Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: consciousness

Expand Messages
  • clickhereforinsignificance
    James, I never stated that psychology or psychiatry does not provide service to humanity.... only that is not yet a mature field (relative to other harder
    Message 1 of 77 , Aug 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      James,

      I never stated that psychology or psychiatry does not provide
      service to humanity.... only that is not yet a mature field (relative
      to other 'harder' sciences). Judging from the response from the rest
      of the group, my perception of it as being a voodoo science (perhaps
      too strong a word) does not seem to be inaccurate. Perhaps a larger
      sample using standard deviation will prove I am wrong.

      I read a psychology study done recently using standard deviation
      that suggested that perhaps those that think positive about life live
      longer. I found I had a curious thought that perhaps those that live
      longer tend to have a more positive attitude? Or what exactly
      constitutes a 'positive' attitude? Or does this study account for
      evolutionary change? And where was the sample taken from? Yup sounds
      like good science.... just like so many other of them I hear on the
      news and occasionally read in the New England Journal of Medicine (A
      rag I suppose?).

      I have no doubt that that a psychologist has greater knowledge of
      certain methodologies and information on observations on human
      behavior. And of course there are many branches of psychology but by
      and large the majority attempt to improve the "human" experience
      through either research or clinical application. However they need to
      be much better mathematicians when in comes to research. Since I
      am 'layman' to the things you know, let me share with you what I
      perceive are the greatest problem with psychology. Critical
      assumptions about the nature of humanity, consciousness, morality and
      reason.

      Perhaps one day they will move beyond them.... but not yet.

      You stated......

      <<<"so to speak. it does not tell how one ought or want to live">>>

      then....

      <<" psychology provide the 'laws' of human behaviors ">>>

      Hmmmm.... methinks that is a conflicting statement.

      I have a question for you. If you had a patient and they told you
      one day they had a painfully urgent need murder.. what would your
      training indicate your response should be. To attempt to teach them
      to not act on those urges (perhaps even with medication)? To get the
      authorities involved?

      I think they do tell people how to think in their attempt to
      protect society (another assumption and something I support under
      current society structure). Because they often use 'standard
      deviation' as the primary tool to determine how a human should behave
      (or even god-forbid... personal opinion). Fortunately for
      philanthropy, not 'standard deviation' homosexuality was allowed in
      western society. Psychology tried to 'cure' them for the longest
      time. Just like they tried to cure masturbation and a variety of
      other 'ailments'.

      Psychology (no matter what psychologist's publicly state) as a field
      has an agenda and moral code and as strange as it sounds.... if it
      wanted to be truly exploratory in consciousness it.... by definition
      it should not interfere and just observe but it has fallen into the
      trap of creating an 'acceptable' range of human behavior. Still I'm
      being a bit hard on the group since I believe those that truly
      explore consciousness are philosophers... where there are no controls
      and assumptions.

      Another more interesting point and paradox.

      Let's suppose psychologists and Eduard's Nooism discovered
      everything that makes a human tick. They could change this gene, that
      atom, this strand of DNA, and whisper five magic words and instantly
      predict a human's behavior with very high degree of accuracy
      (something I believe might be possible). The moral question still
      arises how do we want a human to behave? And shouldn't that human be
      allowed to make that choice for themselves? But if we create them a
      certain way doesn't that impose on their freedom? But why should we
      care about their freedom? But isn't that another moral decision?

      And this is why psychologist's study existentialism. It is the
      premise and morality for that field. We create a structure around
      everything in our society, to create our buildings, our institutions
      and our moral codes. However history has proven time and time again
      that our perceptive of what is 'normal' changes. Harder sciences seem
      to have discovered that the universe seems to be a 'system'
      (something Buddhist's have been saying for thousands of years) as
      opposed to individual choices. Our very idea of choice itself is very
      questionable.

      As you know my own perceptions and focus on consciousness is on
      actual 'words' and 'emotions'. I believe that the psychological
      effects of them and their arrangement is what drives codified
      morality (i.e. laws)... not the commonly assumed "What is best for
      society". After all what does 'best' mean? (And please don't use more
      words to explain it to me.)

      In any Internet philosophical group it can be quickly
      demonstrated how words and emotion play a great role in responses and
      justifications for morality (which is completely 'normal'). Anyone
      can argue anything and there is always a counter argument (whether it
      is rational or not). But what does 'rational' mean again? Is a dog
      irrational?

      I like to observe words (and occasionally prod) in the vain hope
      that perhaps I'll find the words to more eloquently roughly explain
      my perceptions should anyone be interested (unlikely). It's premise
      is that every accepted moral perception is 'felt'... not 'understood'
      and 'words' act as a control mechanism to those feelings. Once those
      feelings are conditioned into place, a different part of our brain
      takes over to rationalize them. There has been a significant
      empirical evidence to support such a stance but very little change in
      our laws when factoring the rational social implications....... yet.

      But alas I keep getting caught in a paradox of words.

      It's dangerous ground to discuss such subjects in-depth on a very
      public Internet and I sometimes fear that those thought processes
      impair my ability to communicate and function with others with a more
      conventional viewpoint, so I'll leave it at that. However, I'm quite
      confident that my perceptions are rational (in the existential sense)
      but it should be noted I am currently seeing a psychiatrist, a
      psychologist, have sleeping issues, am on medication, and more.
      Perhaps I'm a narcissist in being so sure of what comes next for
      humanity's perceptions.... but I can't help feeling that you really
      believe the crap you were taught about consciousness in university
      while you fantasized about young woman (I've observed you bring the
      subject up a lot). Perhaps you are a bit of pedophile?

      ~ "If you label me you negate me"

      ----------------------------------------------


      --- In existlist@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
      >
      > tony,
      >
      > what i tried to say is this: psychology only tell u how man tend to
      behave
      > (not definite certainty, but only statistically), what they tend to
      do under
      > certain situation. it is knowledge about human nature, so to speak.
      it does
      > not tell how one ought or want to live; this is something that the
      unique
      > individual has to decide for himself. psychology provide the 'laws'
      of human
      > behaviours, but how one want to use those laws is subject to the
      freedom of
      > the individual. i could use those understanding as provided by
      psychology to
      > counsel or to motivate my company staffs, or i could use those
      knowledge to
      > seduce as many girls as i want to bed. psychology tell u how humans
      work,
      > but it does not tell u the meanings in life, whether to use those
      knowledge
      > for psychotherapy or staffs motivation/management or seduction.
      religions,
      > among other things, provide frameworks for meaning/values.
      psychology is
      > supposed to be factual, whereas religions is supposed to be about
      values.
      > psychology says what most probably will happen given a situation,
      religions
      > or religous fables say what is good and what is bad, what man ought
      to do
      > with his life or knowledge (including his knowledge of how man
      thinks and
      > feels given certain stimuli under certain situation under certain
      > personalities). laws and choices.
      >
      > james.
      >
      >
      > From: "Tony" <tylerdurden12@d...>
      > Reply-To: existlist@y...
      > To: <existlist@y...>
      > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: consciousness
      > Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:23:21 -0400
      >
      > James,
      >
      > If we find the idea of moral relativity than society must create a
      system of
      > laws or a basic idea of right and wrong. This whole system
      (governance,
      > jurisprudence, culture, and so on) need to be constructed from
      certain
      > beliefs about human suffering, economic distribution, and so on. It
      can be
      > created and supported by various justifications, however, I would
      appreciate
      > a humanistic version. In a complex society, free thinkers take part
      in a
      > discussion (at times lasting for many centuries) to build such a
      system. I
      > guess parts of this general idea are wrong or disarticulated, yet
      as a whole
      > I suppose that is meaning is in human existence. It is not just
      incoherent
      > unintelligible religious fable, although sometimes people (and yes,
      maybe to
      > many people) attribute their moral system on one book or thought.
      >
      > Sincerely,
      > Tony.
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "james tan" <tyjfk@h...>
      > To: <existlist@y...>
      > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 10:56 PM
      > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: consciousness
      >
      >
      > > "tell us very little, just as behaviorism has, about the
      meanings of life
      > > and that.."
      > >
      > > it is never the business of psychology to tell what is the
      meaning of
      > life.
      > > this belongs more to the domain of religion.
      > >
      > > james.
      > >
      > >
      > > From: "Tony" <tylerdurden12@d...>
      > > Reply-To: existlist@y...
      > > To: <existlist@y...>
      > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: consciousness
      > > Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:33:24 -0400
      > >
      > > Bill,
      > > Science deals with "falsifiable" theories. If a theory is
      reproducible
      > and
      > > has the chance of failure, not confirmation. and is subsequently
      > confirmed
      > > to be true then we hold this theory tentative. So in speaking in
      this
      > > fashion Science is revolutionary and a bit cumulative. And as I
      explained
      > > Psychology in certain forms works in this method, yet those
      explain very
      > > little(relative to other sciences) or, as you said, conjure up
      some
      > nonsense
      > > theory. That is not say that psychology is not worth the
      intellectual
      > > effort. I am minoring in psychology (focusing on cognitive
      psych.) to
      > > understand the brain, yet in my studies, conversations with
      professors,
      > and
      > > research, the brain can tell us very little, just as behaviorism
      has,
      > about
      > > the meanings of life and that is what i was alluding to in my
      last post.
      > If
      > > it seemed as if I was solely a polemic, than excuse the
      equivocalness
      > >
      > > Sincerely,
      > > Tony.
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: "Bill Harris" <valleywestdental@q...>
      > > To: <existlist@y...>Bill
      > > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:38 AM
      > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: consciousness
      > >
      > >
      > > > Tony, When psychology deals in experimentally reproducible
      facts it is
      > > > science. Skinner had a good research base in his rat studies
      but took
      > his
      > > > conclusions to a ridiculous extrapolation. That error seems
      common in
      > > > psychology and in the end we get another form of the talking
      cure and
      > > more
      > > > jargon.
      > > > I recently saw an old movie entitled, "The lathe of Heaven"
      The
      > > > protagonist`s dreams become reality . A psychologist builds a
      machine
      > in
      > > > order to usurp the power. He is , however so egocentric as
      to only
      > > dream
      > > > of domination and thus destroys himself. The lesson is that
      only
      > through
      > > > the general diversity of human experience can the great
      symposium of
      > > thought
      > > > expose itself. No one can have the answer.
      > > > I see this mad scientist, egocentricity in many
      psychologists and
      > > > counselors. Their system, their particular jargon is the
      answer. They
      > are
      > > > not scientists ,they are salesmen. We flock in droves to the
      new
      > > messiah`s
      > > > tune.
      > > > Few great breakthroughs happen. Science picks up small
      fragments of
      > > > knowledge and we slowly piece together a more solid idea of
      the
      > cosmos.
      > > > Enough messiahs, enough gurus and down with the newest
      grand theory.
      > > > Dedication to knowledge makes it work. Bill
      > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > From: "Tony" <tylerdurden12@d...>
      > > > To: <existlist@y...>
      > > > Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 2:10 AM
      > > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: consciousness
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > > Eduard,
      > > > > I disagree, Psychology is for the most part a psuedo-science
      > according
      > > to
      > > > > what i consider a conservative understanding of the
      demarcation
      > between
      > > > > science and the pseudo-sciences. Incidently, the only
      attempt in
      > > > psychology
      > > > > that has been from an objective, falsificationist
      perpective can be
      > > > > attributed to Behaviorism, which fails to explain any kind
      of
      > cognitive
      > > > > complexity and was throughly refuted by Noam Chomsky in
      Syntactic
      > > > > Structures. According to Chomsky, the innate ability of
      language
      > > > acquisition
      > > > > (this theory still stands in modified forms) illustraded a
      creative
      > > > dynamic
      > > > > in human language structure.
      > > > >
      > > > > Moreover, cognitie psychology works off not particularly
      strong
      > > > foundations
      > > > > in actual facts, yet still corrolations are observed and
      inferences
      > > made.
      > > > > Neurologists and cognitive scientists distinguish between
      active and
      > > > > inactive parts of the brain and apply functions. This
      process is
      > > rigourus
      > > > > and cself-critcal, as most sciences. The foundations of the
      area of
      > > study
      > > > > within psychology are insightful, but I'm not sure they
      involve the
      > > same
      > > > > "process" of science in whole. This may distinguish
      psychology from
      > > > science,
      > > > > however, should not devalue psychology, but merely give
      light to
      > > > > falibilities in the system.
      > > > >
      > > > > Secondly, I must ask, the subject is exactly what?
      Psychologist
      > devulge
      > > > > information about consicousness, cognitive activity, and so
      on. The
      > > brain
      > > > is
      > > > > not an answer to the discussion of the individual. In
      ruminating the
      > > > meaning
      > > > > behind identiity, social relations, or personal reason
      (ethics), the
      > > > > knowledge of brain functions will solve no problems.
      Science lacks
      > the
      > > > > dimensions to facilitate and formulate moral judgements.
      > > > >
      > > > > Sincerely,
      > > > > Tony.
      > > > >
      > > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > > From: "Eduard Alf" <yeoman@v...>
      > > > > To: <existlist@y...>
      > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 9:35 PM
      > > > > Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: consciousness
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > > James,
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Psychology as a science can be objective in its
      > > > > > evaluation and understanding of things that
      > > > > > subjective.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > eduard
      > > > > >
      > > > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > > > From: james tan [mailto:tyjfk@h...]
      > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 9:12 PM
      > > > > > To: existlist@y...
      > > > > > Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: consciousness
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > nope, psychology as a science is meant to be
      > > > > > objective.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > james.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > From: "Eduard Alf" <yeoman@v...>
      > > > > > Reply-To: existlist@y...
      > > > > > To: <existlist@y...>
      > > > > > Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: consciousness
      > > > > > Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 17:25:31 -0400
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Tony,
      > > > > >
      > > > > > That is my point. "Science" is more a method than
      > > > > > a field. Thus it could involve itself in
      > > > > > subjective matters. I should think that such as
      > > > > > psychology is a field in which science looks at
      > > > > > the subjective.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > eduard
      > > > > >
      > > > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > > > From: Tony [mailto:tylerdurden12@d...]
      > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 5:12 PM
      > > > > > To: existlist@y...
      > > > > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: consciousness
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Definitely, it is a presumotuous, but so is every
      > > > > > calim about a future that
      > > > > > exist that far off in the distance. How could
      > > > > > anyone aver characteristic
      > > > > > about the future of a feild like science without
      > > > > > it being prediction? In the
      > > > > > discussing of the future of science we all become
      > > > > > futurists.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Tony.
      > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > > > From: "EDWARD ALF (vlxeekmm)"
      > > > > > <yeoman@v...>
      > > > > > To: <existlist@y...>
      > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 9:01 AM
      > > > > > Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: consciousness
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > > Tony,
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > It begs the question of what is the "subjective
      > > > > > > realm" ... how does this differ from any other
      > > > > > > realm, if indeed there is some other realm??
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I should think it presumptuous to assume that
      > > > > > > science cant involve itself in some field of
      > > > > > study
      > > > > > > ...
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > eduard
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > > > > From: Tony [mailto:tylerdurden12@d...]
      > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 8:51 AM
      > > > > > > To: existlist@y...
      > > > > > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: consciousness
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Unless the scientist or philosopher enjoys
      > > > > > > dogmatic orgies, the scientist
      > > > > > > should withdraw from the subjective realm, as
      > > > > > was
      > > > > > > illustrated by Frued or
      > > > > > > even Carnap, science cannot explain subjective
      > > > > > > notions of exitence on
      > > > > > > complex levels.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Tony.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Our Home:
      > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > > > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email
      > > > > > to:
      > > > > > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > > > > >
      > > > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > > > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > > > > >
      > > > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > > > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > __________________________________________________
      > > > > > _______________
      > > > > > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
      > > > > > http://messenger.msn.com
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > > > > >
      > > > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > > > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > > > > >
      > > > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > > > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > > > >
      > > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > > > >
      > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > > >
      > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > > >
      > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > >
      > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > _________________________________________________________________
      > > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
      http://mobile.msn.com
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > >
      > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > _________________________________________________________________
      > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
      http://mobile.msn.com
    • eduard at home
      Jo, Although I grant secret code is your words, I only said that it was a code. Or perhaps I should have said that it is a style. It s a code/style which
      Message 77 of 77 , Dec 13, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Jo,

        Although I grant "secret code" is your words, I only said
        that it was a code. Or perhaps I should have said that it
        is a style. It's a code/style which seems to serve the
        purposes of the author and not the reader. As Bill
        mentioned, it is a sort of poetry and I suppose one should
        take it as such. But then, when it comes to philosophy, I
        am not inclined to search out meaning in poetry. For
        example, I could define the individual as "carrot". In
        which case, my writing could be such as to say, "within each
        carrot, there is a desire for carrot purpose". I may think
        of this as a nice* way of saying something, but it gets
        tiring for the reader.

        I was fairly clear in my questions and I am not really
        interested in searching through ExistList to find post
        numbers. Lets try a new start.

        What evidence is there of eternity for the individual
        consciousness. My view is that the individual consciousness
        rises and falls with one's life-time. I believe that this
        view is in line with Existentialism, in that it is
        subjective and a matter of my* consciousness. How can this
        consciousness be millions of years old??

        eduard

        original
        ==================

        eduard,

        Since this is the thread about "unknown knowns", please give
        me the
        post #'s that you are referring to where I have refused to
        respond to
        your questions. I'll try to answer them again. I thought I
        did answer
        and that we did actually have a discussion, but obviously I
        was
        wrong.

        Of course The Blue Rose Project is open to discussion. Which
        concept
        should we try again? You said there was no "evidence" for
        eternity. I
        said there was. You said the author was purposefully being
        convoluted
        and using a secret code (my words). I said this wasn't true,
        since I
        know the author. I also explained that I was excerpting
        material that
        deals with the nascence of consciousness which probably took
        place
        millions of years ago. That's what I recall, but I'm willing
        to try
        again. You don't like the work and feel it's a waste of your
        time.
        That's okay. Like I said before, it's not for everybody.
        Besides
        eternity, author intent, and the state of consciousness
        today, not in
        the past; what else would you want to knock around?

        Of course I'm sensitive. My reasons have been stated. I'm
        biased
        about the author and the material since it's been a part of
        my life.
        I make no apologies. Most people select, digest promote
        philosophy
        and religion based on their existing personal biases. Most
        people
        aren't open to having their perceptions turned inside out.
        So be it.

        Jo
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.