When I talk about my thoughts and feelings, the expression of the experience is not about matter. It exists on a different conceptual level, even if it has a material correlate. This is why mind is considered different than brain.
I know mental health stuff, because of these criticisms, is growing more and more multi-disciplinary. I've seen many awesome programs, especially as it has become more community based, and patient centered.
For my own personal path, it were the clinical social workers who were by far the most effective for my own help. Unfortunately, it was not easy to get access to them. There was a program I received full interdisciplinary help from, after my suicide attempt, and that very much helped me hold myself together for a long while, until other environmental factors came into play that were to my benefit.
I realize all of these disciplines have lacks, including psychology. When I stand behind psychology, it's not the discipline, but it's certain specific dynamics that are known about in the profession that I've personally experienced in healing. So it's not the principle as interpreted by a fallible expert but the actual life dynamic/principle or what I would call a natural law that I go on about.
I think the kinds of help people are responsive to has to do with their personality. For example, my brother with schizophrenia is a strictly science guy who was stricken when he was finishing his physics degree. He is not at all predisposed to see much less care about my subjective psychological view stuff. It doesn't work for him at all.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
When I talk about my thoughts and feelings, the expression of the experience is not about matter. It exists on a different conceptual level, even if it has a material correlate. This is why mind is considered different than brain.
What is your concept of heat?
Do believe that heat is a separate quality that is emitted from objects by friction? Such as Phlogiston.
Or do you believe that heat is friction and how our brains represent the sensation of that friction?
Heat is something that is purely physical, although our brains/minds interpret it as being something besides the excited behavior of molecules. How exactly could a brain represent to it's self the sensation of heat, without the sensation of heat?
For those that hold that mind separates humans from animals, how do animals interpret or sense pain? And if they don't represent pain as a sensation in a mind, how do they respond to it?
The mind is very much, not a separate ordeal from the brain. The mind, is a autonomic view of internal processes.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Because he lacked the knowledge that we have today.
It's the old caloric theory, phlogiston, flat-earth, elan vital, etc.. etc.. etc..
It's easy to think like Pascal if you don't know how matter can represent it's self, but it most certainly can. It's widely believed that newborns don't represent themselves either, they cannot distinguish between themselves and their environments. Some research suggests that babies learn they are separate entities by social observations, by observing other independant agents and internalizing those qualities. Some babies up to 2 years of age, still cannot recognize the person in the mirror as being themselves. Keep in mind, that you only know of your mind, you believe in other minds because of your aquired theory of minds. But you can only directly know your own mind. So whether or not an arrangement of matter has a mind, is beyond your theory of mind, and likewise it was beyond pascal's. An alternative theory of mind might incorporate some physical requisites for a mind, and under that theory matter can represent it's self.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Do believe that heat is a separate quality that is emitted from objects by friction? Such as Phlogiston.
Or do you believe that heat is friction and how our brains represent the sensation of that friction?
Heat is something that is purely physical, although our brains/minds interpret it as being something besides the excited behavior of molecules. How exactly could a brain represent to it's self the sensation of heat, without the sensation of heat?
For those that hold that mind separates humans from animals, how do animals interpret or sense pain? And if they don't represent pain as a sensation in a mind, how do they respond to it?
The mind is very much, not a separate ordeal from the brain. The mind, is a autonomic view of internal processes.
I can only speak to what I see and know, and that doesn't include specific ideas on heat.
The difference between humans and animals is that animals and their perceptions do not give them the illusion they are separate from nature as it is for humans. Animals do not perceptually detach from their ground state. We have a degree of mind that can detach itself from reality.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Have you read the book "Flowers For Algernon", Ahnimus?
Nope, it sounds like fiction, I don't read fiction.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I can only speak to what I see and know, and that doesn't include specific ideas on heat.
The difference between humans and animals is that animals and their perceptions do not give them the illusion they are separate from nature as it is for humans. Animals do not perceptually detach from their ground state. We have a degree of mind that can detach itself from reality.
How can you know that animals do not have ideas of God's or metaphysics?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I don't like fiction either. And it's one of my favourites. You've got to read it, if only to tell me what you think. It would take one day.
I really can't sit through fiction. I've tried. Especially ones with wierd names. I might consider it if you would consider reading The Engine of Reason, The Seat of the Soul by Paul Churchland.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm sure they have impressions and sensations of God and metaphysics.
But, how can you be sure?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Another point is, Pascal is describing a quality of his reason alone. He isn't describing a quality of minds or matter. What he is describing is his own ignorance.
"there being nothing so inconceivable as to say that matter knows itself"
conceivability is a quality of an individual mind. Some cannot conceive how DNA instructs the structure of the body. But rest assured, there are some who can. As I said, Pascal is describing his own shortcoming, unbeknownst to him. He obviously feels as if he's speaking for everyone.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Because they are attached to reality and the unseen forces that animate them. They would have the being sense of being these forces, without "thinking" about them and using symbols to objectify these forces like humans do.
I mean that they sense them, without intellectualizing it. They ARE these forces and accept what they are, unquestioningly.
edit: and by "sense" I mean in terms of an inner sense, or impression, not given by the 5 senses. Rather extrasensory or intuitive.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Because they are attached to reality and the unseen forces that animate them. They would have the being sense of being these forces, without "thinking" about them and using symbols to objectify these forces like humans do.
I mean that they sense them, without intellectualizing it. They ARE these forces and accept what they are, unquestioningly.
Clearly this an assumption through introspection, no?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Clearly this an assumption through introspection, no?
I'd say a Know-ing through introspection. Most of us are totally unconscious of who we are. Even of our bodies. We think we are not our bodies. Which is just silly to me! Animals are good at "being". They just are. We're always striving to "get there" and we overlook who we are.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'd say a Know-ing through introspection. Most of us are totally unconscious of who we are. Even of our bodies. We think we are not our bodies. Which is just silly to me! Animals are good at "being". They just are. We're always striving to "get there" and we overlook who we are.
How does your introspective knowing differ from others who have been wrong, like Renee Descarte?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ahnimus, how do you currently view our point of individuality? I think both you and I agree that we are not really local as individual humans as we appear. Or do you not agree?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Ahnimus, how do you currently view our point of individuality? I think both you and I agree that we are not really local as individual humans as we appear. Or do you not agree?
Nothing about us is independent of the external world. Humans consist of particles of matter strictly obeying the laws of thermodynamics. We move with the universe, the universe moves us. Not the other way around.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Nothing about us is independent of the external world. Humans consist of particles of matter strictly obeying the laws of thermodynamics. We move with the universe, the universe moves us. Not the other way around.
Could you elaborate? I'm not really understanding your language.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Could you elaborate? I'm not really understanding your language.
We are no different than rocks in our proximity to physical reality. We are part of physical reality and no part of us exists beyond these bounds.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm not sure anyone's model for conceptualizing reality can be "wrong".
Then you need to read more modern philosophy and neuroscience
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If modern neuroscience and philosophy is about making people wrong, I'll pass.
It's about what is right.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
I know mental health stuff, because of these criticisms, is growing more and more multi-disciplinary. I've seen many awesome programs, especially as it has become more community based, and patient centered.
For my own personal path, it were the clinical social workers who were by far the most effective for my own help. Unfortunately, it was not easy to get access to them. There was a program I received full interdisciplinary help from, after my suicide attempt, and that very much helped me hold myself together for a long while, until other environmental factors came into play that were to my benefit.
I realize all of these disciplines have lacks, including psychology. When I stand behind psychology, it's not the discipline, but it's certain specific dynamics that are known about in the profession that I've personally experienced in healing. So it's not the principle as interpreted by a fallible expert but the actual life dynamic/principle or what I would call a natural law that I go on about.
I think the kinds of help people are responsive to has to do with their personality. For example, my brother with schizophrenia is a strictly science guy who was stricken when he was finishing his physics degree. He is not at all predisposed to see much less care about my subjective psychological view stuff. It doesn't work for him at all.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
What is your concept of heat?
Do believe that heat is a separate quality that is emitted from objects by friction? Such as Phlogiston.
Or do you believe that heat is friction and how our brains represent the sensation of that friction?
Heat is something that is purely physical, although our brains/minds interpret it as being something besides the excited behavior of molecules. How exactly could a brain represent to it's self the sensation of heat, without the sensation of heat?
For those that hold that mind separates humans from animals, how do animals interpret or sense pain? And if they don't represent pain as a sensation in a mind, how do they respond to it?
The mind is very much, not a separate ordeal from the brain. The mind, is a autonomic view of internal processes.
tell me why you think pascal is ignorant.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Because he lacked the knowledge that we have today.
It's the old caloric theory, phlogiston, flat-earth, elan vital, etc.. etc.. etc..
It's easy to think like Pascal if you don't know how matter can represent it's self, but it most certainly can. It's widely believed that newborns don't represent themselves either, they cannot distinguish between themselves and their environments. Some research suggests that babies learn they are separate entities by social observations, by observing other independant agents and internalizing those qualities. Some babies up to 2 years of age, still cannot recognize the person in the mirror as being themselves. Keep in mind, that you only know of your mind, you believe in other minds because of your aquired theory of minds. But you can only directly know your own mind. So whether or not an arrangement of matter has a mind, is beyond your theory of mind, and likewise it was beyond pascal's. An alternative theory of mind might incorporate some physical requisites for a mind, and under that theory matter can represent it's self.
The difference between humans and animals is that animals and their perceptions do not give them the illusion they are separate from nature as it is for humans. Animals do not perceptually detach from their ground state. We have a degree of mind that can detach itself from reality.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Nope, it sounds like fiction, I don't read fiction.
How can you know that animals do not have ideas of God's or metaphysics?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I really can't sit through fiction. I've tried. Especially ones with wierd names. I might consider it if you would consider reading The Engine of Reason, The Seat of the Soul by Paul Churchland.
But, how can you be sure?
Another point is, Pascal is describing a quality of his reason alone. He isn't describing a quality of minds or matter. What he is describing is his own ignorance.
"there being nothing so inconceivable as to say that matter knows itself"
conceivability is a quality of an individual mind. Some cannot conceive how DNA instructs the structure of the body. But rest assured, there are some who can. As I said, Pascal is describing his own shortcoming, unbeknownst to him. He obviously feels as if he's speaking for everyone.
I mean that they sense them, without intellectualizing it. They ARE these forces and accept what they are, unquestioningly.
edit: and by "sense" I mean in terms of an inner sense, or impression, not given by the 5 senses. Rather extrasensory or intuitive.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Clearly this an assumption through introspection, no?
I'd say a Know-ing through introspection. Most of us are totally unconscious of who we are. Even of our bodies. We think we are not our bodies. Which is just silly to me! Animals are good at "being". They just are. We're always striving to "get there" and we overlook who we are.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
How does your introspective knowing differ from others who have been wrong, like Renee Descarte?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Nothing about us is independent of the external world. Humans consist of particles of matter strictly obeying the laws of thermodynamics. We move with the universe, the universe moves us. Not the other way around.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Descartes mind-body problem, dubbed Cartesian Dualism.
We are no different than rocks in our proximity to physical reality. We are part of physical reality and no part of us exists beyond these bounds.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Then you need to read more modern philosophy and neuroscience
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It's about what is right.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!