would be more spiritual or conscious than people with physically smaller heads.

people with small heads usually are quite stupid though, lol, or maybe not.

A brain of sufficient complexity would be conscious (assuming you haven't been doing evil sensory deprivation experiments on it, keeping it locked away in the dark somewhere or whatever). However, not all brains are conscious or self aware in the way that human brains are (unless you think all animals are consciouss and self aware) so the relationship is not quite the same as matter and gravity. Consciousness is a pattern of information that can exist within a sufficiently sophisticated brain.

you see, and before I start I losely agree with a lot of what uve said in this post so far so Im not calling into question yourself or your logic here. However, with conciousness this part of the post sort of sums up my problems when it comes to discussing these things. Not all brains are concious or self aware in the way we are, unless you THINK otherwise. Basicly that sums it up doesnt it. A scientist sits a cat infront of a mirror, the cat plays wih its own reflection, the scientist decides the cat therefor must have no comprehension of self and THINKS animals are not self aware like we are, they are in a different form of 'conciousness'. I have a few mice living in my house atm. I sit down sometimes and watch them run around. They keep to the sides of the room, and more importantly they keep to the sides that have the most cover. When I move about and they see/hear me they run behind cover. The mouse udnerstands that it is an individual with a line of sight, and that I too am an individual that it presumes has a similar line of sight. It hides behind things to escape my line of slight, it sits still and doesnt make noise to avoid my hearing, it understand that I am me, that I have an awareness and as a potential threat it is trying to remove itself from my awareness. So if I mouse can understand this much u cant tell me a cat isnt self aware. Without actually being a cat, none of us can do any more than guess when it comes to how we evaluate just how 'conciouss' that cat is. Maybe it doesnt have any appreciation of self in the way we do and its trying to attack this other cat it is seeing. Perhapse he just doesnt understand the concept of a mirror. Perhapse he is just tyring to see how scary he looks when he pounces on a mouse, practicing his war face. What if what if what if I think I think I recon, maybe this maybe that maybe not....


endless, the whole concept becomes like a room full of kids arguing about what Gods favourite colour is.

Just a note -- if that were the case, you would notice that the time it takes light to travel between two fixed objects would be increasing. (That's how laser rangefinders work.) Not to mention that the forces that hold matter together have a relatively short range, so any significant increase in distances would cause all solid objects to disintegrate.

well quite, and if those factors didnt exist to disprove it there would be no way to actually notice this happening at all in the first place.

The point is that assumption ARE useful. If assumptions were never useful people wouldn't say 'to assume makes an ass out of u and me' because noone would do it. Assumptions very often are useful, or else we wouldn't have to be careful about making them in the wrong situations.

yes I agree. Thats what we are arnt we? Walking assumption machines. We take unconected 'things' and make imaginary patterns with them in our head in an attempt predict things to a level where it is safe to assume and therefor get on with whatever it is ur doing in order to stay alive and keep the chemicals ticking over in your head. Without assumption we know nothing. On some level u have 'I think therefor I am' and everything after that is an assumption or a means to an assumption. You could even argue 'I think...' is an assumption, although I woudlnt subscribe to that notion myself.

And what about me, do I think conciousness is expanding? I wouldnt have a clue, in the 26 years Ive walked this earth my conciousness has expanded, thats about all me or anyone else can really tell u. Somewhere around 5-10,000 years ago someone built Pyramids and temples in northern Africa and southern America, some of which we would be very very very had pushed to build today, with all our fancy gadgets. Some blocks weighing over 200 tons that have come from litterally miles away. You would need a line of cranes passing the blocks one to another to move those stones today, a line of cranes stretching miles. As far we know they had like animal and man power. Yet they did it, somehow, are we more conciouss than these people? We dont even really know enough about them to work out exactly how they built their structures in some cases. We have stories written in pictures whos translations have gone through about 4/5 languages over a period of over 2000 years. We dont know if these were litterally just stories, if these were religeons, if these were metaphorical ethical/scientific works, we just dont know. But we presume. We dont know that we are any more or less conciouss than humans have been at any point. We dont know what the cat OR the mouse is really thinking. So ultimatly what can we really say with certanty on this subject?

 

[The_Idler]

So ultimatly [sic] what can we really say with certanty [sic] on this subject?

Ironically, the only thing we can say is certain is probability.

well, it's probably just a biochemical representation of physical information,
in existence due to how effective it is at allowing the overblown chemical reaction that possesses it to better exist within said physical reality,
therefore increasing the chance of said overblown chemical reaction creating more of itself,
via the replicating chemical code that has precipitated the chemical reaction,
and said biochemical representations of physical reality.

Therefore consciousness is successful.

Now, I really want a one of those soul-people to come along and tell me a more probable theory than that.
THAT WOULD BE SO SO AMAZING right?

 

[Rod-Everrard]

Ironically, the only thing we can say is certain is probability.

Speak for yourself, there are many not in the "we" you seemed to have lumped humanity in

Now, I really want a one of those soul-people to come along and tell me a more probable theory than that.
THAT WOULD BE SO SO AMAZING right?

Do you always rely on other people to tell you how the world works?

Try finding out yourself, through experience.

(But this goes back to my point about you not even looking into such aspects, as you`ve already declared them logically impossible....)

 

[The_Idler]

ahm no.

like i just said in the post that you actually just quoted, i have thought about it myself,
there are many people out there that are certain a soul exists, a manifestation of consciousness beyond matter.


I'd just really like to hear how it works.
Because, yaknow, that'd really be an amazing revelation for me,

if i could see that "I" probably AM going to exist beyond death,
it would (obviously) totally change my life.



However, considering all experience and information interpreted thus far,
I am probably not.

SO, i want to know what this secret is, that has convinced so many people that they are probably NOT going to cease to exist as a conscious self, when they die.
IT MUST BE A GOOD REASON, right?

so, I'm fascinated.

 

[ebola?]

From a cursory reading of the last page, I think that Zorn's got it on lock (once again).

Now I will say that even if the brain is the ultimate sub-stratum of the mind, it does not follow that mental states correspond directly to physical states. I like to think of psychological (and social) experience as an emergent level of analysis that arises in particular types of physical systems (the human brain and body being the foremost example). The relationship between thoughts and neural activity may be similar to the relationship between cellular activity and chemical reactions...or perhaps molecular reactions and subatomic particle-interactions.

>>
I don't see why the idea of the mind arising from the brain should be associated with a lack of free will. I believe in free will and i also believe that the mind arises from the brain.>>

Indeed. I also think that for this line of discussion to go forward in a useful way, we need to get a working definition of free-will on the table. It is clear that indeterminacy is not sufficient. For example, if it is the case that probabilistic quantum-level events shape the physical state of the brain which in turn shapes the mind, most people would not happily call this in itself "free-will".

Is it that we choose without constraint? Well, the environment presents innumerable constraints on what we do.

Is it that the act of willing is "uncaused", setting in motion other processes? Well, I see a couple difficulties:
1. Why is it that this special act, among all other known events in the universe, is not caused by something else?
2. We can point to plenty of physical, social, and psychological factors that influence our perceptions, desires, and thus choices.

I am personally of the opinion that the experience of free-will is a sort of functionally useful "illusion" that emerges when the mind takes itself as an object in a symbolic strange loop (Hofstader).

ebola

 

[Rod-Everrard]

i have thought about it myself

"Thought" being the operative word here.

Have you actually tried to experience things that may bring you to such conclusions? There seem to be many people who show various ways in which this is possible ( various meditation techniques, hermeticism etc). I`ll admit this isnt how I came to such conclusions but I have no reason to doubt the many that claim to have.
Also, I`m not saying you`ll definately gleam such answers from any of the various ways available (that still doesnt mean they don`t exist though, maybe some just arn`t aware enough yet, and this is in no way derogatory, maybe just some souls are younger), but if your serious in your quest, you should at least try.

I'd just really like to hear how it works.
Because, yaknow, that'd really be an amazing revelation for me,

Me too!

if i could see that "I" probably AM going to exist beyond death,
it would (obviously) totally change my life.

It did mine.

However, considering all experience and information interpreted thus far,
I am probably not.

Have you really considered all the available information?

I`ll say again how easy some write off the stupidly vast amounts of accounts of various forms of "super" natural events, which if your prepared to accept, or at least consider, open the door to belief in the soul.

 

[Olyn]

Do you always rely on other people to tell you how the world works?

Try finding out yourself, through experience.

QFT.

 

[MrM]

you see, and before I start I losely agree with a lot of what uve said in this post so far so Im not calling into question yourself or your logic here. However, with conciousness this part of the post sort of sums up my problems when it comes to discussing these things. Not all brains are concious or self aware in the way we are, unless you THINK otherwise. Basicly that sums it up doesnt it. A scientist sits a cat infront of a mirror, the cat plays wih its own reflection, the scientist decides the cat therefor must have no comprehension of self and THINKS animals are not self aware like we are, they are in a different form of 'conciousness'. I have a few mice living in my house atm. I sit down sometimes and watch them run around. They keep to the sides of the room, and more importantly they keep to the sides that have the most cover. When I move about and they see/hear me they run behind cover. The mouse udnerstands that it is an individual with a line of sight, and that I too am an individual that it presumes has a similar line of sight. It hides behind things to escape my line of slight, it sits still and doesnt make noise to avoid my hearing, it understand that I am me, that I have an awareness and as a potential threat it is trying to remove itself from my awareness. So if I mouse can understand this much u cant tell me a cat isnt self aware. Without actually being a cat, none of us can do any more than guess when it comes to how we evaluate just how 'conciouss' that cat is. Maybe it doesnt have any appreciation of self in the way we do and its trying to attack this other cat it is seeing. Perhapse he just doesnt understand the concept of a mirror. Perhapse he is just tyring to see how scary he looks when he pounces on a mouse, practicing his war face. What if what if what if I think I think I recon, maybe this maybe that maybe not....

I don't see any of that as a problem. If it turns out that cats and mice (amongst other things) are self aware, either to an extent or else totally, but just in a different way to us, all it means is that either we've overestimated the complexity of brain necessary to support consciousness or else we've underestimated the complexity of cats and mice. The principle still makes sense - you are not going to convince me a cockroach is conscious, even though it has some kind of nervous system.

Consciousness could either be an all or nothing thing (requiring a brain of a minimum complexity) or else a scalable thing with more and less conscious and intelligent creatures. Either way it doesn't cause problems for the idea that self aware minds are caused by brains of sufficient complexity.

 

[The_Idler]

I`ll say again how easy some write off the stupidly vast amounts of accounts of various forms of "super" natural events, which if your prepared to accept, or at least consider, open the door to belief in the soul.

My feelings and emotions never overwhelm logic.


they may influence me to make illogical decisions,

but they do not make me "believe" that those decisions are in fact logical.



That is what is required to believe.
OF COURSE I have overwhelming feelings and emotions of my consciousness and soul existing beyond matter.

but still, they probably do not.


All that is required, is for me, instead of doing what is probably the best thing,
to do what feels like the best thing.

I just have to do what "feels good" or "feels right".


However, in every situation I have ever encountered, logic was better sutied (err, by it's very nature?).

so, with what justification, could i throw away logic, and base my actions on feelings and emotions, which are themselves, logically probably simply manifestations of chemical and electrical interactions....?

What is it, that has convinced so many that "what feels right" is actually better for them that "what probably is"....?

 

[yougene]

From a cursory reading of the last page, I think that Zorn's got it on lock (once again).

Now I will say that even if the brain is the ultimate sub-stratum of the mind, it does not follow that mental states correspond directly to physical states. I like to think of psychological (and social) experience as an emergent level of analysis that arises in particular types of physical systems (the human brain and body being the foremost example). The relationship between thoughts and neural activity may be similar to the relationship between cellular activity and chemical reactions...or perhaps molecular reactions and subatomic particle-interactions.

It's a possibility, but think of the sub-stratum structures of psychology.
For example,
The sub-stratum of concepts are images,
sub-stratum of images is perception.

I don't remember all the rungs, but you get the point.
concepts
...
images
...
perception

Here we are narrowing our view to a specific part of reality in order to study it with precision. Now we could start throwing matter somewhere into the hierarchic conception, but does it really make sense to do so? There is really no elegant way to do so, because you are taking structure conceptions from two different perspectives and trying to stack one on top of the other.
It doesn't make sense to stack
concepts
...
images
...
perceptions
...
on top off

brain
...
neurons
...
molecules
...
etc...


My point is, if you're building hierarchic conceptions you need to stick to a consistent methodology. Trying to stick sentients( which exists only within the 1st person ), on top of a hierarchic conception of matter, is like trying to stick a square peg in a round hole.

>>
I don't see why the idea of the mind arising from the brain should be associated with a lack of free will. I believe in free will and i also believe that the mind arises from the brain.>>

Indeed. I also think that for this line of discussion to go forward in a useful way, we need to get a working definition of free-will on the table. It is clear that indeterminacy is not sufficient. For example, if it is the case that probabilistic quantum-level events shape the physical state of the brain which in turn shapes the mind, most people would not happily call this in itself "free-will".

Is it that we choose without constraint? Well, the environment presents innumerable constraints on what we do.

Is it that the act of willing is "uncaused", setting in motion other processes? Well, I see a couple difficulties:
1. Why is it that this special act, among all other known events in the universe, is not caused by something else?
2. We can point to plenty of physical, social, and psychological factors that influence our perceptions, desires, and thus choices.

1) It can be, but why is it necessary for sentients to solely be a receiver of effect. Is it not a source of cause as well?

2) None the less you can empirically verify that there is an acting agent within those constraints.

I am personally of the opinion that the experience of free-will is a sort of functionally useful "illusion" that emerges when the mind takes itself as an object in a symbolic strange loop (Hofstader).

Fair enough, but there needs to be a 1st person to make that claim in the first place for it to be meaningful at all. 3rd person truth claims aren't exactly disembodied and absolute. For the statement to be logically complete, before you can go on to make claims of truth in the 3rd person, the self-evident ground of the 1st person needs to be acknowledged.

 

[ebola?]

>>Trying to stick sentients( which exists only within the 1st person ), on top of a hierarchic conception of matter, is like trying to stick a square peg in a round hole.
>>

However, if we look to the investigator-world complex, this hierarchical conception of matter was derived from the first-person experience of the scientist. Thus, I don't think that it is necessary to quarter off phenomenology from objective "stuff".

>>It can be, but why is it necessary for sentients to solely be a receiver of effect. Is it not a source of cause as well?
>>

Oh, it's not. Thoughts affect physiology, quite clearly.

>>Fair enough, but there needs to be a 1st person to make that claim in the first place for it to be meaningful at all. 3rd person truth claims aren't exactly disembodied and absolute. For the statement to be logically complete, before you can go on to make claims of truth in the 3rd person, the self-evident ground of the 1st person needs to be acknowledged.>>

I'm on board with you on this, although I don't think that 1st person experience is..."self-evident". Primary experience itself is shaped by our conceptual assumptions.
...
I'm interested: how would you define free-will?

ebola

 

[eEz]

Consciousness could either be an all or nothing thing (requiring a brain of a minimum complexity) or else a scalable thing with more and less conscious and intelligent creatures. Either way it doesn't cause problems for the idea that self aware minds are caused by brains of sufficient complexity.

Oh for sure, I would agree totally that conciousness is spawned from the brain. I dont see a difference myself between the brain and the mind. Its like seeing a difference between the electicity moving around ur pc and the pc itself, to me is all PROBABLY physical, but I cant say for sure, its a guess when it goes that far. Same with the cockroach example. I was gonna mention ants myself, but I thought Id better cut my waffling down a bit. Is an ant as self aware as we are? I would probably lean on the side of doubting that. A cockroach? hmmm, dunno, theyre quite big buggers and I havent payed them much attention, but yeah again probably a very stupid creature. While though, they are probably not aware in general to the extent of bigger creatures, where are the lines drawn, how much can we know? People create these catagories for conciousness, once something is aware of X it moves up into this new band of coinciousness. I dont really think this is true. I would imagine that the first thing a living being with a brain become aware of is itself and very soon after that an awareness of other creatures as also being individuals. While I would agree that this is probably such a basic grasp that it could not compare to the infinatly more complex appreciation of the self u and I share, I dont agree with this drawing lines buisness. There are as many states of conciousness as there are living things to have them in my book. there is no denying the capacity to understand in greater depth increases with brain size amoung animals, and we cna chart that we have areas of the brain that are developed that other animals do not have, I dont think we know enough to say for sure what exactly is required in a brain to have a sense of self.

My points are more in regard to the original thread question of is conciousness expanding etc rather than this question of mind and brain which has popped up in which I largely agree with what ur saying. Conciousness has changed over time, apprently, so Ive been told many times in many lessons, heard and read in books and on tv, seen quoted in their thread. But has it? Maybe it has but who really knows? No one can tell me for sure that at some point humans were on a different level of conciousness than they are today. We know more, but isnt that simply saying as time goes on we learn more, isnt it just a liniar movement of understanding? I dont get where these ficticious lines are drawn. Counciousness seems to imply more than just understanding, to me it seems to be tied to the capability to understand, is our capability to udnerstand increasing? Id say probably not, Id argue that since humans have been humans it has probably never increased, we have simply leant more, and considering we dont actually have a clue what people who lived 5000, 10,000, 50,000 years ago actually knew for sure, how can u draw a line through that and say at X point we have moved to some sort of higher mental plane? Same goes with animals, we can note that certain areas of the brain we think corespond to certain types of mental process exist in some and not others, but when u talk about sense of self, its way to grey, and will be untill we can completely understand how a brain works.

 

[yougene]

>>Trying to stick sentients( which exists only within the 1st person ), on top of a hierarchic conception of matter, is like trying to stick a square peg in a round hole.
>>

However, if we look to the investigator-world complex, this hierarchical conception of matter was derived from the first-person experience of the scientist. Thus, I don't think that it is necessary to quarter off phenomenology from objective "stuff".

The study of exterior physical objective stuff is an actual 1st person, taking a 3rd person mode of perception, focused on a 3rd person. the study of interior psychological objective "stuff" is a 1st person, engaging a 3rd person mode of perception focused on a 1st person. I don't think you need to quarter off phenomenology but you are dealing with two differentiated points of perception, and as a result two different methodologies.

>>Fair enough, but there needs to be a 1st person to make that claim in the first place for it to be meaningful at all. 3rd person truth claims aren't exactly disembodied and absolute. For the statement to be logically complete, before you can go on to make claims of truth in the 3rd person, the self-evident ground of the 1st person needs to be acknowledged.>>

I'm on board with you on this, although I don't think that 1st person experience is..."self-evident". Primary experience itself is shaped by our conceptual assumptions.

It's true that primary experience is shaped by conceptual assumptions, but I think what this means in this context entirely depends on what we mean by self.

I don't think a person has to conceptualize an experience as 1st person in order for it to be 1st person. In order to make such a conceptualization it would have to be in contextual contrast of a 2nd and 3rd person. Nonetheless, when dealing with children that have not developed an ego yet. What's surprising is, not that they haven't developed an ego. It's that they are all ego! For example, when you cover your face they think you have disappeared. Or when a toddler does something wrong, they automatically assume that you already know that they did it. They have not yet drawn the differentiation between a 1st and 2nd person, everything is in 1st to them. I'm not sure if this was a useful example for the direction I'm trying to take this, but my point is 1st person is pretty much straight out of the womb.( I probably should have made my argument structurally rather than by example ).

...
I'm interested: how would you define free-will?

ebola

Ouch, that's a tough one. I'll have to answer that tomorow in the day.

 

[Alephnul]

William of Ockham was an incredibly intelligent man before his time. The application of his so called Razor to each and every aspect of human enquiry is to my mind misguided. If one is to apply his logic, one must also understand his motives. Ockham was a scholastic Averroeists, who sought to apply Aristotelian principles to justify scripture. As with other Averroeists he soon discovered the frequent incompatibility between the two. In a time where scripture held primacy in epistemology it was hard to reconcile the teachings of the Church, and the empirical data being amassed in the great schools of learning of Europe and beyond. Ockham favoured a logic that replaced a world-view of Platonic Ineligibles with an Aristotelian focus on particulars, hence logical enquiry inferred truth values from particulars, to Ockham, the only reality that mattered.

The modern and post-modern sequestration of Ockham’s logic for purposes for which is was not designed, I find suspect. If we all simply followed a dictum that implied adherence to actions which best correspond to the most probable cause of phenomena, science itself would never advance. The modern application of ‘Ockham’s Razor’ omits the subtle duality that its eponymous creator intended. That I can at one act according to a worldview that accepts phenomena without worrying about their final cause, and also imagine what that final cause might be. It seems probable that the brain is the cause of the mind, therefore I act as if it is, does not preclude me from also believing that it is not the cause (but rather corresponds in some as yet underdetermined way with it). I can hold both these notions. I believe I have an immortal soul does not in any way impel me to entertain nihilistic actions. I feel much of this threads apparent disagreements rest upon lexical ambiguities. Knowledge, belief, action, causality hold various subtle meanings, often highly subjective.

What I find heartening is that so many people assign such importance to the super-mundane questions explored herein.

In response to the OP, the answer to your question depends on your worldview: pantheist, panentheist, solipsist, immaterialist, materialist, mystic or theoretical particle physicist. Either way, excellent thread, and much food for thought that has allowed me to procrastinate even more, from beginning a looming essay!!
MENS AGITAT MOLEM

AN

 

[MrM]

It's a possibility, but think of the sub-stratum structures of psychology.
For example,
The sub-stratum of concepts are images,
sub-stratum of images is perception.

I don't remember all the rungs, but you get the point.
concepts
...
images
...
perception

Here we are narrowing our view to a specific part of reality in order to study it with precision. Now we could start throwing matter somewhere into the hierarchic conception, but does it really make sense to do so? There is really no elegant way to do so, because you are taking structure conceptions from two different perspectives and trying to stack one on top of the other.
It doesn't make sense to stack
concepts
...
images
...
perceptions
...
on top off

brain
...
neurons
...
molecules
...
etc...


My point is, if you're building hierarchic conceptions you need to stick to a consistent methodology. Trying to stick sentients( which exists only within the 1st person ), on top of a hierarchic conception of matter, is like trying to stick a square peg in a round hole.

I don't really think putting 'mind' on top of 'brain' and 'neurons' is really that helpful in terms of understanding the relationship between these things. I don't think the relationship is hierarchical.

The mind is, if anything, one step removed from the brain. One step further away from reality. If you think of the brain as being composed of matter and energy which are the basic constituents of the universe, then the mind is defined by the particular arrangement and functioning of particular bits of matter and energy; information in other words.

The interesting thing about the relationship between the mind and the brain is that they can effect each other in both directions. That the mind can effect the brain is obvious as otherwise if i made the conscious decision in my mind to walk somewhere my brain wouldn't be able to signal my legs to get me to go in the right direction, whereas the opposite is also true when i look at things the process of visualy decoding that information occurs withing my eyes, optic nerves and the visual centres of my brain, but there appears in my minds eye an image of the thing i am looking at. This is pretty much a requirement for the kind of self awareness we enjoy and not typical of a hierarchical relationship.