Philosophy of Mind

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by RCSaunders »

jayjacobus wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:25 pm Writers on this forum should understand psychology so that they can influence people effectively.

Here are some schools of psychology that should be understood:

1. Behavior psychology focus on the stimulus-response behaviors. According to this theory, all behaviors are learned through interactions with the environment including human interaction. Influencing people’s behavior comes natural to parents, leaders and marketing professionals. Studying behavior theories can improve results.

2. Psychodynamic psychology focuses on subconscious drivers like the ID, ego and libido. Teaching people how to manage these drivers will give them more control over their thoughts and behaviors.

3. Humanist psychology encourages patients to guide their own therapy by creating a partnership with the psychologist.

4. Biological psychology recognizes that people should protect and enhance their abilities to deal with life.

5. Cognitive psychology focuses on underlying mind sets that can be changed to better deal with problems and opportunities.
Oh, I agree. Everyone should study psychology, but not so they can influence others, which it is none of their business to do in the first place, but to protect their minds from being warped by the academic pseudo-science of psychology, second only to philosophy and religion as a source of wrong ideas. You missed one of the worst forms of psychobable promoted today, # 6. evolutionary psychology.

In fact you missed a whole passel of psychological quackery, including all these different, "psychologies:" Sigmund Freud's, Anna Freud's, Erik Erikson's, Jean Piaget's, John B. Watson's, B.F. Skinner's, Carl Rogers', and Abraham Maslow's, for example. No real science consists of endless hypotheses that all disagree with each other.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the history of psychology, beginning with Wundt, who confused physiological (neurological behavior) with consciousness. Then followed the train of hucksters that cashed-in on the big lie that someone's testimony was studying their, "psyche," or, "consciousness," including G. Stanley Hall, (founder of the American Journal of Psychology) John Dewey, William James, Wilhelm Reich and Erich Fromm (Frankfurt School cultural Marxists), Benjamin Bloom, Dr. G. Brock Chisholm, Dr. Jose M.R. Delgado, Dr. John Rawlings Rees, and Edward Thorndike (very appropriately, a eugenicist).

If you've read and studied these founders and promoters of psychology you know each and every one is a total crackpot, most with social/political agendas who have done irreparable harm to everything they have influenced. All of psychology is like the, "Bible of Psychology," itself, the, DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), which all psychologists depend on for their, "diagnosis," of so-called mental diseases. The DSM, consists entirely of, "disorders," and, "diseases," invented by psychologists submitted for inclusion in each revised version of the manual, (the latest is the fifth), entirely without any research or evidence and determined solely by a vote of the psychologists involved. And that's put over as science.

Yes, you should certainly study psychology. Only those who are directly involved in that industry or those who have not really studied it are not taken in by the fraud.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 6:33 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:25 pm Writers on this forum should understand psychology so that they can influence people effectively.

Here are some schools of psychology that should be understood:

1. Behavior psychology focus on the stimulus-response behaviors. According to this theory, all behaviors are learned through interactions with the environment including human interaction. Influencing people’s behavior comes natural to parents, leaders and marketing professionals. Studying behavior theories can improve results.

2. Psychodynamic psychology focuses on subconscious drivers like the ID, ego and libido. Teaching people how to manage these drivers will give them more control over their thoughts and behaviors.

3. Humanist psychology encourages patients to guide their own therapy by creating a partnership with the psychologist.

4. Biological psychology recognizes that people should protect and enhance their abilities to deal with life.

5. Cognitive psychology focuses on underlying mind sets that can be changed to better deal with problems and opportunities.
Oh, I agree. Everyone should study psychology, but not so they can influence others, which it is none of their business to do in the first place, but to protect their minds from being warped by the academic pseudo-science of psychology, second only to philosophy and religion as a source of wrong ideas. You missed one of the worst forms of psychobable promoted today, # 6. evolutionary psychology.

In fact you missed a whole passel of psychological quackery, including all these different, "psychologies:" Sigmund Freud's, Anna Freud's, Erik Erikson's, Jean Piaget's, John B. Watson's, B.F. Skinner's, Carl Rogers', and Abraham Maslow's, for example. No real science consists of endless hypotheses that all disagree with each other.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the history of psychology, beginning with Wundt, who confused physiological (neurological behavior) with consciousness. Then followed the train of hucksters that cashed-in on the big lie that someone's testimony was studying their, "psyche," or, "consciousness," including G. Stanley Hall, (founder of the American Journal of Psychology) John Dewey, William James, Wilhelm Reich and Erich Fromm (Frankfurt School cultural Marxists), Benjamin Bloom, Dr. G. Brock Chisholm, Dr. Jose M.R. Delgado, Dr. John Rawlings Rees, and Edward Thorndike (very appropriately, a eugenicist).

If you've read and studied these founders and promoters of psychology you know each and every one is a total crackpot, most with social/political agendas who have done irreparable harm to everything they have influenced. All of psychology is like the, "Bible of Psychology," itself, the, DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), which all psychologists depend on for their, "diagnosis," of so-called mental diseases. The DSM, consists entirely of, "disorders," and, "diseases," invented by psychologists submitted for inclusion in each revised version of the manual, (the latest is the fifth), entirely without any research or evidence and determined solely by a vote of the psychologists involved. And that's put over as science.

Yes, you should certainly study psychology. Only those who are directly involved in that industry or those who have not really studied it are not taken in by the fraud.
All academic disciplines evolve.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 10:52 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 6:33 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:25 pm Writers on this forum should understand psychology so that they can influence people effectively.

Here are some schools of psychology that should be understood:

1. Behavior psychology focus on the stimulus-response behaviors. According to this theory, all behaviors are learned through interactions with the environment including human interaction. Influencing people’s behavior comes natural to parents, leaders and marketing professionals. Studying behavior theories can improve results.

2. Psychodynamic psychology focuses on subconscious drivers like the ID, ego and libido. Teaching people how to manage these drivers will give them more control over their thoughts and behaviors.

3. Humanist psychology encourages patients to guide their own therapy by creating a partnership with the psychologist.

4. Biological psychology recognizes that people should protect and enhance their abilities to deal with life.

5. Cognitive psychology focuses on underlying mind sets that can be changed to better deal with problems and opportunities.
Oh, I agree. Everyone should study psychology, but not so they can influence others, which it is none of their business to do in the first place, but to protect their minds from being warped by the academic pseudo-science of psychology, second only to philosophy and religion as a source of wrong ideas. You missed one of the worst forms of psychobable promoted today, # 6. evolutionary psychology.

In fact you missed a whole passel of psychological quackery, including all these different, "psychologies:" Sigmund Freud's, Anna Freud's, Erik Erikson's, Jean Piaget's, John B. Watson's, B.F. Skinner's, Carl Rogers', and Abraham Maslow's, for example. No real science consists of endless hypotheses that all disagree with each other.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the history of psychology, beginning with Wundt, who confused physiological (neurological behavior) with consciousness. Then followed the train of hucksters that cashed-in on the big lie that someone's testimony was studying their, "psyche," or, "consciousness," including G. Stanley Hall, (founder of the American Journal of Psychology) John Dewey, William James, Wilhelm Reich and Erich Fromm (Frankfurt School cultural Marxists), Benjamin Bloom, Dr. G. Brock Chisholm, Dr. Jose M.R. Delgado, Dr. John Rawlings Rees, and Edward Thorndike (very appropriately, a eugenicist).

If you've read and studied these founders and promoters of psychology you know each and every one is a total crackpot, most with social/political agendas who have done irreparable harm to everything they have influenced. All of psychology is like the, "Bible of Psychology," itself, the, DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), which all psychologists depend on for their, "diagnosis," of so-called mental diseases. The DSM, consists entirely of, "disorders," and, "diseases," invented by psychologists submitted for inclusion in each revised version of the manual, (the latest is the fifth), entirely without any research or evidence and determined solely by a vote of the psychologists involved. And that's put over as science.

Yes, you should certainly study psychology. Only those who are directly involved in that industry or those who have not really studied it are not taken in by the fraud.
All academic disciplines evolve.
Like diseases.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 2:58 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 10:52 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 6:33 pm
Oh, I agree. Everyone should study psychology, but not so they can influence others, which it is none of their business to do in the first place, but to protect their minds from being warped by the academic pseudo-science of psychology, second only to philosophy and religion as a source of wrong ideas. You missed one of the worst forms of psychobable promoted today, # 6. evolutionary psychology.

In fact you missed a whole passel of psychological quackery, including all these different, "psychologies:" Sigmund Freud's, Anna Freud's, Erik Erikson's, Jean Piaget's, John B. Watson's, B.F. Skinner's, Carl Rogers', and Abraham Maslow's, for example. No real science consists of endless hypotheses that all disagree with each other.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the history of psychology, beginning with Wundt, who confused physiological (neurological behavior) with consciousness. Then followed the train of hucksters that cashed-in on the big lie that someone's testimony was studying their, "psyche," or, "consciousness," including G. Stanley Hall, (founder of the American Journal of Psychology) John Dewey, William James, Wilhelm Reich and Erich Fromm (Frankfurt School cultural Marxists), Benjamin Bloom, Dr. G. Brock Chisholm, Dr. Jose M.R. Delgado, Dr. John Rawlings Rees, and Edward Thorndike (very appropriately, a eugenicist).

If you've read and studied these founders and promoters of psychology you know each and every one is a total crackpot, most with social/political agendas who have done irreparable harm to everything they have influenced. All of psychology is like the, "Bible of Psychology," itself, the, DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), which all psychologists depend on for their, "diagnosis," of so-called mental diseases. The DSM, consists entirely of, "disorders," and, "diseases," invented by psychologists submitted for inclusion in each revised version of the manual, (the latest is the fifth), entirely without any research or evidence and determined solely by a vote of the psychologists involved. And that's put over as science.

Yes, you should certainly study psychology. Only those who are directly involved in that industry or those who have not really studied it are not taken in by the fraud.
All academic disciplines evolve.
Like diseases.
You are neither a bacterium or an academic discipline. Men evolve mainly by means of good ideas.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 3:41 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 2:58 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 10:52 am

All academic disciplines evolve.
Like diseases.
You are neither a bacterium or an academic discipline. Men evolve mainly by means of good ideas.
Decide what you are talking about. Is it, academic disciplines, or, "men?"

Men don't evolve, they learn.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 4:06 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 3:41 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 2:58 pm
Like diseases.
You are neither a bacterium or an academic discipline. Men evolve mainly by means of good ideas.
Decide what you are talking about. Is it, academic disciplines, or, "men?"

Men don't evolve, they learn.
Men evolve mostly by learning i.e. their cultures, whereas other species evolve mostly by biological breeding .
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by Advocate »

Learning is just evolving with extra steps.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by Belinda »

Advocate wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 10:42 pm Learning is just evolving with extra steps.
Cultural evolution and biological evolution are each mechanisms of evolution. Deliberate breeding of humans and other species is a bit of one and a bit of the other.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by popeye1945 »

Mind is reactionary perception, a compound reaction/chain reaction to the physical world that involves the entire organism.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 12:15 am Mind is reactionary perception, a compound reaction/chain reaction to the physical world that involves the entire organism.
The ontology of mind may be as you say nevertheless memory and reason have enabled human cultures to evolve the species far faster than genetic natural selection could evolve the species.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 9:16 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 12:15 am Mind is reactionary perception, a compound reaction/chain reaction to the physical world that involves the entire organism.
The ontology of mind may be as you say nevertheless memory and reason have enabled human cultures to evolve the species far faster than genetic natural selection could evolve the species.
Hi Belinda,

Society and/or culture are biological extensions in the physical world not unlike the beaver's dam is a product of its biological nature. To be sure there is a reciprocation from the created to the creator but it remains biology reacting to its own creation. In the same way, art is an expression/extension of the biological nature of the artist speaking to the innate biological order of the patron of that art form.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 1:09 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 9:16 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 12:15 am Mind is reactionary perception, a compound reaction/chain reaction to the physical world that involves the entire organism.
The ontology of mind may be as you say nevertheless memory and reason have enabled human cultures to evolve the species far faster than genetic natural selection could evolve the species.
Hi Belinda,

Society and/or culture are biological extensions in the physical world not unlike the beaver's dam is a product of its biological nature. To be sure there is a reciprocation from the created to the creator but it remains biology reacting to its own creation. In the same way, art is an expression/extension of the biological nature of the artist speaking to the innate biological order of the patron of that art form.
But beavers don't write down instructions for or make heroic poems about their constructions of gnawed branches. Possibly beaver mothers of cubs teach the cubs what is not instinctive for the cubs but this transmission if information is slight compared with the transmission of information that we call human culture. You mention art for instance. Art forms are media for transmission of information which are peculiar to humans and which store, transmit, and evolve info through the generations.

I don't deny that humans same as other species evolve biologically as well as culturally. However human cultures are means for artificial selection as in breeding of food crops, although only the eugenics fanatics want to wittingly select for specific traits.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by popeye1945 »

[/quote]But beavers don't write down instructions for or make heroic poems about their constructions of gnawed branches. Possibly beaver mothers of cubs teach the cubs what is not instinctive for the cubs but this transmission if information is slight compared with the transmission of information that we call human culture. You mention art for instance. Art forms are media for transmission of information which are peculiar to humans and which store, transmit, and evolve info through the generations.

I don't deny that humans same as other species evolve biologically as well as culturally. However human cultures are means for artificial selection as in breeding of food crops, although only the eugenics fanatics want to wittingly select for specific traits.
[/quote]

Belinda,
The beaver's culture is quite in line with its biology. Eugenics will always be a scary subject due to past history, people are even frightened of suggesting reasonable attempts at lessening human suffering through such means, it so evokes images of the horrific inhumanity of the passed. Culture produces vast memes read ideas in its evolutionary nature, stimulating ever more cognitive development. Although Republicans tend to take us all back to primordial times---lol!! Something has gone amiss in the land of free the home of the brave. What do you think of a culture that would produce today's Republican party and the Christian right-wing---duh!! The global community is frightened!!!!!
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:02 pm
But beavers don't write down instructions for or make heroic poems about their constructions of gnawed branches. Possibly beaver mothers of cubs teach the cubs what is not instinctive for the cubs but this transmission if information is slight compared with the transmission of information that we call human culture. You mention art for instance. Art forms are media for transmission of information which are peculiar to humans and which store, transmit, and evolve info through the generations.

I don't deny that humans same as other species evolve biologically as well as culturally. However human cultures are means for artificial selection as in breeding of food crops, although only the eugenics fanatics want to wittingly select for specific traits.
[/quote]

Belinda,
The beaver's culture is quite in line with its biology. Eugenics will always be a scary subject due to past history, people are even frightened of suggesting reasonable attempts at lessening human suffering through such means, it so evokes images of the horrific inhumanity of the passed. Culture produces vast memes read ideas in its evolutionary nature, stimulating ever more cognitive development. Although Republicans tend to take us all back to primordial times---lol!! Something has gone amiss in the land of free the home of the brave. What do you think of a culture that would produce today's Republican party and the Christian right-wing---duh!! The global community is frightened!!!!!
[/quote]
The Christian right-wing and other conservative ideologies pertain to a) people who are accustomed to someone in authority over them and who don't like to change traditional ways of belief and practice and b) people who become politically powerful through pretending to the a) people that they are safe in the hands of right-wing authorities.

Fear is a powerful motivation that tends to make people selfish and conservative in their thinking and behaviour . Short termism in politics and religious observance correlates with fears for the future and retreat into superstition.
trokanmariel
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by trokanmariel »

The universe's revelation, to the mind of humanity, especially of left-wing transcendence's sexual invitation to human adults, is that to get to the brown legs-only cigar smoking of Brittney Havers (from Wild Things 2), the human adult population needs (especially through the public's activation, of the political activation of sociology texts to physics texts, within my mind) my need of Brittney Havers (an Intelligence For Basic manifesto creation, from the theology database manifesto of Thomas Heath only knows intelligence when Havers wants him to).

To explore the identity, of this revelation:
To create the human-population-needs formula, in relation to Brittney Havers, the process includes the formula dimension's socialist offering of the singularity passover; this passover, consists of the symmetry shield (not daylight) being over the right-wing politics of ancient body glamour as bridge to the public consciousness's moral aristocracy apparatus (of course, there is the pendulum approval of right-wing politics-to-public aristocracy).

Politics to public - it is a metaphysics, of Havers' cigar smoking being a theme of correlation to pull out and sub.

Next, since the symmetry, of pendulum approval to metaphysics is using a celebrity citation, of the ancient body glamour's tradition of magic self equals reality self (a Susan Ward reference), there is the Peek-A-Boo (God) political ambition, to deny people's left-wing transcendence as sexual invitation to human adults, of its formula capacity to distil Havers' reception by humanity and the abstract reception of humanity by Thomas Heath's right-wing master (the creator of outer space, from the right hand side of it, but still equipped with the political ideology of capitalism as independent from metaphysics access to metaphysics capitalism), in order for Peek-A-Boo to create the rejection of cloning as rejection of symmetry long con (the premise, of the long con, being Thomas Heath's ability to know person to person metaphysics as an inverse, to Mason Dertry's destruction of soul matter after people die being from his sexual aristocrat grab of the right-wing master's creation of concepts).

Finally, to overcome Peek-A-Boo and Mason Dertry, there is the ancient body glamour state's psychology machine:
the political mission, within the psychology of Thomas, to receive data when the apathy to anti creation by the right-wing master is using the very same pendulum



For Leslie Nielson
Post Reply