Dr. Albert Ellis' 'critique' of Capitalism, Objectism


emb021

Recommended Posts

No, Ellen. I was arguing the general point. I'm not a non-discriminating idiot, any more than you are a concrete-bound moron, so let's exercise a little charity and move on to the real issue.

Surely Bob is not just arguing (right, Bob?) that EEG's can't be used for "mind-reading," but that electrical/electronic devices in general cannot be so used. I.e., that mental processes are inescapably "subjective" and unperceivable/unidentifiable by outside observers.

Sorry I didn't dot the "i", but I don't think it's all that mysterious what I was driving at.

REB

So called mental processes are electrochemical processes. They are as real as rain. The way we experience these very real processes is subjective. That is why you can't find a mind in anyone else's head, but your own. There is no mind. There are brains, nerve tissue and glands. We have objective proof of these. No machine or instrument has ever detected a mind. Not one.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No machine or instrument has ever detected a mind. Not one.

Bob,

That is so very wrong.

Wilber's experiment and Roger's example prove the contrary. You don't like the fact that you have to see brain waves on an instrument to perceive the mind? Well, you might not like the light waves projected through a microscope to see a bacteria, either, but that's the way it works. If you really want to go there, no instrument has ever detected a bacteria. Not one. All it detects is light waves and other concretes, but not "bacteria" in the sense you use for "mind."

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No machine or instrument has ever detected a mind. Not one.

Bob,

That is so very wrong.

Wilber's experiment and Roger's example prove the contrary. You don't like the fact that you have to see brain waves on an instrument to perceive the mind? Well, you might not like the light waves projected through a microscope to see a bacteria, either, but that's the way it works. If you really want to go there, no instrument has ever detected a bacteria. Not one. All it detects is light waves and other concretes, but not "bacteria" in the sense you use for "mind."

Michael

I have seen bacteria through a microscope.

As for brain scanners, they measure electrical activity.

Only material physical things show up on or through scientific instruments. Now tell me sir, of what material is your mind made? Perhaps the mind consists of "dark matter", the kind of thing cosmologists are looking for.

All there is: matter and energy in space and time. There is nothing else.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I need to be a little clearer about my own position on all this.

I agree that the mind is not some entity distinct from the brain -- but is merely the brain as we are directly aware of it through introspection, as opposed to being directly aware of it through sensory perception. Thanks to the new procedure talked about in the report I shared, we are now able to perceive our own thoughts at the same time that we are able to introspect them.

Don't anybody try to tell me that the mind can't be the brain, because thoughts don't look like neurons. The color red doesn't look like photons or an object's microstructure that absorbs some photons while reflecting others -- yet that is what we are perceiving in the ~form~ of redness, just as neuronal activity is what we are introspecting in the form of ~thought~.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

No you haven't, if you use the same standard you are using for the mind.

You have seen light waves and nothing more. No bacteria entered your sense organ. Only light did.

Michael

Since "seeing" involves the optical cortex we technically don't even see light waves, our rods and cones in our retina react to light waves and then initiate firings of neurons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen bacteria through a microscope.

Bob,

No you haven't, if you use the same standard you are using for the mind.

You have seen light waves and nothing more. No bacteria entered your sense organ. Only light did.

Michael

Correct. Reflected light from the bacteria on the microscope slide. Two independent witnesses can agree on what bacteria they saw under the microscope. The only witness to a mind is the person who claims to have one. No mind has ever been (objectively) detected in a body not owned by the claimant. Not once. All objective examinations show blood, flesh, bone and a lot of good.

Also consider the cures of diseases that have resulted from killing the nasty bacteria. And consider the diseases that have occurred from the introduction of nasty bacteria into people's bodies. We live longer and better because Pasteur discovered that disease and rot are caused by microbes.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All it detects is light waves and other concretes, but not "bacteria" in the sense you use for "mind."

Yes, and this is why there is no such thing as an object without an observer. There is a difference between a bacteria and a mind, though, the theory is that light bounces off something and then hits our retina when we see a bacteria (or the lens of the microscope first). In the case of a 'mind' there is no "object" to bounce the light off. 'Mind' refers to brain processes so it is not a "thing" in the same sense as a tree - we can observe the mind in action but that's about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since "seeing" involves the optical cortex we technically don't even see light waves, our rods and cones in our retina react to light waves and then initiate firings of neurons.

Anatomically, the retinas are a forward extension of the visual cortex. They are really a part of the brain. Seeing light means photons induces chemical alterations in the rhodopsin molecules in the rods and cone embedded in the retinas.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cells

This is a pretty good article.

We see because there is any energy transfer between the object seen and our visual system. The energy transfer is mediated by photons with a frequency in a range that our photo-receptors can detect. Light is photons. In addition to our eyes, certain metals will eject electrons when they are struck by photons of a sufficiently high energy. Hence we have photo detectors that will produce a current flow when light impinges on them. The hand held calculators you can by at the office supply stores work on this principle. Let the light shine on the photo receptor and it generates enough current to operate the device.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We see because there is any energy transfer between the object seen and our visual system. The energy transfer is mediated by photons with a frequency in a range that our photo-receptors can detect. Light is photons. In addition to our eyes, certain metals will eject electrons when they are struck by photons of a sufficiently high energy. Hence we have photo detectors that will produce a current flow when light impinges on them. The hand held calculators you can by at the office supply stores work on this principle. Let the light shine on the photo receptor and it generates enough current to operate the device.

All very true but I was referring more to the differentiating, recognizing, etc. of structure that goes on in the cortex as a result of the neuronal activity, ie. "seeing" something

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We see because there is any energy transfer between the object seen and our visual system. The energy transfer is mediated by photons with a frequency in a range that our photo-receptors can detect. Light is photons. In addition to our eyes, certain metals will eject electrons when they are struck by photons of a sufficiently high energy. Hence we have photo detectors that will produce a current flow when light impinges on them. The hand held calculators you can by at the office supply stores work on this principle. Let the light shine on the photo receptor and it generates enough current to operate the device.

All very true but I was referring more to the differentiating, recognizing, etc. of structure that goes on in the cortex as a result of the neuronal activity, ie. "seeing" something

Great thread. I commend the great god Ba'al and the discarnate Semanticist.

Seriously, just a quick note on retina and on Thomas's differentiation interest. You might both have a gander at Oliver Sack's book "Island of the Colour Blind." The "seeing" of the subjects of the book is without colour, they have no colour receptors in the retina/brain; they are totally blind to red, blue, green, yellow, etc., via inherited achromatopsia.

Highly recommended -- at a library near you See also "The Mind's Eye," a New York Times review.

With regard to the 'Halle Berry' neurons, I will have to dig up the paper. "Potential applications of this discovery include the development of Neural Prosthetic devices to be used by paralysed patients or amputees," I guess these will be a more invasive means of 'thought-powered' arms. My amputee friend has one of those prostheses that is thinked into operation by a kind of re-routing of impulses sent to other muscle groups (in the stump). I wonder if there will be any great advantage to cracking open the skull and poking about if the result is similar to present prostheses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Michael Brown,

This post was very unthoughtful, hypocritical, and illogical.

First: NEVER judge a book without even reading it,

Secondly: Dr, Albert Ellis Is a very famous Psychologist, If you knew anything about psychology you would know of him or at least the therapy he created (Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy)

Third: His later writings actually talk about religion (which in his opinion objectism is) as being helpful for patients, as long as it is not fanatical. One of his close colleagues is a Mormon gentleman who has used Ellis' idea and incorporated them into a cognitive therapy. Through the grapevine, Ellis is much more open to spiritual ideas, he just defines them differently.

not to mention its simply his opinion not an attack.

Don't flatter yourself so much, you just turn out looking like an ass. please think next time before you speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to OL Jenna:

Did you work with Dr. Ellis?

What brought you to OL?

Obviously, one reason was to make your statement about this thread.

However, is this your field of study?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Brown,

This post was very unthoughtful, hypocritical, and illogical.

First: NEVER judge a book without even reading it,

Secondly: Dr, Albert Ellis Is a very famous Psychologist, If you knew anything about psychology you would know of him or at least the therapy he created (Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy)

Third: His later writings actually talk about religion (which in his opinion objectism is) as being helpful for patients, as long as it is not fanatical. One of his close colleagues is a Mormon gentleman who has used Ellis' idea and incorporated them into a cognitive therapy. Through the grapevine, Ellis is much more open to spiritual ideas, he just defines them differently.

not to mention its simply his opinion not an attack.

Don't flatter yourself so much, you just turn out looking like an ass. please think next time before you speak.

I will second Adam's sentiments. Welcome, Jenna. But please, don't hold back. Tell us what you really think.

I agree with you that Dr. Ellis did some terrific work in psychology. I attended one of his seminars and even became certified in REBT.

BTW, you speak of Dr. Ellis in the present tense. Knowing as much as you do about him and his work, I assume you are aware that he died in 2007.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jenna,

I just reviewed Michael Brown's post to be sure you are talking about the same Michael Brown I know from his posts here.

I don't recognize him in your words. But before I judge, I need to ask: which part of his post do you think is "unthoughtful, hypocritical, and illogical" and makes him "turn out looking like an ass"?

Here's what I read in his post:

He cited a work and its description, asked if anybody knew anything about it since he had never heard of the author, and gave his impression of what he imagined the tenor of the book might be based on the title, citing some of the ways he categorizes bodies of thought. He then finished with an implicit call for opinions and reviews. He did say he was not going to waste his time reading it, but from the reasonable tone of his post, I understood that he implied that if others who had read the work said it was worth reading and this was a good author, he would reconsider.

I don't see anything wrong here--it's mostly a request for information about a book with a nasty sounding title for a person who likes Objectivism. His post certainly does not give a nasty scorched earth impression to the reader like your first post on this forum causes.

What's more, his post was made three-and-a-half years ago, in 2007.

So what's the beef?

I'm listening.

(btw - I have read the book. Twice. Once in the original and once in the revised version. I also link to Ellis's work in the Addiction section of the forum as a good suggestion.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two held a public debate about 40 years ago with a contract specifying that either could veto publication of the transcript. Branden invoked his veto, explaining in The Objectivist that, among other objections, Ellis had been abusive to Rand, who was in the audience (this is not hard to believe in light of what you quote in your original post), and had digressed into politics instead of sticking to the subject. Branden also said that his intention to agreeing to the debate in the first place was in part to squelch the talk of compatibility.

And we are much poorer now that the transcript is not available. That is Nathaniel Branden's fault, nobody else's.

What is Nathaniel Branden hiding?

Edited by Chris Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two held a public debate about 40 years ago with a contract specifying that either could veto publication of the transcript. Branden invoked his veto, explaining in The Objectivist that, among other objections, Ellis had been abusive to Rand, who was in the audience (this is not hard to believe in light of what you quote in your original post), and had digressed into politics instead of sticking to the subject. Branden also said that his intention to agreeing to the debate in the first place was in part to squelch the talk of compatibility.

And we are much poorer now that the transcript is not available. That is Nathaniel Branden's fault, nobody else's.

What is Nathaniel Branden hiding?

You sure know a lot. How do you know he retained either the transcript--if one was ever made--or the tapes, which must have been reel to reel. Neither may exist any longer because of the chaos surrounding the closing of NBI. The debate was in May 1967, about a year before I got to NYC.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two held a public debate about 40 years ago with a contract specifying that either could veto publication of the transcript. Branden invoked his veto, explaining in The Objectivist that, among other objections, Ellis had been abusive to Rand, who was in the audience (this is not hard to believe in light of what you quote in your original post), and had digressed into politics instead of sticking to the subject. Branden also said that his intention to agreeing to the debate in the first place was in part to squelch the talk of compatibility.

And we are much poorer now that the transcript is not available. That is Nathaniel Branden's fault, nobody else's.

What is Nathaniel Branden hiding?

He isn’t hiding anything. Branden has stated publicly that he was very uncomfortable with the setting of the debate because almost all of the audience was on his side and in opposition to Ellis. He would have much preferred the opposite. Apparently Ellis was constantly booed and hissed throughout the debate. As I recall, Ellis was a mentor for Branden at the beginning of his career. When Branden achieved notoriety as the leader of the self-esteem movement, their relationship took a nosedive. Even so, Branden’s abiding professional respect for the late Dr. Ellis may also be a factor. If he does have the tapes—and obviously only he would know that—he may not want to release them for these and other personal reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now