A distinction, please. (a query)

[BaalChatzaf]

How do you folks distinguish between introspection and just plain thinking, planning, recalling and such like activity of the intellect?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

How do you folks distinguish between introspection and just plain thinking, planning, recalling and such like activity of the intellect?

I'd say introspection is primary focus on how and why one feels thinks as one does with an historical twist.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Observing your own mental processes.

(It's a mind thing... )

Michael

[thomtg]

How do you folks distinguish between introspection and just plain thinking, planning, recalling and such like activity of the intellect?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Hi Ba'al,

Although the date of your query is months past, and you have probably followed up on it yourself, as any rational person with the will and the means would, I will take up the opportunity to answer it with the hope that others here can emend my understanding. (I suspect, had it be titled less cryptically, others might have joined in the discussion sooner.)

Having just finished reading in this past week Chapter 4 "Concepts of Consciousness" in Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (ITOE), I find Rand's view of consciousness to be very Thomistic, in a naturalized way, and by extension, to be very Aristotelian. (Den Uyl & Rasmussen TPTOAR 4, 11) To be conscious is to be conscious of something, always. It is what MSK calls the "mind thing" to be relational, to be intentional. By contrast, to be conscious but without any object of consciousness, to intend but without the intended, is a contradiction in terms. Rand takes this relational view to apply to every level of consciousness, from the neurological to the psychological. For every act of awareness there is a content.

Taking this principle of intentionality as a commensurable characteristic of every state of consciousness, Rand distinguishes extrospection, as the process of apprehending some existents of the external world, from introspection, which is cognition directed inward to apprehend psychological actions themselves. Introspection may be recursive, but always standing on some existents of the external world. To be aware is, radically, to be aware of the world. (ITOE 29-30)

Suppose the faculty of consciousness has three functions for an animal: cognition, affection, and regulation. (Nathaniel Branden TPOSE 97d) Introspection, a unique activity for man among animals, has for contents the actions of all these functions at the psychological level. Man cannot introspect the neurological process of how he sees a cat chasing a dog through his eyes and through his optic nerves, but he can become aware of his power to see. "Seeing" is an action he can conceptualize introspectively. No cat or dog can become aware of its cognitive action. Surely, a dog can sense pain from a clawing cat, but only man can conceptualize "fear" as an affective response to imminent danger. And if a dog is motivated to run away from a cat, it has no awareness of its regulatory "effort," "resolve," "efficacy," which are within man's power to apprehend.

Now, to answer your question specifically, Ba'al, planning is a form of thinking about future actions to achieve some goal. Thinking is a form of cognition akin to perceiving. (Arisotle DA III 3 427a19-23) Recalling is cognition indirectly of contents previously acted on directly; it is cognition of contents previously actively stored. Thinking and planning directed outward toward reality are extrospective. Recalling a thought; thinking about "thinking," "planning," "remembering; and planning to think and remember about them, to make them more efficient and rational, are introspective. (Barbara Branden POET L10)

The problem, of course, is that anything psychological is volitional and capable of error. "If it were true [if it were automatic and unerring (my bracket, T.)], we would be living in Atlantis. If men identified introspectively their inner states one tenth as correctly as they identify objective reality, we would be a race of ideal giants. I ascribe ninety-five percent or more of all psychological trouble and personal tragedies to the fact that in the realm of introspection we are on the level where savages were (or lower) in regard to extrospection. Men are not only not taught to introspect, they are actively discouraged from engaging in introspection, and yet their lives depend on it. Without that, nothing is possible to them..." (ITOE 227)

We go to zoos en masse to learn about fish, birds, and mammals; botanical gardens to learn about trees, flowers, and cacti; supermarkets to learn about spices, herbs, and edibles. The mind is where we go to learn about psychological knowledge, emotions, and methods; but its vastness admits but one visitor. I have only noticed of late that it is open for business.

To live is one thing, as any fern or crab can do; to live consciously is another.

Ayn Rand, the second master of those who know, showed us how to take responsibility for knowing our mind. Her own life in this respect is well worth to be emulated.

[BaalChatzaf]

The problem, of course, is that anything psychological is volitional and capable of error. "If it were true [if it were automatic and unerring (my bracket, T.)], we would be living in Atlantis. If men identified introspectively their inner states one tenth as correctly as they identify objective reality, we would be a race of ideal giants. I ascribe ninety-five percent or more of all psychological trouble and personal tragedies to the fact that in the realm of introspection we are on the level where savages were (or lower) in regard to extrospection. Men are not only not taught to introspect, they are actively discouraged from engaging in introspection, and yet their lives depend on it. Without that, nothing is possible to them..." (ITOE 227)

We go to zoos en masse to learn about fish, birds, and mammals; botanical gardens to learn about trees, flowers, and cacti; supermarkets to learn about spices, herbs, and edibles. The mind is where we go to learn about psychological knowledge, emotions, and methods; but its vastness admits but one visitor. I have only noticed of late that it is open for business.

To live is one thing, as any fern or crab can do; to live consciously is another.

Ayn Rand, the second master of those who know, showed us how to take responsibility for knowing our mind. Her own life in this respect is well worth to be emulated.

There is a Catch. Introspection and the conclusion draw from introspection cannot be empirically falsified. There is no way to tell if one is mistaken. Cross-checking with others is impossible. As a result introspection, if it is a form of knowledge, is a second rate way of knowing. One could be dead wrong and never be aware that he/she is in error.

Any mode of cognition that is essentially solo is highly suspect.

As to Rand being the second master of those who know, I must disagree. She was, with respect to science (especially physics) and mathematics an ignoramus. Not that there is anything wrong with ignorance. We are all born ignorant. The first master of Those Who Know, Aristotle, had a physical theory that was so bad, it was not even wrong. He did not comprehend force or motion in a proper quantitative fashion. As a biological naturalist he was o.k. for his time, as a physicist not even fifth rate. He got hardly anything right about motion. In the realm of natural science the greatest of the ancient thinkers was Archimedes. The pre-Socratic Ionians were on the right track to natural science of matter and motion. Aristotle was not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Rich Engle]

Your question requires a little understanding via definition of terms. Words like "introspection" are a little more than just words. For instance, in my world I'd assume (just assuming) that you are talking about the difference between the contemplative process, of which introspection is a component (often the starting point) vs. our main operant modality (standard consciousness). It is a practice, which starts by one directing one's thoughts inward (or away completely, if you are, say, Zen). A meditative practice that takes you somewhere that can often deliver new realizations that just straight sussing out might not.

I consider this to be spiritual practice due to my orientation, but I do not mean that when doing so I am beginning from a particular religious stance. Individual spiritual consciousness and the practices so associated in studying such--you can be an atheist and do it. Hell, you can work on that just being a decent secular humanist.

Edited March 22, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Introspection and the conclusion draw from introspection cannot be empirically falsified.

Bob,

Introspection can be observed by the one introspecting. One can observe whether one is in a dream-like state, sharp as a tack, confused, etc. Observation is more fundamental than empirical falsification, since the "empirical" part means verified by observation. In fact, nothing can be "empirically falsified" without observation.

In further fact, any person can empirically falsify his own observations, even ones nobody else can observe. Why does he need the observations of others to empirically falsify anything? He doesn't. I never read anywhere that more than one person is needed to exercise logic.

The problem is in sharing the direct observation, not the measurements.

There is no way to tell if one is mistaken.

There certainly is. I have pointed you several times to the work of Malcolm Gladwell and others, but you never comment. (And they what little I have mentioned is a drop on the tip of the iceberg.) I thus assume you never look at the stuff. Once again here is a link from Harvard University.

Project Implicit

Take the Implicit Association Test and see if you can't empirically verify your true biases, irrespective of what you consciously think. You can verify them empirically and the results are repeatable. In this case, you can empirically falsify your own introspected conclusions.

Cross-checking with others is impossible. As a result introspection, if it is a form of knowledge, is a second rate way of knowing. One could be dead wrong and never be aware that he/she is in error.

In addition to being incorrect, this is preaching since you refuse to look at the evidence. I just gave you strong evidence. I suggest you look at it if you are truly interested in the ideas and not the preaching.

As to Rand being the second master of those who know, I must disagree. She was, with respect to science (especially physics) and mathematics an ignoramus.

Please stop this crap. This is stirring the pot to get attention and nothing more. You know full well what you are doing by saying that, and I do too...

You often show signs of being far better than that. That is the Bob I value (and value highly).

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Maestro was being very easy on you, Bob. And, he offered well-written answers.

And, I had the feeling you asked that simple distinction question for more than the adequate reasons for which it already deserves to be brought up. You know, that is, in essence, a very serious question, and a man has to be a certain way when he asks it or listens to answers.

If MSK is upset with you, as the admin, I would suggest backing down. He is very forgiving (trust me on this) but he will only reasonably take so much.

Still, though, stick to the ideas, as he says. The discourse of this subject should be, well, "discorsed" with great thought behind the keystrokes.

I get real serious and shit when talking on those planes, and I don't like it a bit. I like it less when people go there for less-than-pure reasons. I'm not saying, but if you go to these places, do so in a pure, open fashion. No back stories or agendas.

Just my .10.

Finest Kind,

rde

Edited March 23, 2009 by Rich Engle

[BaalChatzaf]

Maestro was being very easy on you, Bob. And, he offered well-written answers.

And, I had the feeling you asked that simple distinction question for more than the adequate reasons for which it already deserves to be brought up. You know, that is, in essence, a very serious question, and a man has to be a certain way when he asks it or listens to answers.

If MSK is upset with you, as the admin, I would suggest backing down. He is very forgiving (trust me on this) but he will only reasonably take so much.

Still, though, stick to the ideas, as he says. The discourse of this subject should be, well, "discorsed" with great thought behind the keystrokes.

I get real serious and shit when talking on those planes, and I don't like it a bit. I like it less when people go there for less-than-pure reasons. I'm not saying, but if you go to these places, do so in a pure, open fashion. No back stories or agendas.

Just my .10.

Finest Kind,

rde

O.K. I will stick with the idea. Introspection or should I write $Introspection is a second rate form of knowledge if it is knowledge at all It cannot be operational distinguished from an hallucination or a random day dream. It is incapable of independent verification or empirical falsification.

We all have mental experiences. We plan, we daydream, we recall, we run through logical deductions and we guess. Notice that our recollections are often faulty. If memory if faulty then how reliable can $Introspection be? I am deeply suspicious of experiences that only one can share. Are they real? Are they an illusion? If only one can experience it and it cannot be cross checked then it is unreliable at best.

When I think I have remembered something I check my notes carefully and if it is something in the public domain I cross check it with other witness. I am old enough not to trust my memory, which is why I take notes and get cross references.

Ba'al Chatzaf

NB: The dollar sign prefix I put in front of a word to indicate the Objectivist meaning of the term which is often different from standard usage.

[Rich Engle]

.K. I will stick with the idea. Introspection or should I write $Introspection is a second rate form of knowledge if it is knowledge at all It cannot be operational distinguished from an hallucination or a random day dream. It is incapable of independent verification or empirical falsification.

If you can't get past this way of thought, meditation is impossible. You make it sound like you are afraid of doing it. We learn from opening up our mind and using it as much as fully possible. It is modality of thought. Take a walk on the wild side, dude: take notes, bring them home, review later, see if it helps.

But perhaps the most important thing a man asks is whether or not any undertaking is worth going for. If we are not prepared best as can be, right about the idea of doing it, it will become a pointless excecise; and, voila, you will have the proof you are apparently seeking.

Basics: You can either choose to think outside the box, or not. Either way, your decision; choose as needed.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Rich Engle

[BaalChatzaf]

If you can't get past this way of thought, meditation is impossible. You make it sound like you are afraid of doing it. We learn from opening up our mind and using it as much as fully possible. It is modality of thought. Take a walk on the wild side, dude: take notes, bring them home, review later, see if it helps.

I can't get past a fact. As to not doing it, why do something that is second rate when one can spend time on doing something that is first rate. Also I have Aspbergers Syndrome and my internal life is not like yours. I do not introspect because I cannot introspect. I am "wired" differently from You Normals. I suspect this is a reflection of the same deficiency that made it very hard for me to intuit body and face language in others. What most normal kids can do at four or five years old, I was barely beginning to do when I was twenty. I have it figured out now, in an algorithmic kind of way. My grasp of other people's internals is by a set of rules (which I figured out by induction). My grasp of mind is analogous to "painting by the numbers". Except I had to figure out what the numbers were myself by in a rather clunky empirical fashion.

Also what is going on In Here is not nearly as interesting or important or useful as what is going on Out There. Reality is Out There and that is what I pay attention to. I mean, come on. What is navel gazing compared to beholding the Cosmos through a telescope. Real beauty and wonder is Out There.

Ba'al Chatzaf --- concrete bound barbarian.

[Rich Engle]

Bob,

Contemplation is useful. But, if you aren't ready for it, it can be harmful. Simple practices are useful if a man cares to. It is a discipline; take it or leave it. You never know when (or for that matter, even if) a man will take it up.

Be well,

rde

Edited March 23, 2009 by Rich Engle

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

Contemplation is useful. But, if you aren't ready for it, it can be harmful. Simple practices are useful if a man cares to. It is a discipline; take it or leave it. You never know when (or for that matter, even if) a man will take it up.

Be well,

rde

Well, I hope your navel is as interesting as the Bullet Cluster or a quasi-stellar object.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Christopher]

Well, I hope your navel is as interesting as the Bullet Cluster or a quasi-stellar object.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Mine sure is! Let's see some easy reasons to introspect:

1. pay attention to emotions (which are aware of the external world to a far stronger degree than our conscious mind can ever be)

2. because our conscious awareness is heavily influenced by our current state of mind

--> think how different awareness is between states of anger, stress, love, happiness, etc.

--> --> introspection can result in state change that affects our external awareness

3. much conscious thinking is often thought to originate from unconscious signals arising in consciousness (I see feathers, think bird, recall I have to feed cat)

--> if you're aware of this process, you are no longer carried along by it automatically

4. and bla bla BLA

Christopher

[Rich Engle]

Bob shows exactly how much of a curmudgeon he can be, if he flicks into it:

"Well, I hope your navel is as interesting as the Bullet Cluster or a quasi-stellar object."

I meditate different ways, but I definitely don't contemplate my navel, interesting as that may or may not be. I think there are better objects of focus to be had, if you even need one. There are different techniques; perhaps you should try one first before talking about the way others go about it; at least they try.

rde

Reminds of old saw joke: "How many guitar players does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"--as many as you want. You need one to screw in the bulb, and the rest to stand around and say "I could have done that better."

Edited March 23, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Have you had moments of being aware you are angry when you are angry? Or better, have you remembered when you were angry and felt a shadow of that anger while going over the event in your mind and trying to figure out what set you off?

Ditto for laughing.

Bingo. You have introspected.

There's a lot more to it, but at least let your heart not be troubled. You are not a Martian.

(It really would help if you looked at the evidence. You normally do in "out there" stuff, so I do not understand this total blank when I bring it up. I detect dissmell...)

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

Have you had moments of being aware you are angry when you are angry? Or better, have you remembered when you were angry and felt a shadow of that anger while going over the event in your mind and trying to figure out what set you off?

Ditto for laughing.

Bingo. You have introspected.

There's a lot more to it, but at least let your heart not be troubled. You are not a Martian.

(It really would help if you looked at the evidence. You normally do in "out there" stuff, so I do not understand this total blank when I bring it up. I detect dissmell...)

Michael

I have memories of doing what angry people do and planning to do what angry people do. I do not remember feelings as well as you do. It is a genetic difference. When I am really in the groove (like when I was flying a glider or when I am proving a theorem) I hardly knew I existed. I was the plane and the air. There was no me. There was just me flying (I hope you grasp the distinction here). I do not dwell on feelings. I dwell mostly on doing stuff or getting even when I am done a wrong. My papa of blessed memory taught me not to get mad, but to get even.

When the talk gets around to feelings, I tend to tune out. As I said, I do not remember feelings well and furthermore I do not want to dwell on feelings (that is for congenital neurotics), but on actions either done, being done or planned to be done. Deeds, deeds, not feelings!

So it looks like I quasi-introspect, but only long enough to stop doing it when I realize that I am doing it. The World is Out There, not In Here. In Here is fractional and somewhat disorderly. Out There is beauty and wonder. So Out There is a better place to be.

Ba'al Chatzaf -- concrete bound Barbarian.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

When I am really in the groove (like when I was flying a glider or when I am proving a theorem) I hardly knew I existed. I was the plane and the air. There was no me. There was just me flying (I hope you grasp the distinction here).

Bob,

You know this from introspecting about your awareness states.

Sorry, but you are a human being.

Guess you are going to have to get used to the idea...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

When I am really in the groove (like when I was flying a glider or when I am proving a theorem) I hardly knew I existed. I was the plane and the air. There was no me. There was just me flying (I hope you grasp the distinction here).

Bob,

You know this from introspecting about your awareness states.

Sorry, but you are a human being.

Guess you are going to have to get used to the idea...

Michael

Damn! And all this time I thought I was a Vulcan.

Ba'al Chatzaf -- concrete bound Barbarian.

Ba'al what is good?

Blowing up the Q'aba stone during the Haj. Hearing the lamentations of the Imams.

That is good Ba'al.

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

You know this from introspecting about your awareness states.

Not introspection but recollection. I know what I did not recall doing or being. If you recall my original question was what is the difference between $Introspection and recalling, imagining, planning, guessing or thinking logically. I have no recollection of me, as myself, flying a plane. I only remember it was me flying (I was solo in the cockpit). I cannot recall myself thinking "look! I am flying". And while I had my hand on the stick and my feet on the pedals, I never once recited Gillespie's poem -High Flight-. Flying is too hazardous an activity to combine with $Introspection.

I tend not to get into recursive think loops if I can avoid it. And as soon as start thinking about emotions, I hit the cutoff switch. There be Dragons there. Out There is beautiful. Down There is a mess.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited March 23, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[Rich Engle]

Hey Bob, I was thinking about this and, may I offer a suggestion?

It might help your circumspection of the issue by reading the pivotal book on this (1904?), if you haven't already. It is worth it, though long.

William James' "On The Varieties of Religious Experience."

This is an excellent book, one you can refer to over and over. It explains the charismatic or spiritual mindset quite well.

Best Regards,

Richard

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

No you don't. You're not getting off the hook. Here are your words: "I hardly knew I existed..."

How do you know you hardly knew?

Introspection, of course.

btw - Introspection and memory are not antonyms. You can't introspect without memory, just like you cannot think conceptually without memory. Also, introspection is not just one type of mental state. There's quite a range of activity.

Sorry, but I still see a human being—one trying to be a Vulcan but one oh so human...

Take the Harvard test if you have the balls. It will redo your self-image.

Michael

[Christopher]

When I am really in the groove (like when I was flying a glider or when I am proving a theorem) I hardly knew I existed. I was the plane and the air. There was no me. There was just me flying (I hope you grasp the distinction here).

Cool. This sounds very Heideggerian.

[BaalChatzaf]

Hey Bob, I was thinking about this and, may I offer a suggestion?

It might help your circumspection of the issue by reading the pivotal book on this (1904?), if you haven't already. It is worth it, though long.

William James' "On The Varieties of Religious Experience."

This is an excellent book, one you can refer to over and over. It explains the charismatic or spiritual mindset quite well.

Best Regards,

Richard

Read it twice. It is very inspirational for the Neurologically Typical.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

No you don't. You're not getting off the hook. Here are your words: "I hardly knew I existed..."

How do you know you hardly knew?

Introspection, of course.

Because I could not remember being me.

recall of course. Lets face it. There is no difference between remembering and introspecting. Which was my point in the original question I put forth. When you get right down to it, we are our memories. Every internal experience we have is manifestation of memory. With memory there is now, then and the future. Without memory there is only Now. Which is a kind of non-existence.

Ba'al Chatzaf