A ROCK CAN'T THINK, SO…

[jakelafort]

Yeah, being wrong about something, lets say whether to act on the advice of virologists and epidemiologists, can be worse than a mere mistake; failing to act will result in the deaths of tens of thousands and untold suffering or something really serious like not being reelected.

[_Robert_]

Unseen wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:

Place your hand on a hot stove for 5 seconds. Is that real enough for ya?

People who’ve lost a leg may feel pain from a toe that is not there. It even has a medical name: “phantom pain.” In the spirit of “everything exists once properly categorized,” one could say that’s real pain, but in what sense of “real”? There may not be a way out of Cartesian doubt. Maybe we need a leap of faith. I’m also mindful of Wittgenstein’s notion that there are ways of being wrong about some things that imply something worse than a mere mistake. For example, if I believe (as I do) that I’m NOT writing from a space craft headed for Mars, and I’m wrong, I haven’t made a mere mistake. I may be mad.

In the past phantom pain was thought to be a psychological reaction. With MRIs we now know it is a real nerve signal that lights up in the brain or spinal cord, possibly a remapping issue. Chock one up for determinism, LOL. So what do you guys think….as we learn more about the brain will psychology just fade away and become pseudoscience?

[jakelafort]

I think dualism will be scrapped. There is a lingering notion that the psyche is somehow spiritual. As i recall psychology was on track in the 19th century but it was derailed by Freud and Jung and others. It will become a universal assumption that any and all psychological disorders have physical bases. If the etiology of a disorder is not known it wont be some amorphous concept that attempts to explain it. That was pretty obvious all along. Better late than never…

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

I think dualism will be scrapped.

Absolutely. The mind is just a manifestation of what the the brain does. It is the brain in operation.  I think the following is a reasonable analogy: The mind is to our brain as walking is to our legs. Once we grasp this then so much “woo” just falls away.  The pillars of a lot of religions are dependent on the notion of dualism. It is also tied in with the concept of freewill fervently embraced by magical thinkers.

[Unseen]

jakelafort wrote:

I think dualism will be scrapped. There is a lingering notion that the psyche is somehow spiritual. As i recall psychology was on track in the 19th century but it was derailed by Freud and Jung and others. It will become a universal assumption that any and all psychological disorders have physical bases. If the etiology of a disorder is not known it wont be some amorphous concept that attempts to explain it. That was pretty obvious all along. Better late than never…

Dualism on the same level of reality seems unlikely. On different levels of a layered reality where they can’t interact might be more defensible. Just a conjecture.

[Unseen]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

I think dualism will be scrapped. Absolutely. The mind is just a manifestation of what the the brain does. It is the brain in operation. I think the following is a reasonable analogy: The mind is to our brain as walking is to our legs. Once we grasp this then so much “woo” just falls away. The pillars of a lot of religions are dependent on the notion of dualism. It is also tied in with the concept of freewill fervently embraced by magical thinkers.

That’s what I believe, but as so often happens, solving one problem leaves us with another one, maybe even more concerning. In this case, that would be what about personal responsibility? Is there no longer good and evil? No need for us to feel guilty no matter what we do? I mean, if everything we do is simply an effect in an ongoing causal chain, we all can say “I couldn’t do otherwise and neither could you were you in my place.”

[jakelafort]

Unseen, that legal issue is a big one although it won’t be tackled for some time if ever. But boy would it be fun being the defense counsel who asserted that defense! Beats the hell out of the twinkie defense.

[Unseen]

jakelafort wrote:

Unseen, that legal issue is a big one although it won’t be tackled for some time if ever. But boy would it be fun being the defense counsel who asserted that defense! Beats the hell out of the twinkie defense.

A defense lawyer asked for a trial by judge rather than by jury.

His defense was this: “Judge, my client’s behavior is a complicate matter involving his upbringing, the details of the situation he found himself in, and his frame of mind at that very moment. As a result, his actions were beyond his control. He was like a leaf floating on a stream.”

The judge’s reply is, “You have made an argument I’m unable to refute, but it applies both ways. I, too, find myself a prisoner of my upbringing, of this situation here, and of my current frame of mind. Like a leaf floating on a stream, I’m unable to do otherwise than declare your client guilty.”

[jakelafort]

But having awareness of physics and philosophy changes everything. If and when the judge fully appreciates the implications of science and philosophy the judge is no longer the judge of the past handing down verdicts and punishments as the river of life leads on inexorably in the only way it can. At that point the judge resigns unable to fulfill the legal duties entrusted to her.

[Unseen]

jakelafort wrote:

But having awareness of physics and philosophy changes everything. If and when the judge fully appreciates the implications of science and philosophy the judge is no longer the judge of the past handing down verdicts and punishments as the river of life leads on inexorably in the only way it can. At that point the judge resigns unable to fulfill the legal duties entrusted to her.

You are still talking as though the judge can make choices. Like I said, the word “choice” seems to carry with it the implication of free will. It is a habit that’s hard to break, for me as well.

[jakelafort]

Unseen, we all make appear to make choices and judges for whom conscientious decision making is characteristic will react to the revelation. I don’t see anything in my hypothetical that is inconsistent with the absence of free will. Lets suppose you love chocolate ice cream but then you discover chocolate ice cream has a carcinogen that greatly increases your risk of testicular cancer. You will decide there and then to forego your gustatory indulgence. That CHOICE is consistent with your understanding of determinism and free will. If not please distinguish.

[Unseen]

jakelafort wrote:

Unseen, we all make appear to make choices and judges for whom conscientious decision making is characteristic will react to the revelation. I don’t see anything in my hypothetical that is inconsistent with the absence of free will. Lets suppose you love chocolate ice cream but then you discover chocolate ice cream has a carcinogen that greatly increases your risk of testicular cancer. You will decide there and then to forego your gustatory indulgence. That CHOICE is consistent with your understanding of determinism and free will. If not please distinguish.

You are still talking as if you make a decision. No. Rather, your behavior changes. That is a more accurate description.

[Author]

Posts