What is "Mind?"

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 8481 - 8500 of total 22307 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
cintune

climber
Colorado School of Mimes
Apr 15, 2016 - 04:42pm PT
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Apr 15, 2016 - 04:52pm PT
I mean, just think about it... 'The saving power of Jesus' blood' and how many millions accept this claim literally against the facts that this is the 21st century and this is America.
MH2

Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
Apr 15, 2016 - 05:48pm PT
Paul:

I'm assuming the specialists who know, by default, must have graduate degrees.


Then why mention it? If a person has an 'advanced' degree, as you put it, it first and foremost means that that person has the ability to persist in the pursuit of what they want. It does not mean that their opinions within their chosen field are to be trusted.


Paul:

There has been a theme from the science folk here of attributing/assuming the incompetence of humanities folk based on their science or I should say lack of science education.


I invite you to show us your competence by giving a discourse on the physics of light. I don't think that Ed was being arrogant. I think he was just giving his opinion as a physicist.



Paul:

The idea that those without advanced science degrees are unable to concern themselves with or don't have the bona fides to understand such matters is ridiculous.


And what about my bona fides to concern myself with and understand the work of Jackson Pollock?
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Apr 15, 2016 - 11:21pm PT
Yet they do, in fact, kill one another over metaphors. That's called reality, my friend.

People don't kill each other over metaphors they kill each other over certainties they believe to be absolutes. Show them their certainty is instead, in fact, a metaphor and they won't have any reason to kill.

And what about my bona fides to concern myself with and understand the work of Jackson Pollock?

I don't judge your opinions or anybody else's by virtue of their "bona fides". Write something and I'll judge it for what it is.

I invite you to show us your competence by giving a discourse on the physics of light.

Why on earth should I have to demonstrate my competence to you or anybody else on this or any other thread? My competence is in what I write. Take it or leave it.
MikeL

Social climber
Seattle, WA
Apr 16, 2016 - 07:16am PT
Jgill:

What you’ve written are examples. I’m more interested in the elements or the constitution of an approximation.

Perhaps it’s my experience teaching in the U.K., but being proud of using approximations is not necessarily looked upon with favor. Rough calculations are seen as guesses, as unreliable. An approximation is also seen as useful to the extent that it is related to a specific purpose. Approximations are expedient and instrumental.

Every myth, story, emotion, instinct, unconscious desire can be useful *to some purpose.*

The gravamen turns on “purpose.” Assume a different purpose, and meaning, veracity, and verifiability shift. No thing stands for anything solid, resolute, or final. Every thing can manipulated or interpreted in some way or another to suit someone’s purpose.

We are creative, sensemaking functions. It’s mainly how we spend time on this rock. As PSP reminds us, the “I” appears to be the center of everything, and it defines the world upon that basis. The definitions may look objective, but without an “I,” objectivity can’t be found. There is no difference between objectivity and subjectivity; it just looks that way. (At least we can’t seem to disentangle them.) You might see this as just another expression of solipsism. (It is what it is.)

The issue is not one of being obtuse but of being honest. It’s not theoretical. It’s empirical (in the classical sense of the word). It’s a recognition that provides a means for living in the moment.

Approximations, metaphor, a notion, a feeling, an interpretation, a story, a theory—any expression is consonant with not taking things too seriously or too concretely.
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Apr 16, 2016 - 07:44am PT
For a change, I actually went back and read a lot of posts. I just want to say that there are a lot of good ones; particularly from those on my team (science types). Still, Paul has been a good sport in his own way, and I want to throw him a bone. (Hey and by the way, just kidding about the whole Hollywood Squares thing up thread, you regulars).

First of all, I want to point out to Paul that humanities does not equal philosophy. Posters up thread have been bashing philosophy, not the humanities. The first is a member of the second. The distinction is important. I mean, c'mon, there's sociology, psychology, history, art, literature, for instance.

All of them deal, more or less with the products of mind. Some of them, like the first two, would obviously be helped by good science and hurt by bad science. On the other hand, art and literature are more purely human phenomenon - the creative products of mind.

To me, it seems obvious that "What is Mind?" is a mainly scientific question, not a philosophic one. The products of mind are good subjects for the humanities; the underpinnings of mind, not so much. But I come not to bury philosophy - that's the bone I'm throwing.

For years, I had John Dewey's Experience and Nature (published in 1925) by my bedside. Now there's a philosopher who got science and was still able to provide novel insights that truly seem more or less, philosophic. Another modern day philosopher who has something to say, big-time, is Daniel Dennett. Both of these philosophers include science in the structure of their mental frameworks. Daniel Dennett has interesting things to say about free will that really does feel like an intersection between good science and philosophy.
Jan

Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
Apr 16, 2016 - 09:36am PT
May I just point out that sociology and psychology are social sciences, not humanities. If you want to lump one of the social sciences into the humanities, try economics instead. Despite covering themselves with mathematics, their predictive abilities have fallen way short.

As for what is mind, I don't think it is mainly a science question or a humanities or social science question. It needs to be understood from multiple angles. Your main interest is in science but that doesn't mean it's the only way or most important way of understanding the mind.

The rise of Donald Trump to use one example, will not be understood or dealt with, by a better understanding of the biology of the brain.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Apr 16, 2016 - 09:38am PT

But I come not to bury philosophy - that's the bone I'm throwing.

Doesn't just about every scientific experiment first start out as someone's philosophy?

We're not on Mars by a linear trail of scientific breadcrumbs that led us there. Someone had to stand up and say, "maybe we can go to Mars". Science is merely a tool for man's speculations. Moreso even its just basically a set of parameters(rules if you will) that we must conform by! Soon as any experiment exposes a fact what's the next thing heard in the laboratory? " What if we tried this?" Isn't that a philisophical question?

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Apr 16, 2016 - 09:38am PT
"Show them their certainty is instead, in fact, a metaphor and they won't have any reason to kill." -Paul

That's the whole entire point. It's what leaders and teachers have failed to do.

Paul has been a good sport...

Yes he has. Where would this thread be without him? Paul is a valued "regular" for sure.

I'm not at all familiar with John Dewey but I most definitely apprec Dennett as a science-based philosopher. I think the times are different now and a lot more of philosophy is modeling on / trending to Dennett's fine example.

.....

May I just point out... -Jan

Has Psychology Become One of the Humanities?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/is-your-brain-culture/200905/has-psychology-become-one-the-humanities
MH2

Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
Apr 16, 2016 - 10:22am PT
Why on earth should I have to demonstrate my competence


You do well to be evasive, Paul.

It is your flimflammery I challenge, not your intelligence.

jgill

Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
Apr 16, 2016 - 02:18pm PT
What you’ve written are examples. I’m more interested in the elements or the constitution of an approximation. Perhaps it’s my experience teaching in the U.K., but being proud of using approximations is not necessarily looked upon with favor (MikeL)

Sorry, Mike, but I have no idea where you are going with this. The "elements" or the "constitution" of approximation requires focusing on specific problems to be resolved. And my experience conversing and consulting with Europeans does not support your statement about the U.K. It must have something to do with your specific area of interest.

In a modern fighter jet it is essential that computations be done with great speed and precision, and the use of continued fractions, say, in approximating Tan(z) might provide that speed and precision with the fewest iterations; backward recursion is highly efficient. All I can do is look at examples. If you have some insight into the "elements or the constitution of an approximation" in a general sense I would like to hear about them.

The remainder of your post seems to wander a bit.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Apr 16, 2016 - 05:26pm PT
It is your flimflammery I challenge, not your intelligence.

and i yours. It's the flimflammery gene that put us lightyears ahead of monkeys. And it's the flimflammery gene that allows each one of us humans the ability to not just stand around in a hail storm. We actually build artificial environments for the conditions we'd rather pleasure ourselves in. i could easily say all animals are lazy,stupid, and selfcentered. All they seem to do is concentrate on eating,sleeping, and humping. What is their contribution to the planet? Most of them are plainly murderous and adulterous, takers. Without seemingly any guilt for the families holding contempt. What is their recompense in a universe that demands a reaction for an action? Does the murderous Lioness hold fundraisers to get the three legged Antelope an artificial limb? No, she has no concern over the environment outside her own pride.

Flimflammery shows proof of our ability to create. Why shant we rub in the face of the Tiger that we have Las Vegas? Maybe it would do them some good to know whatelse is out there? The ones at Caesar's seem to dig it. Why not let'em play the slots, or be a valet? Say let's get science to take out his mean gene then we all could have a Tiger for a neighbor?
MH2

Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
Apr 16, 2016 - 06:53pm PT
I remember reading back in the '70s, possibly in Science, a paper that concerned methods to solve problems in probability and statistics. These were problems for which the true answers were either impossible or impractical to get. However, if you were willing to give up certainty you could get answers that were very likely to be correct.

In the world of biology that made good sense.
MikeL

Social climber
Seattle, WA
Apr 16, 2016 - 07:28pm PT
Jgill: If you have some insight into the "elements or the constitution of an approximation" in a general sense I would like to hear about them.

Approximations are no different than myths, than feelings, than stories, than instincts. It’s another way of putting something “in the ballpark,” a categorization, a classification. Approximations are fudges, hedges, vague, ambiguous, unclear, uncertain, generalizations governed by “usefulness,” “instrumentalism,” and “expediencies.” They are often dressed-up “calculations” presented as rationalizations.

I’d go over the importance of accounting for variance and accuracy in science once again, but no one cares about science as a methodology, as a way of knowing.

An approximation is a hedge, just fancier and more important sounding when the weight of believability is certified by “usefulness.” I’m afraid it’s a philosophical notion, and you have little patience with that: it’s not useful.

eeyonkee: . . . there's sociology, psychology, history, art, literature, for instance. All of them deal, more or less with the products of mind.


Ditto for science.

Science is a product of the mind. I think what you are trying to point out is a belief that science deals with “facts,” while other disciplines don’t. (I’d disagree.)

Folks, science is a methodology, an approach to knowledge. All the “-ologies” indicate domains or fields of study. Science is not a field of study, nor is science an accumulation of “facts.” Science presents a vision of reality. Mind does the same thing. Both are apparatus of reality.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Apr 16, 2016 - 07:51pm PT

In the world of biology that made good sense.

^^ yes. Like my new puppy sitting astutely watching while i eat after he inhaled his dinner. He will soon come to the conclusion that people food is not dog food..?

i don't know if there is another animal that understands humans more than a Queensland Heeler?

Jan

Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
Apr 16, 2016 - 08:14pm PT
Has Psychology Become One of the Humanities?

To my mind psychoanalysis has always been more humanism than science, but psychoanalysis is only one small part of psychology. By contrast, Psych 101 when I took it was about memorizing parts of the brain and endless rat experiments.

The social sciences that are thriving are those that combine science and humanism. The one in most trouble is sociology which has no biological component though it deals with people.

paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Apr 16, 2016 - 08:39pm PT
As far as philosophy is concerned it remains entrenched in the humanities. You can't study the classics without becoming deeply involved in philosophy. One might make the argument that "analytical" philosophy comes closer to the realm of science. But generally speaking its really silly to think that philosophy isn't a discipline within the humanities... look it up.

Flimflam? I like the flimflam defense in debate, it's just so thorough and ridiculously effortless.
jgill

Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
Apr 16, 2016 - 09:17pm PT
Approximations are fudges, hedges, vague, ambiguous, unclear, uncertain, generalizations governed by “usefulness,” “instrumentalism,” and “expediencies.” They are often dressed-up “calculations” presented as rationalizations (MikeL)

I prefer:

Approximation


One might make the argument that "analytical" philosophy comes closer to the realm of science (Paul)

And mathematics. But traditional philosophy should be in the humanities. It's unfortunate that some of those traditional philosophers are so difficult to read. Not surprising since definitions and axioms are so vague, and convoluted arguments shine with a questionable patina of intellectual accomplishment.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Apr 16, 2016 - 09:47pm PT
The one in most trouble is sociology which has no biological component though it deals with people.

yeah, it almost seems ironic atheist consider themselves Socialist.

Philosophy, hard to imagine evolution not containing some kinda "what if's?" or "how come's?" in there somewhere. Nothing more interesting to me today is how the first mammal flew! i mean, what were the acquiring steps that brought that creature to the precise wing>body>weight ratio needed to hover above ground, fascinating! How could it(evolution) have come so far and never before questioned itself?? Maybe our questioning it, is the threshold of "Godism"?

i visualize God sitting there, arms spread wide open after working for 6 24hr days straight to put our universe into action. Saying, "come find me"
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Apr 17, 2016 - 06:00am PT
Paul said
But generally speaking its really silly to think that philosophy isn't a discipline within the humanities... look it up.

Sheesh, the reason I called you a good sport is that you seemed to answer all comers. This response makes it clear that you didn't read my post very closely, since I clearly stated that philosophy IS a member of the humanities. And I would have to say that I disagree with

You can't study the classics without becoming deeply involved in philosophy.

In fact, I don't believe it for a second. I love reading both history and the classics. I still love reading things by many of the historical philosophers, but it's purely for my love of history and human drama and all-around love of knowledge.

Of course, the last one is the basis for the word, philosophy. Seems like love of knowledge better suits science than philosophy. If you're going to take that away from me as a scientist, I guess I would have to settle for scientist/philosopher. It actually doesn't sound all that bad, I guess, but it's a little pretentious. It's pretentious because its redundant. All of the scientists I know, love knowledge and the acquisition of it. And that love of knowledge rarely stops at the boundaries of their specific discipline of expertise.

Are there universal truths that the classics speak to? Of course. But these are human issues, not scientific per se. Fear of death, the need to be loved, what is a good society, allegiance to your family vs. other social units, treachery within families,... Sure they tackled the scientific questions here and there within all of that. But they were invariably wrong on every one of them. That doesn't make the human drama any less interesting to me.
Messages 8481 - 8500 of total 22307 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta