Psychology foundation

Can philosophers help resolve the real problems that people have in their lives?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Nov 08, 2014 11:11 pm

Ginkgo wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Ginkgo, would you say that contained within it's history, as human kinds understanding of the mind becomes clearer, so does their understanding of the human psyche?

I'm sure you know where, I 'stand' on hammers.
I think science has gone a long way to explaining consciousness. So much so that people such as Dennett believe all the hard work is just about done. To my way of thinking Dennett's book "Consciousness Explained" reflects that belief. Science has provided the answers and will continue to provide the answers within the current framework.

On the other hand, people such as Jesse Prinz take philosophy of mind seriously, while at the same time adopting a scientific approach. As neurophilosophers they believe there is still a lot of work to be done. I am not saying Dennett doesn't take philosophy of mind seriously, after all he is a philosopher. It just seems to me he is putting all his eggs into the current scientific framework.

P.S.

At the risk of trivializing the issue we could say that science gives us a third person account of consciousness, while at the same time ignoring the first person account. In fact, science says the first person account is just an illusion. Prinz on the other hand, sees some merit in the first person account. After all it is a bit hard to ignore. Basically, he has come up with a theory that incorporates a first person and third person account that 'softens' the somewhat harsh and illusory objective account of consciousness.
I hear you, yet you have not directly answered my question, as to sciences influencing one another so that they support one another, and/or correct one another, so that as adjacent sciences grow so does another. Obviously, I believe so. You?

HexHammer
Posts: 2834
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by HexHammer » Sat Nov 08, 2014 11:24 pm

Ginkgo wrote:
HexHammer wrote:I just think you listen to the wrong crowd, psychology seems very underestimated by many.
True, but I guess that much of psychology takes it for granted that first person accounts are real -individual or collective.

See my P.S. on my last posting to Spheres.
Your P.S. doesn't really make sense, it sounds very sketchy. Could you be a bit more specific please?

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by Gee » Sat Nov 08, 2014 11:53 pm

Ginkgo wrote:
HexHammer wrote:It's always good to know psychology, eventually humans will be involved in the end result, I don't really know of any project that doesn't involve humans in one way or other.

..but why would anyone reasonable intelligent waste time on philosophical counseling? Philosophy is outdated, deal with it!
Psychology is largely a "soft science" because it deals with the human mind. Science is making steady progress when it comes to understanding such things such as consciousness. Until all the work is eventually finalized at some stage well into the future, philosophy will be relevant for a while to come.
Ginkgo;

It is true that science can not with any accuracy state where the mind is located, what it is made up of, or even prove that it exists, so of course, they would consider study of the mind as a soft science. What amazes me is that science does not seem to have any problem with using this 'soft science mind' to create and test their 'hard science'. That always gives me a chuckle.

HexHammer;

It is true that many people believe that philosophy has outlived itself, even Steven Hawkins stated that philosophy is dead. This just goes to show that even the brightest minds can be wrong.

Religion can not replace philosophy because it is more interested in faith than in truth. Science can not replace philosophy because it does not seem to understand that although facts are true, they are not truth. Facts, just like everything else, need to be interpreted. Science uses facts and the rational aspect of mind to test and prove their ideas, and has not yet figured out that the rational aspect of mind is the biggest liar on planet, Earth, so things that can be proven true, are often in fact not true.

As long as there are people using their rational minds to learn about ourselves and nature, we will need philosophy. So Philosophy will be necessary as long as there are people, and when there are no people, then no one will care.

Gee

HexHammer
Posts: 2834
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by HexHammer » Sun Nov 09, 2014 12:05 am

Gee wrote:HexHammer;

It is true that many people believe that philosophy has outlived itself, even Steven Hawkins stated that philosophy is dead. This just goes to show that even the brightest minds can be wrong.

Religion can not replace philosophy because it is more interested in faith than in truth. Science can not replace philosophy because it does not seem to understand that although facts are true, they are not truth. Facts, just like everything else, need to be interpreted. Science uses facts and the rational aspect of mind to test and prove their ideas, and has not yet figured out that the rational aspect of mind is the biggest liar on planet, Earth, so things that can be proven true, are often in fact not true.

As long as there are people using their rational minds to learn about ourselves and nature, we will need philosophy. So Philosophy will be necessary as long as there are people, and when there are no people, then no one will care.

Gee
Uhmm, could you please provide proof that what you say is true, and not just some personal delusion?

Ginkgo
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by Ginkgo » Sun Nov 09, 2014 12:08 am

Ginkgo wrote:
When science talks about first person account being an illusion it is largely referring to the fact that consciousness is dis-unified because there is no neural core of consciousness then the first person account must be some type of illusion. From my point of view this 'illusory' aspect is unsatisfactory.
Gee, I probably should leave it there. Science of consciousness appears to to very good in terms of telling us what consciousness isn't. It finds it more difficult to actually say what consciousness is. The "Illusory" aspect of consciousness is not a statement for the non-existence of consciousness. As Dennett says, "Consciousness is really a bunch of tricks." Again, I find this unsatisfactory.
Last edited by Ginkgo on Sun Nov 09, 2014 12:58 am, edited 4 times in total.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by Ginkgo » Sun Nov 09, 2014 12:13 am

HexHammer wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:
HexHammer wrote:I just think you listen to the wrong crowd, psychology seems very underestimated by many.
True, but I guess that much of psychology takes it for granted that first person accounts are real -individual or collective.

See my P.S. on my last posting to Spheres.
Your P.S. doesn't really make sense, it sounds very sketchy. Could you be a bit more specific please?
Basically, I think that psychology can be very useful in delivering a theory of consciousness, but it cannot give us a complete theory.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by Ginkgo » Sun Nov 09, 2014 12:15 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Ginkgo, would you say that contained within it's history, as human kinds understanding of the mind becomes clearer, so does their understanding of the human psyche?

I'm sure you know where, I 'stand' on hammers.
I think science has gone a long way to explaining consciousness. So much so that people such as Dennett believe all the hard work is just about done. To my way of thinking Dennett's book "Consciousness Explained" reflects that belief. Science has provided the answers and will continue to provide the answers within the current framework.

On the other hand, people such as Jesse Prinz take philosophy of mind seriously, while at the same time adopting a scientific approach. As neurophilosophers they believe there is still a lot of work to be done. I am not saying Dennett doesn't take philosophy of mind seriously, after all he is a philosopher. It just seems to me he is putting all his eggs into the current scientific framework.

P.S.

At the risk of trivializing the issue we could say that science gives us a third person account of consciousness, while at the same time ignoring the first person account. In fact, science says the first person account is just an illusion. Prinz on the other hand, sees some merit in the first person account. After all it is a bit hard to ignore. Basically, he has come up with a theory that incorporates a first person and third person account that 'softens' the somewhat harsh and illusory objective account of consciousness.
I hear you, yet you have not directly answered my question, as to sciences influencing one another so that they support one another, and/or correct one another, so that as adjacent sciences grow so does another. Obviously, I believe so. You?
I think so as well.

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by Gee » Sun Nov 09, 2014 12:34 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Should one be well versed in psychology before doing philosophical counseling? Also what forms of philosophy would be most suitable for counseling purposes?

PhilX
Phil;

I had never heard of 'philosophical counseling' and thought that you were making chit up. But no, it does exist. My first impression, just by the name, is negative. Consider that a 'counselor' is actually an advisor, and philosophy is a study of truth and knowledge, so it appears that a philosophical counselor would be in a position to advise someone as to truth and knowledge. It seems that this would be a great opportunity for 'brain washing' or to induce someone to agree with your beliefs as religions do.

One of the first things that I looked for when investigating this, was whether or not there is an organization that supervises and oversees this 'counseling'. It appears that there is not. Considering this, I would not want a person 'well versed' in psychology, I would want a person who is licensed to practice psychology. If they had a license, then I would assume that they had the training necessary to prevent overt manipulations of a person's mind, and they would have a license that they can lose if they stepped out of line.

As to philosophy, there are areas of study and there are different methods, and lots of 'isms' and many people follow the ideas of a single philosopher, but I am not sure what you mean by 'forms of philosophy'.

Some of the philosophical counselors use the Socratic Method to help people find truth, and it is true that the Socratic Method is very much like Freud's analysis. But again, a person can lead you to a place where you need to go with their questions, or they can lead you to a place where they want you to go. Some of the people also thought that the Socratic ideas of virtue and integrity were of value, but again, this could lead to something close to a religious ethic.

So I see a great potential for corruption in this new Philosophical Counseling.

Gee

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by Gee » Sun Nov 09, 2014 1:05 am

HexHammer wrote:
Gee wrote:HexHammer;

It is true that many people believe that philosophy has outlived itself, even Steven Hawkins stated that philosophy is dead. This just goes to show that even the brightest minds can be wrong.

Religion can not replace philosophy because it is more interested in faith than in truth. Science can not replace philosophy because it does not seem to understand that although facts are true, they are not truth. Facts, just like everything else, need to be interpreted. Science uses facts and the rational aspect of mind to test and prove their ideas, and has not yet figured out that the rational aspect of mind is the biggest liar on planet, Earth, so things that can be proven true, are often in fact not true.

As long as there are people using their rational minds to learn about ourselves and nature, we will need philosophy. So Philosophy will be necessary as long as there are people, and when there are no people, then no one will care.

Gee
Uhmm, could you please provide proof that what you say is true, and not just some personal delusion?
HexHammer;

Would you like proof that "It is true that many people believe that philosophy has outlived itself . . .", or would you like proof that ". . . when there are no people, then no one will care.", or proof of something in between?

I have worked in many science forums and am very aware of the game where a member claims that a person's statements are 'delusional', then has that person jumping around like a jack rabbit to various sites in order to 'prove' their 'delusion'. I do not play that silly game. If a person can not articulate their ideas well enough to show where we are in disagreement, so that we can have a philosophical discussion regarding the disagreement, then they are not worth my time.

If I have mistaken your intent, then I sincerely apologize. Tell me what you specifically object to, and I will do my best to show you the proof that you request.

Gee

HexHammer
Posts: 2834
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by HexHammer » Sun Nov 09, 2014 1:55 am

Dear Gee since you claim to have this insight you should very well know what I mean, else you fail at your own game.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4441
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Sun Nov 09, 2014 6:19 pm

HexHammer wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:I found a Wiki link on the Milgram experiment (I had pointed out the importance of spelling before. Even if the spellchecker does point out that the additional L is wrong, one would strengthen his position by using the right spelling).

Here's the link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Oh still being the complete retard, you found it regardless of bad spelling, only showing that you don't comprehend the nature of relevance.

Even if you read the whole of Milgram Experiment on wiki you will not grasp the nature of it, as the wiki article is very incomplete and retards like yourself won't comprehends such deep things.
Just look in the mirror if you want to get a true picture of a retard or complete retard.

What you missed is that there are others who may miss what the internet offers about the Milgram experiment.

PhilX

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sun Nov 09, 2014 6:22 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
HexHammer wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:I found a Wiki link on the Milgram experiment (I had pointed out the importance of spelling before. Even if the spellchecker does point out that the additional L is wrong, one would strengthen his position by using the right spelling).

Here's the link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Oh still being the complete retard, you found it regardless of bad spelling, only showing that you don't comprehend the nature of relevance.

Even if you read the whole of Milgram Experiment on wiki you will not grasp the nature of it, as the wiki article is very incomplete and retards like yourself won't comprehends such deep things.
Just look in the mirror if you want to get a true picture of a retard or complete retard.

What you missed is that there are others who may miss what the internet offers about the Milgram experiment.

PhilX
No one is a retard! Some are just not very socially savvy. PhilX try and remain above HH, ignore his childishness, especially name calling, have faith in your arguments.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4441
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Sun Nov 09, 2014 6:55 pm

Gee wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:Should one be well versed in psychology before doing philosophical counseling? Also what forms of philosophy would be most suitable for counseling purposes?

PhilX
Phil;

I had never heard of 'philosophical counseling' and thought that you were making chit up. But no, it does exist. My first impression, just by the name, is negative. Consider that a 'counselor' is actually an advisor, and philosophy is a study of truth and knowledge, so it appears that a philosophical counselor would be in a position to advise someone as to truth and knowledge. It seems that this would be a great opportunity for 'brain washing' or to induce someone to agree with your beliefs as religions do.

One of the first things that I looked for when investigating this, was whether or not there is an organization that supervises and oversees this 'counseling'. It appears that there is not. Considering this, I would not want a person 'well versed' in psychology, I would want a person who is licensed to practice psychology. If they had a license, then I would assume that they had the training necessary to prevent overt manipulations of a person's mind, and they would have a license that they can lose if they stepped out of line.

As to philosophy, there are areas of study and there are different methods, and lots of 'isms' and many people follow the ideas of a single philosopher, but I am not sure what you mean by 'forms of philosophy'.

Some of the philosophical counselors use the Socratic Method to help people find truth, and it is true that the Socratic Method is very much like Freud's analysis. But again, a person can lead you to a place where you need to go with their questions, or they can lead you to a place where they want you to go. Some of the people also thought that the Socratic ideas of virtue and integrity were of value, but again, this could lead to something close to a religious ethic.

So I see a great potential for corruption in this new Philosophical Counseling.

Gee
Hi Gee,

Addressing you specifically, and others as well. Are there any major colleges and universities that offer courses on philosophical counseling? Do you think it would be helpful to set standards to avoid corruption? Or do you think we risk limiting our freedom to explore and investigate by setting such standards? Do you have any ideas what the standards should be?

PhilX

Skip
Posts: 2224
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by Skip » Sun Nov 09, 2014 7:58 pm

Gee - Some of the philosophical counselors use the Socratic Method to help people find truth, and it is true that the Socratic Method is very much like Freud's analysis. But again, a person can lead you to a place where you need to go with their questions, or they can lead you to a place where they want you to go. Some of the people also thought that the Socratic ideas of virtue and integrity were of value, but again, this could lead to something close to a religious ethic.
Ah! I didn't know about that. I can see some point to it. In an era of so many contradictions and sources of propaganda, having a single coherent world-view whereby one could set a standard of judgment and a basis for decisions, might be useful. (See how happy the Libertarians are!) Even more useful would be to lead confused people to some central principles they themselves believe; that would bolster their self-awareness and identity.

At least, it can't be as crazy-making as: "God is Love. God wants you to kill brown people."
Sure, it can be corrupted, but not as easily as the more authoritarian systems of thought.
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Addressing you specifically, and others as well. Are there any major colleges and universities that offer courses on philosophical counseling? Do you think it would be helpful to set standards to avoid corruption? Or do you think we risk limiting our freedom to explore and investigate by setting such standards? Do you have any ideas what the standards should be?

PhilX
I can't imagine an authority competent to make those limiting decisio0ns and set those conditions without prejudice. I say, leave it alone to evolve if it's viable, die if it's not. There is little enough creative exploration going in these days!

Ginkgo
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by Ginkgo » Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:40 pm

Gee wrote:
It is true that science can not with any accuracy state where the mind is located, what it is made up of, or even prove that it exists, so of course, they would consider study of the mind as a soft science. What amazes me is that science does not seem to have any problem with using this 'soft science mind' to create and test their 'hard science'. That always gives me a chuckle.


Gee

In trying to add a postscript to my original reply I managed to delete it, so I thought I would repeat it- for what it's worth.

Science tells us that the 'mind' is located in the brain. It's all about spike trains, we have all of this sensory information entering into our brains. There is a welling up of information that need to go somewhere and the place it goes must be the neural core of consciousness. The place whereby we make sense of the world from a first person perspective. It is the 'I' who is the observer of the world.

Science now tells us that in fact there is no neural core of consciousness and that information we receive from the outside world via our senses doesn't go to any one location. In fact it seems as though consciousness is dis-unified rather than unified. So what about the first person perspective?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests