Explain this, you empiricists

[Millman]

Perhaps you would care to point out the statistics that were 'brought forth'? We have repeatedly stated that such a coincidence is not really even surprising, let alone special. If you want to make a claim about the significance of this situation then by all means do so - and without trying to shift the burden of proof onto us.

I'm quoting not to debate you but to point something out about the burden of proof in this case, how can there be one when it deals with the human mind?

The conclusion seems to be basically is that our minds create situations and feelings we 'want' to believe, because that is evidently the capablity of the human species. There is no right or wrong here, in fact, it is thankfully wonder. Maybe empiricsm isn't completely important, that wonder in itself of empiricsm at not being right or wrong is equally important. An indefinate answer is as important as a logical one.

Is there a Physcologist here who would like to talk to Bozo on how the mind works, not necessarily a life problem unless it is one?

Edit-everything is a philosophy too, maybe it would be better if more people read some. Some that provokes deep though like bozo's question. My mind tells me the story would be boring if the answer was cut and dry.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Is there a Physcologist here who would like to talk to Bozo on how the mind works, not necessarily a life problem unless it is one?

Life problem? I think hardcore neurologists on the cutting edge of research would be more appropriate. Unless of course you just think Im nuts.

 

[C~G]

I think hardcore neurologists on the cutting edge of research would be more appropriate.

Exactly.

Psychology's reputation as pseudo-science or "non-science" will melt away as soon as we have more data about the neurology of the brain.

Then it will be appreciated as much as real science as any natural science like physics.

And as bonus we almost get rid of that old bugger namely which is "mind-body-problem".

 

[brennan]

I'm quoting not to debate you but to point something out about the burden of proof in this case, how can there be one when it deals with the human mind? ...

As bozo and C~G have both pointed out, there is good reason to think that Neurology and Psychology will soon remove the old mind/body dichotomy that has plagued philosophy since Hume (I think) pointed out their incompatibility.

There is already good evidence that physical changes to the body (brain) affect the mind (personality).

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Exactly.

Psychology's reputation as pseudo-science or "non-science" will melt away as soon as we have more data about the neurology of the brain.

Then it will be appreciated as much as real science as any natural science like physics.

Really? I see the opposite happening. I think as more and more is learned about the 'hardware' of the mind, the 'software' (psychology)will more and more take a back seat. Psychological theories about the mind will be seen as vague, subjective mumbo jumbo.

Unless we have a language problem, and youre referring to neurology as psychology?

 

[brennan]

Bozo, the trouble with the 'hardware' you are talking about is that it is one of the most. if not the, most complicated systems known to exist. It may well be the case that we can never rely more on neurology than psychology, for more or less the same reason we will never be able to predict the weather with total accuracy.

And btw Psychology is not a 'pseudo science'.

 

[Millman]

Well, why not ask a futurist if they know the future and tell us how far we will go? Or is a physic a better person for you. And did you miss my point? :razz:

Neurologist: You have chemicals and braincells that store memories.

Physcologist: You have emotions from the chemicals that give you the philosophy of coincidence or anything anywhere.

That is basic, some 'doctors' know both, or more or less.

 

[brennan]

How do you know the sky will not fall on our heads? (sophistry)

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Bozo, the trouble with the 'hardware' you are talking about is that it is one of the most. if not the, most complicated systems known to exist. It may well be the case that we can never rely more on neurology than psychology, for more or less the same reason we will never be able to predict the weather with total accuracy.

I know what you mean, but we can already see psychology being eclipsed. Today the emphasis is on the chemistry of the brain, not on whether you had a passive father, assertive mother, or vica versa.

And btw Psychology is not a 'pseudo science'.

I agree. However I see psychology as the immensely complex subject thats as hard to pin down as the weather. But the hardware is ultimately knowable and understandable as our tools improve.

 

[Millman]

If you talked to physcologist at all, you would appriciate how some of them might help you understand how those things work. How shame would cause you to 'rage inward,' or constant teasing as a kid caused you to have an 'inferiority complex' or whatever terms are used.

The first physcologist will tell you that we are all a little nuts, and that our minds can 'create' the things we 'want' to believe.

Maybe empircism is not as complex as it sounds. I did assert math is a more exact science, maybe physcology isn't, the philosopher might tell you it didn't need to be(matter).

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Ive spoken to plenty of psychologists in my day Theyre no less clueless and utterly lost than anyone else is, if anything more so. IMO psychology is a valid science sorely in need of worthy practitioners.

 

[Millman]

I'll introduce a philosophy we kinda already know. We might call it a science like virtual representation. It would be taboo for me to say it, but this is the good kind. Try putting yourself in place of every subject and object that ever existed. Each one seems co-dependent of itself. Although you could claim a random rock on the ground is insignificant, what would happen if it were in a great leaders way. He tripped over it and broke his leg delaying the battle that changed history. Something simple.

In this case, I would call it Transvirtual Representation. I wise rule is to know/be everything about everything and a master at something. There's not enough time to master everything.

But I do have basic clues and insights as what someone 'would' say or should I say 'should' say.

 

[C~G]

I see the opposite happening. I think as more and more is learned about the 'hardware' of the mind, the 'software' (psychology)will more and more take a back seat. Psychological theories about the mind will be seen as vague, subjective mumbo jumbo.

Indeed. Such danger is there. But many theories in psychology are mumbo jumbo. Many of the theories basically explain the same phenomena just with different words, they could be described as some sort of language games. (here's to CartesianFart and his Wittgensteinian remark.
Same goes to philosophy of course. As such it could be considered as pseudoscience since it might not solve any "real" problems people have.

Unless we have a language problem, and youre referring to neurology as psychology?

There's such thing already as neuropsychology but the point here is what is studied.

The danger lies if people only feel physical sensations being result of chemical reactions in brain and forget that it's also "an illusion".
Just like in computer the software part is immensely important, without knowing how to program computer, only the basic physical functions by hardware can operate.

The psychology should be rearranging the data we have in our brain so it would block our efficiency to act. We could think it as some sort of memory repairing tool, but if the memory doesn't work because of hardware error we should repair the hardware problem first. Then again there's no use for hardware repair if the problem is in the program and interface. Then we need software expert not hardware engineer to help us.

So both chemical problems and childhood problems still have effect on our lifes. Therapy's idea is to create simulation of the experiences people might have had before and just go through the memories so brains can handle the events and won't affect the everyday life. I believe chemical substances can help this process especially if they either block certain memories or they cause person to feel OK even though his mind is browsing through memories that might contain hurtful information.

Neurology is important since it acknowledges that the memories create neural networks that can in long term become permanent. So it's not only chemical or just mindless mumbo jumbo but actually how certain thought patterns causes behaviour models which are then hardwired into the brain by neural networks.

Or this is my believe.
See Gilbert Ryle's work example for more. Meaning you can start from there and move on from there.

In this case, I would call it Transvirtual Representation.

Interesting and quite accurate term, is it trademarked already?

 

[Millman]

That's a good thing. I didn't know it existed.

BTW, who should you ultimately read? Not all old advice is old, do I have to chip over a hundred dollars to read the latest neuroscience large textbook on the block.

I can just read it on the internet. lo.

 

[C~G]

That's a good thing. I didn't know it existed.

Basically it doesn't, or I haven't heard it before.
That's why I asked.

 

[punkbass2000]

Theyre no less clueless and utterly lost than anyone else is,

Why should they be? Do you expect physicists to be less clumsy than anyone else?

 

[warpus]

You seem to see this as a characteristic of our minds. I see it as a glimpse of the struggle at the very heart of creation: the search for unity that is ever present in all things.

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Why should they be? Do you expect physicists to be less clumsy than anyone else?

Like all the sciences, theyve built an elaborate structure around a set of core assumptions, and now happily bounce around within that structure. Im not saying these assumptions are correct or incorrect. Most of them are all at least partly true, or else their structures would have collapsed. But they eventually do collapse, and then it turns out all the so called experts didnt know so much after all.

 

[C~G]

Most of them are all at least partly true, or else their structures would have collapsed. But they eventually do collapse, and then it turns out all the so called experts didnt know so much after all.

Not necessarily.

If we could think different psychological theories as programming languages of the mind, basically they could still work and have effect even though they might be clumsy especially since the mind receives different kind of information with more variation now than hundred years ago. That's why psychology must evolve all the time as the world also evolves. The challenges it faces are completely different from those that may have affected people earlier in human history.

But where psychologist theories may fall completely apart are how they see the physical brain and body functions affecting the phenomena of the mind since they haven't understood how the hardware actually works before nowadays. Now we get a glimpse inside the machinery that might connect these factors.

So basically therapy could be seen as scripts feeded by the psychologists into the mind of the patient who then tries turn itself into debug mode in order to see whether it works or not after the therapy.

 

[punkbass2000]

Like all the sciences, theyve built an elaborate structure around a set of core assumptions, and now happily bounce around within that structure. Im not saying these assumptions are correct or incorrect. Most of them are all at least partly true, or else their structures would have collapsed. But they eventually do collapse, and then it turns out all the so called experts didnt know so much after all.

Well, I don't know that they necessarily "collapse" per se, but indeed no theory is complete.