You haven’t answered the question Meteor?
Questions about the nature of things in my opinion are typically questions about their meaning, not about the underlying causes. I think it is worthwile to distinguish between the two. Questions about meaning are typically answered by interpretative or descriptive enterprises, your examples of the nature of the self & reality are typical philosophical topics. Philosophers know very well to stay away from causal explanations - such is the business of science. Some story of how the cortical midline structures in the brain cause a sense of self tells us nothing about the nature or the meaning of the self. It seems to me you are disappointed in science for not answering the questions you have, while science, almost per definition, just happens to be concerned with another type of question.
i have nothing against science, i genuinely think it’s wonderful.
My problem is the unfounded/unproven assumption about the nature of reality that ‘all phenomena are emergent properties of physicality’ - i.e. materialism. As the study of the ‘objective physical’ world, & coming to an understanding of that level of existence - fair enough, no problem at all (the scientific method can & has also been used to study the non-physical). To make unproven & unfounded assumptions & conclusions as to what reality is & it’s nature - oh dear. That isn’t science - it’s the same as a dogmatic & fundamentalist belief system (& is defended with the same hateful anger & ignorance).
I think it is right that science can’t prove the assumptions it is build upon by scientific methods - these can be justified only by conceptual considerations and by proving their worth in practice. Mind you, that holds for materialism as well as any alternative conception (dualism, I presume?). I think on both aspects materialism has showed itself a respectable paradigm that is far from being exhausted. From its conception dualism has had a huge conceptual problem of making sense of intersubstantial causation.
Wait, this is all wrong. The problem of consciousness has nothing to do with discounting the neurophysiology of severe mental illnesses, which some call “diseases” because there is nothing “all in your head” about it; it’s all in your genes.
Materialism is for the most part the gold standard in science, with my only exception being natural laws like gravity. Gravity is a natural law. It’s force can be measured and is constant. Consciousness may be due to an unseen natural law, I am reading a book about this.
Philosophy is rather frowned upon when medicine is being practiced. No offense to philosophers, but that is only really applicable in ethics and logic, which are really only paid attention to in law, which heavily influences medicine. Philosophy is a bunch of made up crap, it is an art, not a science. Let’s not have artists treat life threatening genetic disorders. That is unacceptable.
I’m mostly a materialist, more specifically I am a physicalist, which means I am open to new natural laws (perhaps one which accounts for consciousness) but many think with conviction that consciousness is an illusion which our incredibly powerful brains play on us to keep the 100 trillion synapses in our brains somewhat coherent. Take the limbic system for example; we emotionally react to what we sense one quarter of a second before we are conscious of the stimuli.
Madness IS explained by physiology. Make no mistake in understanding that statement. I take what is close to a miracle pill, an 80% eradication of my symptoms. That is because the drug targets and restores an imbalance in chemicals in my brain, receptivity of chemicals in my brain, ecetera. Without the major tranquilizer, my brain is running amok. Now there is dispute over what causes symptoms, but the modern verdict is a dopamine-glutamate hypothesis. Multiple neurotransmitters are at abnormal levels in certain regions of my brain.
That is materialism.
How do I know that I am a human and how do I know that I am aware of being aware of being aware of being human? That is where science falls short. “We don’t know ■■■■.” Said a very experienced clinical psychologist yesterday when I discussed this stuff with him. We don’t know ■■■■.
The more one learns about the science of the mind and brain, the more one realizes how very little we collectively know to be true. That is why psychology is a science; we must have empirical studies to even have the right to say that something is supported to be true, and nothing is absolutely true; to state causation in my field is heresy. It would have me fail whatever I write. Correlation does not imply causation, we cannot say that the sun rises every morning because I take a piss when I wake up and then the sun rises. If this correlation implied causation, refraining from urinating would prevent the sun from rising.
Try looking at statistical examples of causation incorrectly derived from correlations. If you do, you will discover that ice cream sales increase rates of robberies, ect.
No one wants to hate , me , nor you I would wager. From my perspective , they best way to live a life is largely about making decisions that are practical and make sense , and pay as little heed to unevidenced assumptions as possible. That’s it really.
As i say - i see nothing wrong in the understanding & application of knowledge from the study of ‘physicality’. Taken to be a World view/explanation of reality i think it’s dangerous.
A problem does come in with mental health/the mind/consciousness. Materialism doesn’t explain it, & i don’t see that it ever will.
i’m not saying that ‘dualism’ has answered these questions either - But it would be a bit more humble & honest to admit what is still mysterious & that we don’t know, & to keep some kind of an open mind.
Which is why i don’t buy materialism as an explanation of actual reality. Sadly many now do.
There’s no bona fide evidence for that. It’s an opinion.
1 Like
Uh go get an MRI and consult a neurologist and then say that again.
1 Like
i had an MRI & it didn’t show anything. What is a neurologist going to know about consciousness?
i don’t deny the reality of having a physical body/brain & that stuff can go on at that level. Is that all we are - a physical body/brain? & can thoughts, feelings, emotions & consciousness by explained as a ‘by product’ of the physical self? If you believe it all can all be explained in such reductionistic terms then i’ll leave you to it. There’s no point in discussing it all.
no offense, but:
Can’t blame you though, as a psychologist it is probably best to think that way. I think the rest of that post made a lot of sense.
As far as I am concerned - Freud was a fraud
2 Likes
Not to say physiology/biology doesn’t play a part in it all - But can the subjective/inner Worlds of thought, feelings, emotions & consciousness etc - Be reduced to ‘objective physical’ realities - that you can cut up the dead body & find the life essence/force in it? & put these things under a microscope? That you can explain all non-ordinary & subjective experiences in terms of genetics & brain function.
Interesting that so many of you appear to believe & defend that position. i’m not sure what you’re all basing it on - But still - happy days. & keep on taking the pills.
I believe its good to know a little about what Freud and Jung wrote. Although I believe it takes some life experience to make sense of the concepts. I recently read a book about a jungian approach to LGBT(lesbian,gay,bisexual, trans). This is a book about how to mature as a person if your sexuality is different. Its a great book, which I wished i read 10 years ago, instead of indulging in conspiracy theories. But I guess I wasnt ready and didnt know that such books/therapies even existed.
So for me 
to Freud and Jung
2 Likes
Freud had some interesting ideas. His model of the personality was fascinating and elegant, but there were better models to use to try to make actual predictions of behavior. For a long time when I was growing up a whole host of psychological disorders were blamed on the mother. My mom said mothers got all the blame for giving their children a conscience.
While I would have hit “like” for most of the post, I have to take issue with the statement about “schizophrenogenic mothering styles.”
I have seen them too many times to dismiss the tree Freud and others of his time barked up, and that so many others investigated later on, regardless of their own politically correct “recanting.”
See Gregory Bateson, Paul Watzlawick, Theodore Lidz, Stephen Fleck, Jules Henry, R. D. Laing, Aaron Esterson, Virginia Satir, Stephen Karpman, et al. My understanding of the non-genetic trigger mechanisms in relation to what I saw in so many parents of sz pts was greatly enhanced by studying these people.
While I do understand the “good reasons” back of denying the assertion of “schizophrenogenic families,” I can also see and hear with my own eyes and ears that when crazy-making parenting is added to genetic predispositions, unfortunate upshots are likely, even when the parents were wholly and quite innocently unconscious of their confusing (and often seemingly “normal”) behavior and its links to those upshots.
i don’t think it’s helpful to see things in terms of blame, but i also think that familial & wider social dynamics do play a part in it all.
So you essentially say that there is a genetic component with an environmental trigger- I would agree. I think what you are missing out on is the research on how schizophrenics immediate family members behave similarly (fragmented speech, odd interests, eccentric behavior), sometimes have schizotypal personality and even see the same things on ink blots.
It’s probably true that there is a schizophrenic mothering style, but hey, the mother gave that schizophrenic half of their crappy genes so it would be even stranger if the mother was just perfectly normal and didn’t behave in a manner which disturbs children.
My mother would throw anger fits and my parents would swat me and my sister with a stick. They kept it on top of the fridge and called it “the switch”. My parents used physical punishment. Skinner would throw a fit at that.
Where did you get your PhD in psychology? You know too much
Science came from philosophy, and science is based on philosophy, ie natural philosophy. Also, any true Kantian would consider psychology and many of the “social sciences” a form of philosophy.
1 Like