Repression/Emotionalism

[Brant Gaede]

Mind and consciousness in this context mean the same thing.

And you've never experienced any abstractions first hand, therefore they don't exist?

You'd better stop advertising how juicy your brain is. Some folk in the South Seas consider brain a delicacy. They won't be concerned with your consciousness or mind either.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

2 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Mind and consciousness in this context mean the same thing.

And you've never experienced any abstractions first hand, therefore they don't exist?

You'd better stop advertising how juicy your brain is. Some folk in the South Seas consider brain a delicacy. They won't be concerned with your consciousness or mind either.

--Brant

Oh yes I have.  Pi and I  are good friends.   And anyone who had proved that Tyconoff's  Compactness Theorem is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice  is a master of abstraction.  I have done so.  Have you?

[Brant Gaede]

My oh my. Look at what came crawling out of the woodwork: abstractions.

I know a doctor who's done about 2000 autopsies. He never found consciousnesses, minds or abstractions. (Lotsa brains, however.)

Nor logic.

--Brant

 

[anthony]

On 2016/12/02 at 0:54 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

Popper and Kuhn are the most popular philosophers among physical science people.  Hume is sometimes quoted. His attitude toward metaphysics is well shared by the physical science folks.

Suspect me.  I know consciousness first hand.  I know thinking first hand.  I have never encountered a mind.  Ever.  I attribute all my "mental" doings to my brain whose existence I am 100 percent sure of.  I have a very nice set of MRI images of my brain  at  age 70.  No holes, gaps or shrunken parts. I hope my brain is still in good shape.

I have never, ever encountered a "mind"  in any other person.  What I have encountered are actions,  expressions,  speech,  writing, gestures   of other folks.  In short the only think I can testify to are the externals.  I have no idea what is going on inside of other people, or very little idea.  I have some hypotheses connecting face and body language  of other folks to what they might be thinking, but that is,  well,  hypothetical.  The only person in the universe whose "feelings"  I know are my own.  

And there we are.  I do not deny the existence of a mind in my head.  I just have not encountered it and it has never showed up on a scan.   I do not deny that other people might have minds.  I simply have no knowledge or evidence that they do.  Until I see a definite physical manifestation of a mind (as opposed to a brain)  I will remain agnostic on the matter.

Popper too? Again, someone I've not gone into deeply. No surprise that he would be - I've conjectured - in the way of David Hume, a "philosopher of science" - an empiricist and a likely skeptic. No surprise many scientists and you would admire him.

"Falsifiability" is an empirical-method construct I am sure. Try applying it to one's personal knowledge and methods of induction and concept formation...

"Science, like virtually every other human, indeed organic activity, Popper believes, consists largely of problem solving". (Wiki) Yup, that says it all about him. Life is a "problem".

btw, you don't have to know what's inside someone's head (a "mind") or how someone uses it - to know that there IS a mind and it has an identity. Your must-see-it-to believe-it physicalist-skepticism is depressing. I think you work just a little too hard sometimes at keeping up your unbelieving appearances.

[anthony]

Bob, again it has to be said that philosophy is and must be concerned with the "how?" and sciences with the "what?". How do we know - and only then - what do we know. One cannot create a 'philosophy' on the "what?". That's a stolen concept fallacy, bar none. It has the intended purpose (I'm certain) of destroying philosophy. In the process, the unintended consequence is damaging science.

[KorbenDallas]

On 11/29/2016 at 0:01 PM, anthony said:

Biological urges and impulses, notwithstanding. I think the implicit first and final question, is: who is in charge here? Responses from one's brain mechanisms, as with subconscious memories, associations and experiences, are often mismatched to a situation and one's values, and if allowed free rein, self-alienating. Not to mention, the damage when acted upon. A blind rage. Irrational hatred of an entire 'type' of people. Paralyzing fear. Guilt one doesn't deserve. Etc. If not consciously brought to mind, understood and ultimately over-ridden (that's not "repressed"), they can only do harm to the self. What the repetitive pattern establishes in a mind, is uncontrollable and mysterious reactions randomly come and go, and one is always in their grip and at their mercy. The consequences on self-esteem and one's self-efficacy have to be enormous.

Agreed, with what you described emotions can seem deterministic and further evasion/repression.  Volition is how one begins to regain control, to be on the right path to having self-esteem.

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Popper too? Again, someone I've not gone into deeply. No surprise that he would be - I've conjectured - in the way of David Hume, a "philosopher of science" - an empiricist and a likely skeptic. No surprise many scientists and you would admire him.

"Falsifiability" is an empirical-method construct I am sure. Try applying it to one's personal knowledge and methods of induction and concept formation...

"Science, like virtually every other human, indeed organic activity, Popper believes, consists largely of problem solving". (Wiki) Yup, that says it all about him. Life is a "problem".

btw, you don't have to know what's inside someone's head (a "mind") or how someone uses it - to know that there IS a mind and it has an identity. Your must-see-it-to believe-it physicalist-skepticism is depressing. I think you work just a little too hard sometimes at keeping up your unbelieving appearances.

Kindly do not tell me what I -know-.  I know what I see or perceive.   I have no knowledge of minds in anyone's head including my own.  I am fairly certain other people have brains behind their eyes and between their ears.  At lest the proposition X has a brain is empirically testable.  The statement X has a mind is not testable.  It is not even falsifiable.   In my estimation it is a statement I can ignore.  If something is not empirically or logically testable in principle  I have no use for it.   I will let you worry about such matters

[BaalChatzaf]

On 12/1/2016 at 6:28 PM, Brant Gaede said:

My oh my. Look at what came crawling out of the woodwork: abstractions.

I know a doctor who's done about 2000 autopsies. He never found consciousnesses, minds or abstractions. (Lotsa brains, however.)

Nor logic.

--Brant

 

That is because he wasn't looking for them.  He was looking for causes of death or injury or disease. 

 

[anthony]

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Kindly do not tell me what I -know-.  I know what I see or perceive.   I have no knowledge of minds in anyone's head including my own.  I am fairly certain other people have brains behind their eyes and between their ears.  At lest the proposition X has a brain is empirically testable.  The statement X has a mind is not testable.  It is not even falsifiable.   In my estimation it is a statement I can ignore.  If something is not empirically or logically testable in principle  I have no use for it.   I will let you worry about such matters

Then, there's no point discussing 'the self' -- is there?

And certainly not "the disowned self" or self-alienation, it is merely a brain.

Philosophical empiricism-skepticism is the single biggest blight on the western world. The agnostics of knowledge and man's mind are presently showing their total bankruptcy of (self-)conviction and principles, as plainly seen by the West's weak reply to the ideological 'enthusiasm' of a menacing Fundamentalist religion. We've got no chance, no resistance and moral stance, now the Popperists and Humeans have done their work and left our nations broke.

[BaalChatzaf]

47 minutes ago, anthony said:

Then, there's no point discussing 'the self' -- is there?

And certainly not "the disowned self" or self-alienation, it is merely a brain.

Philosophical empiricism-skepticism is the single biggest blight on the western world. The agnostics of knowledge and man's mind are presently showing their total bankruptcy of (self-)conviction and principles, as plainly seen by the West's weak reply to the ideological 'enthusiasm' of a menacing Fundamentalist religion. We've got no chance, no resistance and moral stance, now the Popperists and Humeans have done their work and left our nations broke.

I think I have indicated what my response to a "menacing Fundamentalist religion"  is.  I learned a lesson from the Babylonian Talmud, the Jewish survival guide.  It goes like this.  If he is coming to kill you, rise up early and slay him first (beraknot 58a,  san hedrin 72.1)   Jews are the most empirical people on earth.  That is why we have survived several serious attempts to finish us off.  But as Jews often say "Well, they tried to kill us all and they failed  yet again.  Let's eat!"  

[anthony]

16 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I think I have indicated what my response to a "menacing Fundamentalist religion"  is.  I learned a lesson from the Babylonian Talmud, the Jewish survival guide.  It goes like this.  If he is coming to kill you, rise up early and slay him first (beraknot 58a,  san hedrin 72.1)   Jews are the most empirical people on earth.  That is why we have survived several serious attempts to finish us off.  But as Jews often say "Well, they tried to kill us all and they failed  yet again.  Let's eat!"  

Which simply substitutes the Koran with the Talmud: both command, kill the enemy.

Jews "the most empirical"? Nope, I don't see it. You either misunderstand empiricism or misread the Jews' historical ability for self-preservation, or both. The basic characteristic of empiricism is anti-conceptual cognition (I prefer "a-conceptual"). So while the empiricist fondly believes he is a 'realist', he is actually "a factualist" - in my view.  Jews traditional saving grace has been their adherence to and non-evasion of the hard facts of reality which they've had to face, day by day, for each individual and his line to stay alive, and maybe thrive --  together with evaluating-conceptualizing and trying to make sense of all such "facts". As I see it, speaking generally about an entire race of people, in there is a part explanation of the 'secret' of the phenomenon of Jewish intellectual prowess. As a whole, they have had to be rationally (conceptually) self-interested by necessity.

(Apart from the present anomaly of some Jews on the Left - very probably, empiricists - who appear to be keen to tolerate, appease and ultimately sacrifice themselves to their enemies). 

[BaalChatzaf]

21 minutes ago, anthony said:

Which simply substitutes the Koran with the Talmud: both command, kill the enemy.

Jews "the most empirical"? Nope, I don't see it. You either misunderstand empiricism or misread the Jews' historical ability for self-preservation, or both. The basic characteristic of empiricism is anti-conceptual cognition (I prefer "a-conceptual"). So while the empiricist fondly believes he is a 'realist', he is actually "a factualist" - in my view.  Jews traditional saving grace has been their adherence to and non-evasion of the hard facts of reality which they've had to face, day by day, for each individual and his line to stay alive, and maybe thrive --  together with evaluating-conceptualizing and trying to make sense of all such "facts". As I see it, speaking generally about an entire race of people, in there is a part explanation of the 'secret' of the phenomenon of Jewish intellectual prowess. As a whole, they have had to be rationally (conceptually) self-interested by necessity.

(Apart from the present anomaly of some Jews on the Left - very probably, empiricists - who appear to be keen to tolerate, appease and ultimately sacrifice themselves to their enemies). 

Really?   Without Jews you would not have your computer.  John von Nueman (a Jungarian Hew)  invented the architecture  used by modern electronic computers.  You would also be living or have lived under the threat of Polio  which was eliminated from the Earth by two Jews,  Salk and Sabin.  And you would not be able locate yourself accurately  on earth without your GPS  based on the relativity theories of the Jewish Albert Einstein.  Jews, who are few in number, have won 25 percent of the Nobel Awards in Science.   Every scientific advance was born of skepticism and criticism of prior world views.  Kopernik was skeptical of Ptolemy's views.   Galileo was skeptical of Aristotle's views.  etc. etc.  Every advance in sciece is born of skepticism or critical thinking.  Ayn Rand, whom I assume you admire,  was brought up Jewish as were many members of the first generation Objectivists. 

And you can bet  Jews have conceptualized self interest.  Better than Christians and Muslims.

R. Hillel said:

If I am not for myself, who is for me?

If I am only for myself, what am I?

If not now, then when?  

(Perke Avot:  I -15)

Jews say L'chayim (To life!) when they toast.  What do Muslims say when they pull the pin on their  suicide explosive charges?

The Bastards and Momsers have tried to wipe us out. Again and again they fail.   Let's eat!

[anthony]

Bob, please look up the difference between empiricism as the essential scientific method, and Empiricism as the philosophy. While it looks most surely that Hume, and possibly Popper, "conflated" the two, they have little in common. 'Normal', every-day skepticism - validating info one hears before accepting it, and philosophical skepticism - that our minds can't know anything, are very distinct also.

[william.scherk]

48 minutes ago, anthony said:

'Normal', every-day skepticism - validating info one hears before accepting it, and philosophical skepticism - that our minds can't know anything, are very distinct also.

See the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI, formerly CSICOP) and their flagship journal Skeptical Inquirer. See also the Skeptic Society and their flagship Skeptic magazine, edited by Michael Shermer.

-- Tony, do you think that the two bodies are composed of the 'normal' s/Skepticism, or do you think they are outposts of 'philosophical skepticism'?

It might be interesting to find current philosophical skeptics in the world -- who would assert "Our minds can't know any-everything."

I still don't understand the point about  'empiricism' or empirical inquiry.  It seems to me, a philosophical naif, that a philosophy of "can't know anything" is entirely inimical to any kind of rigorous inquiry, scientific or not. 

The best candidate I can find for a present-day "can't know much anything" is Sandra Harding. Her gig is 'feminist science,' which in a nutshell suggests scientific "knowledge" is delimited by a 'standpoint.'  Another angle on this is "woman's way of knowing,' which makes me gag and think about Therapeutic Touch being taught by modern nursing departments. Despite empirical tests of the basis of TT, the modality spreads. 

Another kind of 'skepticism' is held by a loose grouping of 'climate skeptical' positions.  The essential quality is that "we can't know ... because it's all so dang complicated." There are gradations, but in relief -- climate skeptics oppose "alarmism" aka in some instances "True Believers."

For examples, consider the output of the grandees of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.  The latest was an article in the Daily Mail on Sunday by David Rose (republished at Watts Up With That -- the world's most-visited site of skepticism, and also featured in a Breitbart story by James Delingpole). That article has engendered critical response -- mostly on plain old grounds of 'cherry-picking' and misleading samples of data. 

Since I am a skeptic by nature, it was always contingent on my understanding that I entertain all 'sides' of discussion on the issue. The evidence accrues that the writer was deceptive.  But that doesn't mean that he engaged with the critiques (a proxy did).

At the heart of the article were some (author-designed) graphs, and a reference to climate scientists (Gavin Schmidt by name) who would be eating their words because of what the graphs represented.  A sudden, shocking drop in global temperatures. 

Now, ramble aside, Tony, what comprises a properly 'rational inquiry' into the matter?  I mean, Rose presented 'empirical' data (actually an end-product of a deprecated set of satellite ''readings" known generally as Microwave Sounding Units). He made a (misleading) empirical case. At what point can we judge that the critiques are fair and well-warranted.  What 'works' for you, philosophically?

In other words, to the readers, What kind of philosophy is a useful guide to exploring, rationally, the two 'sides'? At what point does either 'side' say "We Cannot Know?"  How do we justify our beliefs and presume them to be knowledge?

Choose your 'side,' or dig deeper, using tools of scientific skepticism (methodological)? Or choose a philosophically-skeptical standpoint?

 

[Brant Gaede]

On 12/3/2016 at 0:33 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

Kindly do not tell me what I -know-.  I know what I see or perceive.   I have no knowledge of minds in anyone's head including my own.  I am fairly certain other people have brains behind their eyes and between their ears.  At lest the proposition X has a brain is empirically testable.  The statement X has a mind is not testable.  It is not even falsifiable.   In my estimation it is a statement I can ignore.  If something is not empirically or logically testable in principle  I have no use for it.   I will let you worry about such matters

You don't use introspection?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

2 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

You don't use introspection?

--Brant

I am unable to introspect beyond thinking and remembering.  I can not drill down (one of the advantages of Aspberger's Syndrome)  and even if I could I would not.  Damp basements and dusty attacs do not appeal to me. 

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am unable to introspect beyond thinking and remembering.  I can not drill down (one of the advantages of Aspberger's Syndrome)  and even if I could I would not.  Damp basements and dusty attacs do not appeal to me. 

But how do you know that that's what's there?

--Brant

[turkeyfoot]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am unable to introspect beyond thinking and remembering.  I can not drill down (one of the advantages of Aspberger's Syndrome)  and even if I could I would not.  Damp basements and dusty attacs do not appeal to me. 

Bob, did you diagnose yourself? I had been told by many around me while I was growing up that I had an abnormality. Many years later I discovered the source of a repressed memory, once acknowledged, the label never bothered me again. If I had accepted what had earlier been said about me I may have never recovered it. No one close to me touched on it until I wrote to them about it. There was an especially negative connotation associated with the label.

None of my beeswax, however, just wondered.

 

[anthony]

William, Global Warming is your area of expertise, not one I can discuss with authority although I like to stay abreast of such a fascinating field. However. It is not necessary to know 'everything' to know 'something', and what (I think) the AGW opponents (experts or dilettantes) have in common is the doubt in the notion that one single 'driver' ~must be~ solely responsible for the Earth's warming, given past fluctuations in temperature, the vast volume of its atmosphere, and so on. Very briefly. And along with factual theory is the evaluation and assessment of fact in terms of our life, and the sense that everybody is being railroaded by scientists, radical environmentalists, those with vested interests and - as always - our politicians, into the presumption that man and his mind is bad for his world and must assume his guilt and make amends - sacrificially. Man and each life is a 'dis-value' to Earth. In this sense, in a reversal of roles, it would appear proponents-alarmists are the 'believers' and opponents-denialists the 'skeptics'. In fact though, it is the alarmist who is properly a philo-skeptic and anti-mind.

The second is what interests and concerns me most. I might not ever get to the bottom of empiricism/Empiricism, how they relate or lead to skepticism/Skepticism and how it all relates to Objectivism, but it's slowly becoming clearer. I'm picking up from several sources and people's opinions the general premise that there have been further shifts lately against 'man's mind' (and the mind has always been under attack, one way or another). AGW is merely one aspect. I notice that skepticism-as -philosophy (a self-contradiction, actually) is becoming the new order of the day. Men distrust their own minds and the individual ability 'to know' with any certainty, sans some expert voice of authority. Of ALL things, the skeptics' new ally is science -- which I argue, has lost its way. "Scientism" - loosely called - I think is the result of what I recently touted sardonically as "philosophers of science" (not knowing as I've since found in an online article on Karl Popper, it actually exists as a concept... to some thinkers). "The philosophy of science" is something of an anti-concept. There is only one reality. There exists 'man's mind', there isn't 'a scientist mind' - nor a lawyer mind, nor a housewife mind -- etc. (Not to say, no doubt about it, an objective formulation of an ETHICS for science and medicine will be essential and invaluable).

'What' we know, has to be determined and informed by 'How' we know. But in a causal reversal, the New Age scientist has apparently made the 'what' precede or determine the 'how' and abandoned any form of traditional philosophy and epistemology, and particularly, any objective one.  I conjecture he has rejected a perceptual-conceptual mind in favour of 'workable hypotheses'. I am unable to go much deeper into scientific methodology, but I AM sure that a whole lot of people have seized on science as a substitute for their original mystical-religious belief, and some/many scientists have responded in kind.. Skepticism and neo-mysticism are never far apart in man's psyche, same coin, different sides, and can flip over at any time. "Give me Perfect, complete and effortless knowledge - or - I can have no knowledge!".

[BaalChatzaf]

15 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

But how do you know that that's what's there?

--Brant

1. I am more interested in what is going on outside my skin than inside my head.

2. I have a hunch there is little of value in deep drilling.

3. I am unable to drill deeply.  It is the nature of my condition

The blind do not see. the deaf do not hear and I do not  introspect.

[BaalChatzaf]

2 minutes ago, anthony said:

 

'What' we know, has to be determined and informed by 'How' we know. There is only the one way. But the New Age scientist has apparently abandoned any form of traditional philosophy, and particularly, any objectivity.  I conjecture he has rejected a perceptual-conceptual mind in favour of 'workable hypotheses'. I am unable to go much deeper into scientific methodology, but I AM sure that a whole lot of people have seized on science as a substitute for their original mysticism, and some/many individual scientists have responded in kind.. Skepticism and neo-mysticism are never far apart, same coin, different sides, and can flip over any time. "Give me Perfect, effortless knowledge - or - I can have no knowledge".

Science requires detailed knowledge, facts, careful analysis of the concepts  and logical consistency.   Science is not,  never was and never will be  a substitute  or surrogate form of mysticism.  Science is about the world. 

 

Query.  Where in our bodies is The Mind  of of what matter and energy does the Mind consist?

[Brant Gaede]

Where is our bodies is Consciousness?

--Brant

in the head

[BaalChatzaf]

7 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Where is our bodies is Consciousness?

--Brant

in the head

Where -in- our bodies is Consciousness.  The process we call consciousness is an activity of the brain and nervous system.  It is mostly in our heads. 

Where in our automobiles is motion?  In the wheels, the crankshaft,  the motion of the car body when the car is rolling along.  Motion is an activity,  not a discrete object. 

It even has a measure:  kinetic energy = 1/2 x m x v^2  where m is the mass of the body and v is its velocity.  v^2 is a scalar even though v is a vector.

the vectorial measure of motion is   momentum = m x v.  Momentum is a vector since v is a vector.

I do not know a  corresponding measure associated with with consciousness.  Do  you?

[Brant Gaede]

Okay. We agree. There is consciousness even though we can't adduce numbers.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

On 12/4/2016 at 8:11 PM, turkeyfoot said:

Bob, did you diagnose yourself? I had been told by many around me while I was growing up that I had an abnormality. Many years later I discovered the source of a repressed memory, once acknowledged, the label never bothered me again. If I had accepted what had earlier been said about me I may have never recovered it. No one close to me touched on it until I wrote to them about it. There was an especially negative connotation associated with the label.

None of my beeswax, however, just wondered.

 

I volunteered for a program that studied the mental processes of elderly people back in 2007.  After multiple interviews and an MRI scan (I still have the images)  the lead analyst Becky Price  suggested that  I  had aspbergers syndrome on the basis  of my interviews, behavior and an anomaly in the area of my brain called the amydala.   In addition I took several clinical questionares designed by  Simon Baron-Cohen  (Sasha Baron-Cone's cousin of Borat fame).  The questionares all agreed  AS with very high probability or possibly ADHD.   The diagnosis tallied with my childhood which had difficulties related to my inability to read body and face language  and my inability to pick up on social queues.  Eventually I learned all this stuff empirically over 4 decades.  By the time I was 40 I could read body language and face language as well as any normal 5 years old.  Better late than never. 

To this day I am literal minded,  I tend to over look very subtle clues and queues,  I cannot reliably infer intentions of others and I still can't take hints very well.  I need to be told things plainly. 

The good news is I was a genius at system design and programming when younger and I had a spooky ability to wreck systems (I could intuit where the weakness were).  I made a lot of money wrecking systems that most people thought were foolproof. Computers came to fear my supernatural ability to feel out weaknesses in the software.  Back in the day when I was point man on systems testing they called me The Destroyer.  It was my AS asserting itself.  I do not make assumptions like normal folks do. 

I was fortunate in meeting my one and only bride who had a thing about very intelligent men.  Lucky me. Fortunately all but one of my children are normal.  Next year it will be 60 years joined at the hip. 

You might want to read the article in "Wired"  about Aspied  and Autistics.  It is entitled "The Geek Syndrome"  

There have always been Aspies and Autistics in the human race.   Think of the clan Aspie spending all his time in caves drawing pictures of animals on the wall,  or the tribal weirdo among the Clovis People,  constantly trying out different arrow heads and spear heads.   The poor guy was obsessed with flint but it help improve the results of the hunt  so the tribe loved him even if they did  think he was weird.