Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 
Send Topic Print
Science and Philosophy (Read 13858 times)
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #45 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 8:38am
 
There are insights from cognitive psychology that derive from brain architecture - but not at the individual thought level .  I'll explain what I meant some other time. Meantime, real life calls.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Postmodern Trendoid III
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 10266
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #46 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 9:40am
 
JC Denton wrote on Dec 6th, 2010 at 11:06am:
The great Dr. Eysenck on Freud.




I agree with Eysenck on his criticisms of Freud's theory of "wish fulfillment".
However, he didn't speak about repression and what affect this has on human beings. Freud's Civilization and its Discontents, in my opinion, is brilliant; even though he stole a lot of it from Nietzsche. Also, his Ego and the Id has some interesting theories on character formation, melancholia, and neurosis.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #47 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 9:45am
 
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 9:40am:
JC Denton wrote on Dec 6th, 2010 at 11:06am:
The great Dr. Eysenck on Freud.




I agree with Eysenck on his criticisms of Freud's theory of "wish fulfillment".
However, he didn't speak about repression and what affect this has on human beings. Freud's Civilization and its Discontents, in my opinion, is brilliant; even though he stole a lot of it from Nietzsche. Also, his Ego and the Id has some interesting theories on character formation, melancholia, and neurosis.


Stole it from Niezsche? How did he manage that?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #48 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 9:49am
 
muso wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 8:38am:
There are insights from cognitive psychology that derive from brain architecture - but not at the individual thought level .  I'll explain what I meant some other time. Meantime, real life calls.



Don't rush. I can just see it. It's going to be along the lines of weather/climate: discounting actual, individual thoughts in order to maintain the fantasy that only what is wholly abstract and modelled (brain architecture) is truly real.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Postmodern Trendoid III
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 10266
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #49 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 10:06am
 
Soren wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 9:45am:
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 9:40am:
JC Denton wrote on Dec 6th, 2010 at 11:06am:
The great Dr. Eysenck on Freud.




I agree with Eysenck on his criticisms of Freud's theory of "wish fulfillment".
However, he didn't speak about repression and what affect this has on human beings. Freud's Civilization and its Discontents, in my opinion, is brilliant; even though he stole a lot of it from Nietzsche. Also, his Ego and the Id has some interesting theories on character formation, melancholia, and neurosis.


Stole it from Niezsche? How did he manage that?



He had to answer to charges of plagarism.

The second essay of Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals is very close to Freud's Civilization and its Discontents.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #50 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:28pm
 
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 10:06am:
He had to answer to charges of plagarism.



No he didn't. You are mistaken about Nietzsche's influence on Freud. That both were deeply interested in and had a thorough grasp of archaic and classical antiquity as well as the ability for sustained introspection is not to be mistaken for one incfluencing the other.







Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Postmodern Trendoid III
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 10266
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #51 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 1:17pm
 
Soren wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 12:28pm:
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 10:06am:
He had to answer to charges of plagarism.



No he didn't. You are mistaken about Nietzsche's influence on Freud. That both were deeply interested in and had a thorough grasp of archaic and classical antiquity as well as the ability for sustained introspection is not to be mistaken for one incfluencing the other.



Quote:
THE CASE: FREUD’S PLAGIARISM

It is an unfortunately a too little known fact that Freud was a documented plagiarist from his early years. His first scientific paper robbed the work of a then little known Russian, as pointed out by Dr. Bernfield. The great Thomas Mann pointed out that the conceptual basis for the foundations of psychoanalysis was “out and out Schopenhauer” and that Nietzsche work was in many respect remarkably close to Freud’s. Freud steadfastly always denied that he had ever read those scions of German philosophy but recent investigative work by Santana M. Chapman of Samu Hospital, Vitoriada Conquista, Bahai, Brazil, conclusively “outs” Freud’s plagiarism. After a detailed study of Nietzsche’s works and the unpinning of Freud’s concepts he concludes:

Concepts of Nietzsche which are similar to those of Freud include (a) the concept of the unconscious mind; (b) the idea that repression pushes unacceptable feelings and thoughts into the unconscious and thus makes the individual emotionally more comfortable and effective; (c) the conception that repressed emotions and instinctual drives later are expressed in disguised ways (for example, hostile feelings and ideas may be expressed as altruistic sentiments and acts); (d) the concept of dreams as complex, symbolic “illusions of illusions” and dreaming itself as a cathartic process which has healthy properties; and (e) the suggestion that the projection of hostile, unconscious feelings onto others, who are then perceived as persecutors of the individual, is the basis of paranoid. Some of Freud’s basic terms are identical to those used by Nietzsche.
In his work, Dr. Chapman gave the following conclusion to his “The Influence of Nietzsche on Freud’s Ideas”:


CONCLUSION: Freud repeatedly stated that he had never read Nietzsche. Evidence contradicting this are his references to Nietzsche and his quotations and paraphrases of him, in casual conversation and his now published personal correspondence, as well as his early and later writings.
(Br. J Psychiatry. 1995 Jun; 166 (6): 825‐6
& Br. J Psychiatry. 1995 May; 166 (5): 680‐1)

Of course, “evidence contradicting” simply means Freud was a liar—a fact not at all new to me or anyone who has made an in‐depth study of Freud and his life and works. To further make the point, I quote from arguably the greatest German writer of the 20th century; I speak again of Thomas Mann, on another of Freud’s denied sources, besides Nietzsche, for his supposedly unique creation of a new “science” of psychoanalysis.

But Freud’s description of the id and the ego—is it not to a hair Schopenhauer’s description of the Will and the intellect, a translation of the latter’s metaphysics into psychology? So he who had been initiated into metaphysics of Schopenhauer and in Nietzsche tasted the painful pleasure of psychology—he must needs have been filled with a sense of recognition and familiarity when first, encouraged thereto by it denizens, he entered the realms of psychoanalysis and looked about him.

Essays by Thomas Mann, Vintage Books, 1929,
“Freud and the Future”

And, Mann, either too trusting in Freud’s denial of familiarity with Schopenhauer, or too polite to bluntly state the obvious, that Freud was a plagiarist, goes on to draw the extremely close parallels between Schopenhauer’s system and Freud’s. I myself was aware of these matters of plagiarism of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer when I wrote Passion For Murder and stated as much:

In terms of philosophy, Freud presents nothing at all new and, in fact, Mann intimates that the entire philosophical scheme presented by Freud as his own is nothing but out‐and‐out Schopenhauer. And if Nietzsche’s concept of the immoral superman were added to Schopenhauer's philosophy of despair, Freud's true ideological heritage would be precisely defined.


http://www.passionformurder.com/FreudPlagerizeEdgarAllenPoe.htm
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #52 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 2:09pm
 
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 1:17pm:
(Br. J Psychiatry. 1995 Jun; 166 (6): 825‐6
& Br. J Psychiatry. 1995 May; 166 (5): 680‐1)


Grin Grin Grin   All very - what's the word? -  compulsive-obsessive.  Nutty. This is the full text of the second reference above:
Br. J Psychiatry. 1995 May; 166 (5): 680‐1

Nietzsche, Freud and Eternal Recurrence of the Repressed
Cybulska, E.

Author Information Thameslink Healthcare Services. Dartford. Kent, DA2 6AU.

SIR: I read Chapman & Chapman-Santana's paper on the influence of Nietzsche on Freud's ideas with interest (BJP, February 1995, 166, 251-253). I was, however, rather disappointed that the authors mention only fleetingly the pivotal achievement of Nietzschean thought - the eternal recurrence - and make no connection between this and the cardinal Freudian idea of `repetition compulsion'. In Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche translates Zarathustra's discovery of the eternal return into the occurrence of everyday life:
   
"If one has character, one also has one's typical experience which returns repeatedly" (Nietzsche, 1966). [3]
   
Correspondingly, in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, the major paper on repetition compulsion, Freud describes this phenomenon:
   
"as essential character-trait which always remains the same and which is compelled to find expression in a repetition of the same experiences" (Freud, 1955a). [1]
   
Nowhere does the compulsion to repeat manifest itself greater than in the transference, the corner-stone of psychoanalytic therapy. Repetition compulsion serves the patient's ambivalent wish to both cling on to the hidden impulse and to keep it away from consciousness. It also functions as a mirror of a mysterious drama, drama that forms the essence of the patient's unconscious being. It is not difficult to recognise here the mask of Zarathustra, a Nietzschean demon of eternal return:
   
"I come again, with this sun, with this earth, with this eagle, with this serpent - not to a new life or a better life or a similar life; I come back eternally to this same, selfsame life, in what is greatest as in what is smallest, to teach again the eternal recurrence of all things..." (Nietzche, 1954). [2]
   
E. CYBULSKA
   
Thameslink Healthcare Services
   
Dartford
   
Kent, DA2 6AU
   
   
REFERENCES   
1. FREUD, S. (1955) Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Standard Edition, Vol 18 (ed & trans. by J. Strachey), p. 22. London: Hogarth Press. [Context Link]
   
2. NIETZSCHE, F. (1954) Thus Spoke Zarathustra. In The Portable Nietzsche (ed & trans. W. Kaufmann), p. 333. New York: Penguin Books. [Context Link]
   
3. NIETZSCHE, F. (1966) Beyond Good and Evil. In Basic Writings of Nietzsche (ed & trans. by W. Kaufmann), p. 22. New York: Random House. [Context Link]

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #53 - Dec 7th, 2010 at 2:12pm
 
the full text of the first reference (non-nutty):


Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud
Karwautz, A.; Wober-Bingol, C.; Wober, C.

Author Information
University of Vienna.
Dept. of Neuropsychiatry.
of Childhood and Adolescence.
1090, Vienna, Austria.

SIR: Chapman & Chapman-Santana (BJP, February 1995, 166, 251-252) reviewed systematically the analogies between Nietzsche's ideas and Freud's concepts and concluded that some of Freud's basic terms (e.g. concept of unconscious mind, sublimation, id, ego, human mental processes, the role of the dreams as `nature's healing powers') were identical to those used by Nietzsche.
 
Chapman cited Ellenberger stating that he could hardly believe that Freud never read Nietzsche. However, this speculation of Ellenberger and Chapman may be qualified by Freud himself who emphasised,
 
"In later years I have denied myself the very great pleasure of reading the works of Nietzsche, with the deliberate object of not being hampered in working out my impressions received in psychoanalysis by any sort of anticipatory ideas. I had therefore to be prepared - and I am so, gladly - to forgo all claims to priority in the many instances in which laborious psychoanalytic investigation can merely confirm the truth which the philosopher recognized by intuition," (Freud, 1914) [1]
 
Eleven years later he wrote,
 
"Nietzsche [...] whose guesses and intuitions often agree in the most astonishing way with the laborious findings of psychoanalysis, was for a long time avoided by me [...]; I was less concerned with the question of priority than keeping my mind unembarrassed." (Freud, 1925) [2]
 
Freud's very high appreciation of Nietzsche's congeniality is documented in a letter to his friend Fliess written on 1 February, 1900:
 
"I have just acquired Nietzsche where I hope to find words for much that remains mute within me, but I have not yet opened the book." (Freud, 1985). [3]
 
The works of Nietzsche and Freud, which first were written in German, have had a substantial and lasting influence on forthcoming concepts in psychology, culture and politics, particularly in German speaking countries. Chapman's statement that only two psychiatric papers dealt in depth with the relation between Freud and Nietzsche must be qualified. Karl Jaspers, the famous German psychopathologist and philosopher referred to Nietzsche and appreciated him as harbinger of modern psychology. The abundant relations between psychoanalysis and Nietzsche are reviewed comprehensively by Strotzka (1988) [8] and Haslinger (1993). [5] Waugaman (1973) [9] dealt with the intellectual relationship of Nietzsche and Freud.
 
In addition, there are some outstanding papers on problem complexes found in the thought of both Nietzsche and Freud: consciousness as a `surface phenomenon', repression as a control mechanism and its importance in art and religion, the superego (Hagens, 1985), [4] and the origin of the id (Nitzscke, 1983). Holmes (1983) [6,7] pointed out that for both Freud and Nietzsche, the cause of the human tragedy was not merely the fall of Nature, but the inexorable knowledge that Man's denial of his biological heritage was the very basis of being human.
 
Thus there is a much more extensive discussion of Nietzsche's influence on Freud, carried on especially by psychiatrists and psychoanalysts both in English and German speaking countries, than Chapman & Chapman-Santana's paper demonstrated.
 
A. KARWAUTZ
 
C. WOBER-BINGOL
 
C. WOBER
 
University of Vienna
 
Dept. of Neuropsychiatry
 
of Childhood and Adolescence
 
1090, Vienna, Austria

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96306
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #54 - Dec 9th, 2010 at 5:04pm
 
muso wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 8:38am:
There are insights from cognitive psychology that derive from brain architecture - but not at the individual thought level .  I'll explain what I meant some other time. Meantime, real life calls.


Perhaps, but what "brain architecture" measures is emotion, not cognition.

In neurology, for example, if the imigdula's neurons are active, it indicates fear.

Cognition, however, is how the mind interprets fear. Cognition, of course, can create fear. Often out of nothing.

I think therefore I am - not the other way around.

Soren's thoughts on this matter are entirely apt and show sound judgement, particularly his ideas on Freud, who is much more important in the humanities than psychology.

As a case in point, Soren has a lot of neurones in his brain and spinal cord, which spark up every now and then and create physiological reactions.

This is in stark contrast, however, to his ability to think, which is merely influenced by his firing neurones - particularly if you happen to mention Allah or any other signifier of the Islamic faith.

Of course, there is nothing about Islamic signifiers in themselves which makes regions like the imigdula light up, they are merely signs. Soren's cognition processes these signs according to his belief system, or thinking. And this is what cognative psychology teaches.

Thought is invisible, but it is predictable, based on a system of signs, or language.

Freud didn't think subjects could be really free as we are based, as he believed, on biological urges, many of them unconscious and working hard to conceal themselves from consciousness. Freud saw this mechanism as a process, not a product, a systemic interface between cognition (consciousness) and unconscious limbic processes of fear and desire. His solution was to shine light on these processes, where possible, through psychoanalysis, who's purpose was to allow:

Where there was id, there shall ego be.

For Nietzsche, however, freedom is possible because the mediator of this process is linguistic: if you can unpick the signs that cause you fear or desire (or your slavery to these), you can be liberated. Of course, very few are, or will ever be. Great people like this only come about once in an age.

On this board, there are few, if any. It_is_the_light, perhaps...

For Freud, signs shift and are altered through fear and desire by unconscious processes: projection, transference, sublimation, condensation, etc, etc, etc. These unconscious processes can only be "read" by an external reader - a trained psychoanalyst, of course, but these processes are not immutable laws. Psychoanalysists, for Freud, are observers of nature, not psychologists with checklists and formulas. Each subject is a work in him/herself.

Psychoanalysis can only be a way, therefore, of reading. It's not a system or formula in itself. This is why it's so crucial to the humanities and interpretive fields.

Nietzsche only became really influential on the humanities when reflected through other thinkers, particularly Heidegger, Sartre, and then Foucault, through the question of Being; again, a verb - a process - and not a noun, phenomenon or observable thing.

Cognition, therefore, is only detectable through language - not the lighting up of neurones or regions of the brain. In cognative psychology, cognition is the mediator between feeling and behaviour, which are both observable, whereas cognition isn't.

But who knows? Maybe one day it will be.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #55 - Dec 10th, 2010 at 9:19am
 
The sort of insights I was referring to, related to topics we have been discussing on other threads - for example, the baud limitations of sensory inputs, the filtering of sensory inputs accordining to preconception and prejudice, and the fact that even our real-time 'perception' of the real world is a composite of processed memory and sensory input.

The fact that we have a primitive brain and a separate higher brain give rise to a number of interesting consequences. For example, there are occasions where people have stepped out on to a busy road stopping themselves just in time before a vehicle flies past. That is a consequence of the fact that sensory input to the higher brain is delayed, whereas we get much faster signals to our primitive brain. (Feelings of divine intervention/ pre-warning/ deja vu)

An understanding of how memory is formed and reassembled by the brain provides insight into behaviour and ways in which learning can be enhanced and negative attitudes can be deprogrammed.

Neurolinguistic programming has a bad name mainly due to Charletans and New Agers adding their own mythology, but some aspects of NLP are sound, and are used routinely by psychologists.

These aspects of cognitive psychology derive primarily from scientific studies.

They are also important insights that the likes of Nietzsche was not privy to.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96306
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #56 - Dec 10th, 2010 at 11:04am
 
muso wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 9:19am:
The sort of insights I was referring to, related to topics we have been discussing on other threads - for example, the baud limitations of sensory inputs, the filtering of sensory inputs accordining to preconception and prejudice, and the fact that even our real-time 'perception' of the real world is a composite of processed memory and sensory input.

The fact that we have a primitive brain and a separate higher brain give rise to a number of interesting consequences. For example, there are occasions where people have stepped out on to a busy road stopping themselves just in time before a vehicle flies past. That is a consequence of the fact that sensory input to the higher brain is delayed, whereas we get much faster signals to our primitive brain. (Feelings of divine intervention/ pre-warning/ deja vu)

An understanding of how memory is formed and reassembled by the brain provides insight into behaviour and ways in which learning can be enhanced and negative attitudes can be deprogrammed.

Neurolinguistic programming has a bad name mainly due to Charletans and New Agers adding their own mythology, but some aspects of NLP are sound, and are used routinely by psychologists.

These aspects of cognitive psychology derive primarily from scientific studies.

They are also important insights that the likes of Nietzsche was not privy to.


They're doing some amazing work on brains. It's very early days though - still in the pioneering stage.

I had NLP once. It was just a series of visualization exercises. I'm sure if you stuck at it you'd get some benefits, but really, it's no great miracle, believe me. The attempt at scientific legitimacy, particularly in its name, shows how hollow this fad really was.

Any change in life: feelings, thoughts, behaviour is going to change your neurology.

Brain science is useful - particularly for brain surgery. But the thing that haunts us - that has the potential to liberate us - is the mind. We need to know how the nervous system works, but as Freud showed, there are other systems at play.

The whole medical-model - the set of discourses that arose with the invention of the hospital in the late 19th century - has turned mind on its head. Psychiatry now talks about brains like any other organ. "Brain chemistry", "wiring," "neural functioning;" mental health problems are now discussed as diseases of the brain - as opposed to diseases of the mind.

What this has done is present people with diseases like schitzophrenia as essentially incurable. All work has gone into drug treatment alone. No one talks about treating schitzophrenia with talking cures anymore. No one talks about the mental aspect of schitzophrenia at all. "Thoughts" are seen as passive ghosts of the brain, and something a subject has no control over. The diseased brain does the work, and the way to treat this organ is with drugs.

Having known a few people with schitzophrenia, I'm not overly optimistic about the ability to snap out of it. But I do see it as a disease of the mind, as opposed to the brain. Sure, if you think something long enough, it will establish neural pathways in the nervous system - it will create molecular patterns in the synapses - but the way out is to change your thinking, an idea that has become quite passe within psychiatry.

The new generation of anti-psychotic drugs have been tested to have almost the same results as the old ones - no improvement in reducing psychosis, but some improvement in side effects. Antidepressants (for moderate, not chronic, depression) have been shown to have very similar results to placebos. Psychiatry is a very, very subjective field, which is why you need a focus on the mind, or how people interpret things.

Every psychiatrist knows this, of course, but psychiatrists are hostage to the pharmaceutical industry as much as their patients.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #57 - Dec 10th, 2010 at 12:17pm
 
Well, I'm not a dualist like you. I think there is good evidence that the mind is just another way to describe the operation of the brain. The brain is the key to the mind.  Trying to tackle the mind is like trying to treat the symptoms rather than the cause. There is no such thing as a mind surgeon, but there is such a thing as a brain surgeon. Brain defects can impact on personality, and these can be corrected therapeutically. That much is beyond doubt.  

Sensory inputs are processed by the reticular activation system prior to routing them to the concious or subconscious part of the brain.  Understanding the process and its physical limitations can improve individual control of the brain.

Nobody really calls it NLP these days, but the whole business of brain plasticity has been demonstrated to be correct. Psychologists routinely ask people to reframe their thoughts, feelings and action to versions that are more effective. Some aspects of NLP are based on hard science, but the term itself doesn't have much credibility these days.
Quote:
No one talks about the mental aspect of schizophrenia at all. "Thoughts" are seen as passive ghosts of the brain, and something a subject has no control over. The diseased brain does the work, and the way to treat this organ is with drugs.


Well, a psychologist might disagree with the last point. If anything, cognitive psychology has emphasised the plasticity of the brain and the ability of an individual to reprogram and adapt to changing neuropathic and other conditions.  

We all have control over our thoughts and feelings if we choose to accept that control.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 10th, 2010 at 12:24pm by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96306
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #58 - Dec 10th, 2010 at 3:21pm
 
muso wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 12:17pm:
Well, I'm not a dualist like you. I think there is good evidence that the mind is just another way to describe the operation of the brain. The brain is the key to the mind.  Trying to tackle the mind is like trying to treat the symptoms rather than the cause. There is no such thing as a mind surgeon, but there is such a thing as a brain surgeon. Brain defects can impact on personality, and these can be corrected therapeutically. That much is beyond doubt.


Well, sure, but the jury is still out and the findings aren't in.

A dualist sees the observer and observed as different phenomena - well, in Kantian terms, neumena and phenomena.

A monist, however, sees everything arising from mind - or spirit (for Hegel).

So it's the empiricists that are the dualists here, as they believe that the brain is an objective phenomenon that, by observervation through the senses, can be understood by the mind.

I don't think there's anything that can be understood outside the context in which you view, interpret or read, so in this sense I'm a monist.

I also believe in a universal form of consciousness from which all matter descends, but I wouldn't dream of trying to prove it or quanify it in terms of truth. I think you need to experience it, and I think this experience is what consciousness is.

This doesn't mean that all science is wrong because it's based on a system of dualism. I think empiricism has a lot going for it - as long as it maintains a form of humility and stays away from questions of epistemology, or what we can know as truth.

I agree with your position that philosophy needs to be based on facts. But I wouldn't call it "reality", because again, this implies an objective form of truth that we all have access to.

Brain defects can certainly cause mind defects, but alas, it's the mental defects that are much more common.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #59 - Dec 10th, 2010 at 8:49pm
 
Karnal wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 3:21pm:
Well, sure, but the jury is still out and the findings aren't in.

A dualist sees the observer and observed as different phenomena - well, in Kantian terms, neumena and phenomena.

A monist, however, sees everything arising from mind - or spirit (for Hegel).

So it's the empiricists that are the dualists here, as they believe that the brain is an objective phenomenon that, by observervation through the senses, can be understood by the mind.

I don't think there's anything that can be understood outside the context in which you view, interpret or read, so in this sense I'm a monist.

I also believe in a universal form of consciousness from which all matter descends, but I wouldn't dream of trying to prove it or quanify it in terms of truth. I think you need to experience it, and I think this experience is what consciousness is.

This doesn't mean that all science is wrong because it's based on a system of dualism. I think empiricism has a lot going for it - as long as it maintains a form of humility and stays away from questions of epistemology, or what we can know as truth.

I agree with your position that philosophy needs to be based on facts. But I wouldn't call it "reality", because again, this implies an objective form of truth that we all have access to.

Brain defects can certainly cause mind defects, but alas, it's the mental defects that are much more common.


Hmmm, sometimes I'm not sure if you're just playing with me the way you play with some others.

Science takes a dualist approach? Well that's a new way of looking at things. I understand dualism to mean dualism of mind and brain, but I understand your argument too. I think it's daft, but that's ok. At least it's not daft in an arrogant way.

Of course there is an objective form of truth that we all have access to. What are you thinking of? Reality is predictable. If we didn't have a predictable world out there, we wouldn't be alive. You couldn't sit down, have a coffee and contemplate the universe, because for all you know, you could actually be drinking the real universe and contemplating the vast swirl of the galactic macchiato instead.

Matter exists and is predictable, and if you beat your head against a brick wall, you'll still damage it regardless of whether you're a human being, a lemur or a pink orthoclase phenocryst. The laws of nature apply to the observer and everything else.

I've never studied it, but It might all be different in the field of Wankology Philosophy.  We'd have to listen to the ramblings of some primitive individual from the 19th century (or worse) who didn't understand the  basics of thermodynamics because it hadn't been invented in his day.  Take a phlogiston tablet twice a day after food. It will give you a nice warm feeling, but it's all illusory.

Yeah, that might work.  Tongue
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 10th, 2010 at 9:05pm by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 
Send Topic Print