excreationist

Probably not... I was just throwing around some ideas. The problem is that personality and indentity can refer to a static attributes - I thing minds have to be dynamic and "alive".
I think minds involve our decision-making processes... maybe that's the main thing. Maybe "self-motivated idiosyncratic processors of information"....
My head hurts...

owleye

Leatherankh...

Assume for a moment that I'm a skeptic of the dualist view being expressed here. What is this "empirically determined evidence" that the author is relying on?

It seems that before we can even respond, we would need to get clear on what the alleged evidence is. If it turns out that this alleged evidence is directed to a particular interpretation of the mind, then your questions might not even come up if we had a different interpretation -- for example, that of epi-phenomenalism.

owleye

Leatherankh

Hey again,

Sorry I've taken so long to get back here. Now, on to some replies

First, there is a little bit of vocabulary I need to clear up. When I say "simple location", what I mean is something you can point to, like a rock or a solar system or a neocortex. In other words, something I can examine monologically. This is in contrast to dialogical, which involves interaction and introspection, and delves into abstract concepts. This obviously doesn't just include psychology and such, but also includes abstract science, like pure mathematics.

Turtonm, you seem to be the most ardent detractor of this line of thought, so I'll pick on you. Your examples seem to be a little irrelevant. How are you equating simple Pavlovian stimulus/response with psychotherapy? We are talking about things that are particular to humans, higher thought processes and such, so I don't quite see your point. Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, since I haven't taken a physics course since '92, but accelleration is a change in energy states, which is easily identifiable in conjunction with the pressing of an accelleraior (opens carburator, increases fuel to air ratio, yadayadayada), so again, apples and oranges. We are talking about things without simple location here, so keep your examples relavent (boy my spelling sucks this time of night )

In any case, good to see i can still stir the pot up. Check back in a few.

L

PS, I'll check out those books, turtonm. They sound interesting

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Leatherankh:
Hey again,
Turtonm, you seem to be the most ardent detractor of this line of thought, so I'll pick on you.

Donning flameproof armor now.

How are you equating simple Pavlovian
stimulus/response with psychotherapy?

First thing I thought of. My dog is also capable of detecting and responding to my emotional state. Does that satisfy your need for higher processing?

course since '92, but accelleration is a change in energy states, which is easily identifiable in conjunction with the pressing of an accelleraior (opens carburator, increases fuel to air ratio, yadayadayada), so again, apples and oranges.

Right, but there is no simple location for "acceleration" in the engine. What is it? The carburator opening? The fuel-air ratio increasing? The jump in speed? It's process, like thinking.

I'll check out those books, turtonm. They sound interesting

They are. Very accessible and extremely well-written, by working scientists.

Michael

Jonsey3333

"First, long time no see. It's been a while since I've been to this forum, and it's good to see it still up and running."

This IS an excellent bb. Not all of the melodrama and immature name-calling I'm used to from other boards. Things actually get dabated with logic.


"Now, down to business. I am currently reading "A Brief History of Everything" by Ken Wilbur, an American philosopher/psychologist. The big theory that runs throught all of his books is what he calls the Four Quadrants of Evolution, each being, respectively, the development of the internal and external aspects of both individuals and collectives. One interesting point he makes along the way, which I thought I would throw out here just to see what you all thought of it, is that psychology delivers one of the best pieces of evidence against pure materialism. Here's how his reasoning works.

"He breaks science up into two very broad catagories. One is Monological (pure empiricist), the other is Dialogical (psychology, sociology and such). He believes that the "hard", monological sciences, while they deliver vital and important information about existance, cannot deliver a complete world view because they can only cover actions, not implications."

One difference is that the so-called "monological" sciences measure (usually) things that are directly measurable. The so-called "dialogical" sciences (often) measure things that are not directly measurable.

In psychology, I can't measure your mind, nor do I know that anyone else in existence HAS a mind, since the mind is subjective. I can only measure behavior and reported introspection. The former is directly measurable, but is not the direct mind. The latter is only the mind in theory.

In sociology, behavior is directly measurable. The only difference, as stated, is that it is a young science, along with psychology and genetics.


"Also, there is evidence, namely in psychology, that the mind, the psyche of the individual, while it has no simple location that can be pinned down by empiricism, has a direct effect upon the brain, which can be examined empirically."

Mind takes place in the brain. Period.


"Basically, his question is this: how can the "talking cure", as Freud called it, have a direct, measureable effect on physiological well being if the mind is just a reflection of the phyisical brain?"

Talk is physical. Our brains are ever-dynamic. They change when they learn new things. Talking may decrease cognitive dissonance or what have you and reduce stress, which requires a larger bloodflow. That blood could be used in immunity so your immune system suffers.


"How can just discussing ones perceptions alter brain chemistry unless the "mind", this thing that has no simple location other than a complex soup of varying chemicals and hormones, is an equally valid aspect of human reality? How can something that has no simple location effect the simple location of something else unless there is more to existance than just the physical?"

Maybe I'm just not seeing the point. The brain changes to accomodate learning (talking cure), which changes behavior.


"Food for thought"

Leftovers from General Psychology.

-Mike

*Yes, I'm being a pompous ass. I couldn't resist the pun, though.*