Objectivism and Psychology

[howardofski]

Which part of "don't expect to be taken seriously" suggests that I'm gonna take you up on this?

I never expect to be taken seriously or otherwise since I don't engage in psychobabble and can have no idea how you might take anything I say. My purpose is to say what I think is true, clearly and briefly and offer evidence when it is requested. If you have time to tell me how you're not taking me seriously, but don't have time to offer evidence for your claims to be able to study the minds of others, then so be it, but I suspect you don't have any such evidence.

[Spiral Architect]

I read thorugh this the best I can and frankly I have no idea what the hell it is supposed to be about.

 

Are we discussing...

 

1. Psychology as a non-science (which makes no sense unless you assume conciousness does not exist and therefor cannot be studied like every other existent so I have no idea what this is supposed to mean)

 

2. Objectivism using psychology as a weapon 50 years ago before the Rand-Brandon split (which would be interesting but the conversation seems to imply this happens today which contradict my own expereince outsode of a few odd instances)?

 

3. Trolling (which would be invalid since the tone is accusitory for some odd reason but likely linked to the above two in some form)

Edited February 25, 2014 by Spiral Architect

[howardofski]

Are we discussing...

 

1. Psychology as a non-science (which makes no sense unless you assume conciousness does not exist and therefor cannot be studied like every other existent so I have no idea what this is supposed to mean)

Let us just deal with this one point you raise. Consciousness is not an existent, it is mental action; it is that for which existents are the subject. Ayn began her thinking with Conciousness AND Existence. I can be conscious of existence, but cannot be conscious of another consciousness. The fact of consciousness certainly does not lead to the conclusion that I can study any consciousness other than my own.

I have consistently been criticizing the non-science of studying "the" mind, meaning more than one mind. I have been consistently saying that I can only "study" my own and this does not amount to a science in any conventional sense of the term. Ayn said that a consciousness aware of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms.

How do you make a science out of one consciousness referring to itself?

How do you make a science out of that which you can not be conscious of (other minds)?

All you will ever be conscious of are objects, their actions, and the contents of your own mind.

Edited February 25, 2014 by howardofski

[Eiuol]

How do you make a science out of that which you can not be conscious of (other minds)?

I might be a zombie! Or maybe you are? I'll never know I guess.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

[oso]

I might be a zombie! Or maybe you are? I'll never know I guess.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

Maybe the way you see red is the way I see green. Of course, that's completely arbitrary, but if it's impossible to know anything about a consciousness you don't experience yourself, why not?

[Spiral Architect]

Let us just deal with this one point you raise. Consciousness is not an existent, it is mental action; it is that for which existents are the subject. Ayn began her thinking with Conciousness AND Existence. I can be conscious of existence, but cannot be conscious of another consciousness. The fact of consciousness certainly does not lead to the conclusion that I can study any consciousness other than my own.

I have consistently been criticizing the non-science of studying "the" mind, meaning more than one mind. I have been consistently saying that I can only "study" my own and this does not amount to a science in any conventional sense of the term. Ayn said that a consciousness aware of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms.

How do you make a science out of one consciousness referring to itself?

How do you make a science out of that which you can not be conscious of (other minds)?

All you will ever be conscious of are objects, their actions, and the contents of your own mind.

 

Wait a minute - You cannot be concious of another concious.  Your not aware of us or our conversation? 

 

Is  this conversation just going on in your head and my answers a product of your concious mind talking to itself?

 

Conciousness does not exist?  It is seperate and outside?  I don't know if that is the Primacy of Conciousness of some imposed segregation. 

 

"All you will ever be conscious of are objects, their actions, and the contents of your own mind."

 

Wait a minute - I'm not aware of your mind either?  Are your  ideas just products of my mind? 

 

I'm lost.  My mind does not exist or it does exist but not as part of existence and so does yours (or not) but we don't know that since we are not aware of each other being aware, only that a body exists doing something we grasp somehow but we cannot study the relationship since we only know our conciousness which does not exist.  Or exists somehow outside of existence seperate but equal to existence. 

 

Seriously. I'm even more confused. 

 

Plus your misrepresenting Objectivism on this but I can't even get into that since I have yet to untangel the above.

[howardofski]

"All you will ever be conscious of are objects, their actions, and the contents of your own mind."

 

Wait a minute - I'm not aware of your mind either?  Are your  ideas just products of my mind? 

 

I'm lost.

You do not know the content of my mind. You may know my written words (if you read carefully). I am not misrepresenting Objectivism. The very name refers to objects. Do you really believe you are reading minds when you are reading words? If so, you are indeed lost.

Edited February 25, 2014 by howardofski

[howardofski]

I'm lost.  My mind does not exist or it does exist but not as part of existence and so does yours (or not) but we don't know that since we are not aware of each other being aware, only that a body exists doing something we grasp somehow but we cannot study the relationship since we only know our conciousness which does not exist.  Or exists somehow outside of existence seperate but equal to existence....I have yet to untangel the above.

I can't help you untangle that mess - you made it. If you would like to understand what I am writing, it is to be found in my several posts above.

[howardofski]

...if it's impossible to know anything about a consciousness you don't experience yourself, why not?

Because you don't experience it. Objectivism is about experiencing objects and their actions and reasoning from there. You do not read minds. You observe behavior. There is an important difference.

In obvious examples, you can say "I know he has a mind and it is capable of playing the piano because he is playing one now" or "I know he has a mind because he is conversing", but you cannot know a person's beliefs or motives or feelings, or methods of reasoning, only what they say about such matters. That is why addressing such matters - especially in a debate - is both presumptuous and irrelevant. That presumption is what is often referred to as "psychobabble" - the art of pretending to see into the mind of another. You can't.

[softwareNerd]

Objectivism is about experiencing objects and their actions and reasoning from there. You do not read minds. You observe behavior.

You observe behavior; true. However, knowing human behavior, you can reason from that behavior to infer motive. Nobody will say you can do this unerringly every time, or with any sliver of behavior. Nevertheless, everyone does it all the time, including you. Are you unable to say with any degree of confidence that someone, sometime felt love for you? or respect for you? or anger at you? or fear of you?

This is not Objectivism message, but it is implicit in much of Rand's writing nevertheless. Regardless of whether it is Objectivism, it is simply true that human beings have motives and emotions, and these influence their actions. Thus there is a basis, however imperfect, to work backwards from actions. In addition, people often explain their own thinking, either explicitly of implicitly. This adds to the evidence that one can use to infer what they are thinking.

It is easy to jump the gun and assume all sorts about people's motives. However, that does not mean that one has to give it up as invalid because it is imperfect.

In an earlier post, you explained that you could call a post "humiliating" because that describes the post, not the state of the potential reader. That's a pretty meaningless thing. What does "humiliating" mean without a consciousness? What consciousness-free attribute of the post does it describe? Implicit in the concept of "humiliating" is your guess that the reader will feel humiliated; otherwise, the concept is meaningless.

Edited February 26, 2014 by softwareNerd

[Eiuol]

Because you don't experience it. Objectivism is about experiencing objects and their actions and reasoning from there. You do not read minds. You observe behavior. There is an important difference.

 

Epistemological solipsism

Edited February 26, 2014 by Eiuol

[howardofski]

...Nevertheless, everyone does it all the time, including you. Are you unable to say with any degree of confidence that someone, sometime felt love for you? or respect for you? or anger at you? or fear of you?

This is not Objectivism message, but it is implicit in much of Rand's writing nevertheless. Regardless of whether it is Objectivism, it is simply true that human beings have motives and emotions, and these influence their actions. Thus there is a basis, however imperfect, to work backwards from actions. In addition, people often explain their own thinking, either explicitly of implicitly. This adds to the evidence that one can use to infer what they are thinking.

It is easy to jump the gun and assume all sorts about people's motives. However, that does not mean that one has to give it up as invalid because it is imperfect.

In an earlier post, you explained that you could call a post "humiliating" because that describes the post, not the state of the potential reader. That's a pretty meaningless thing. What does "humiliating" mean without a consciousness? What consciousness-free attribute of the post does it describe? Implicit in the concept of "humiliating" is your guess that the reader will feel humiliated; otherwise, the concept is meaningless.

It is obviously silly for you to tell me that I make the same error that you do all the time. No, I don't. I see that I am loved when someone treats me so. For me love is their behavior. I don't pretend to know their feelings and I don't need to. If someone posts that someone else is an idiot - I say that is a humiliating post. The poster may not have meant it and the postee may not have read it. It is humiliating objectively - by its nature.

You are arguing that because you and others have the habit of reasoning backwards from behavior to an imagined mental state, your habit is a valid science. I don't agree. You argue that it is "simply true that human beings have motives and emotions, and these influence their actions." Perhaps so, but you do not have any way to know what their motives and emotions are, nor which of those are associated with which of their actions. Surely you know of acting, sad clowns, Hollywood.

You also argue that people explain their own thinking and this is further evidence. No it isn't. You are making a mistake common to prosecutors trying to convince a jury that testimony is evidence. It isn't.

You do not need to read minds to live happily with others, and you will understand them more accurately when you stop thinking you can read their minds. You can judge their behavior and observe their patterns of behavior without the unnecessary and error-prone step of pretending to see within them. When it comes to mind, we are surrounded by strangers and it is best (and most courteous) to act accordingly and not presume.

Edited February 26, 2014 by howardofski

[howardofski]

Epistemological solipsism

Cute, but not accurate. Read the Wikipedia entry more carefully.

[softwareNerd]

Surely you know of acting, sad clowns, Hollywood.

You think they're acting?

[Eiuol]

Cute, but not accurate. Read the Wikipedia entry more carefully.

Yup, but it is just the logical conclusion you'd reach. It's reductio ad absurdum. If the only mind you can know about is your own... then you don't even know other minds exist except your own. While epistemological solipsism isn't your exact view, it's pretty close.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Eiuol

[Repairman]

Just as alchemy is not chemistry, psychology is far from an exact science. In this, I agree with Howardoski. However, alchemy was a study that lead to the more exact science of chemistry, and should therefore be granted some degree legitimacy. Furthermore, modern psychiatric studies may be as accurate as meteorology or economics, and just as helpful when approaching real solutions to real problems. Howardoski, I agree with your argument that psychology is a non-science at this point of its development. That is, a non-science in that it is imperfect and extremely difficult to yield empirical evidence. And yet, there has been serious research and concrete evidence that has lead to benefits for some people with very serious mental problems. Once again, psychology is a great deal closer to understanding human behavior than astrology, but given, time more people could understand their own behavior, their own motivation, and perhaps their own happiness.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Repairman

[howardofski]

Yup, but it is just the logical conclusion you'd reach. It's reductio ad absurdum. If the only mind you can know about is your own... then you don't even know other minds exist except your own. While epistemological solipsism isn't your exact view, it's pretty close.

No, it isn't. I have made clear more than once in my posts that there is no doubt that other minds exist - the evidence is obvious and ubiquitous. What I said is that you cannot know their contents. For instance I know you have a mind because you are communicating. I have no idea what you think or what your motives are. You may agree with me and are playing devil's advocate. Or perhaps you don't comprehend what you read very well, but love to argue anyway. I have no way of knowing what's going on in there and I don't pretend I do.

[Spiral Architect]

You do not know the content of my mind. You may know my written words (if you read carefully). I am not misrepresenting Objectivism. The very name refers to objects. Do you really believe you are reading minds when you are reading words? If so, you are indeed lost.

If I know youre written word then I know what you are thinking, unless you are lying but that is a different problem.  We are assuming honest communication here.

 

Objectivism refers to objectively gaining knowledge, which means mind-body integration - Not simply objects.   

 

Words represent concepts and sentinces represt ideas. I'm not lost in my thinking - I just don't get how you can say your mind exists outside of reality.

[Spiral Architect]

I can't help you untangle that mess - you made it. If you would like to understand what I am writing, it is to be found in my several posts above.

 

Your the one who said your conciousness does not exist.  I'm trying to digest the consequences of that statement in order to understand your opinion.  Perhaps if you can clarify how your conciousness does not exist or at least does not exist to others that would help. 

Edited February 26, 2014 by Spiral Architect

[Nicky]

Just as alchemy is not chemistry, psychology is far from an exact science. In this, I agree with Howardoski. However, alchemy was a study that lead to the more exact science of chemistry, and should therefore be granted some degree legitimacy. Furthermore, modern psychiatric studies may be as accurate as meteorology or economics, and just as helpful when approaching real solutions to real problems. Howardoski, I agree with your argument that psychology is a non-science at this point of its development. That is, a non-science in that it is imperfect and extremely difficult to yield empirical evidence. And yet, there has been serious research and concrete evidence that has lead to benefits for some people with very serious mental problems. Once again, psychology is a great deal closer to understanding human behavior than astrology, but given, time more people could understand their own behavior, their own motivation, and perhaps their own happiness.

Whether Psychology as it exists today is science or not is irrelevant to his point. He's claiming that one CANNOT generalize about the human mind, at all. Not that some specific person is wrong in his generalizations.

[howardofski]

Just as alchemy is not chemistry, psychology is far from an exact science. In this, I agree with Howardoski. However, alchemy was a study that lead to the more exact science of chemistry, and should therefore be granted some degree legitimacy. Furthermore, modern psychiatric studies may be as accurate as meteorology or economics, and just as helpful when approaching real solutions to real problems. Howardoski, I agree with your argument that psychology is a non-science at this point of its development. That is, a non-science in that it is imperfect and extremely difficult to yield empirical evidence. And yet, there has been serious research and concrete evidence that has lead to benefits for some people with very serious mental problems. Once again, psychology is a great deal closer to understanding human behavior than astrology, but given, time more people could understand their own behavior, their own motivation, and perhaps their own happiness.

Repairman, I don't discount the possibility that someday there might be a technology of mind reading - a method for one mind to look from the outside into the contents (thoughts - not brain waves)of another.

The epistemological problem occurs when the techs try to verify the accuracy of their mind-reading technology. They will have to rely on the testimony of their subject and testimony is not evidence.

I believe consciousness is - by its very nature - an extremely private and individualistic phenomenon, and would probably be best left that way. For now I see no evidence at all that two minds can share awareness, only information. Awareness is an axiom of Objectivism and objectivism - the awareness of objects and their actions is the starting point for each mind.

My objection here in this forum has been to those debaters who argue as if they can know the contents of the minds of others. This is a lie, in my opinion (leaving aside the possibility that they really can). I think psychobabble is a form of rudeness and that it serves to wreck honest debate because it is irrelevant nonsense.

[howardofski]

You're the one who said your conciousness does not exist.

I said no such thing. Perhaps you should read more carefully what I did say. Most of it has been repeated now several times. I said consciousness is an activity, not a thing. That does not mean non-existence. An action requires an entity to act.

Edited February 26, 2014 by howardofski

[oso]

No, it isn't. I have made clear more than once in my posts that there is no doubt that other minds exist - the evidence is obvious and ubiquitous. What I said is that you cannot know their contents. For instance I know you have a mind because you are communicating. I have no idea what you think or what your motives are. You may agree with me and are playing devil's advocate. Or perhaps you don't comprehend what you read very well, but love to argue anyway. I have no way of knowing what's going on in there and I don't pretend I do.

But how can you know that other's minds are conciousness? How do you know they aren't like robots, taking in information, processing or "thinking", and behaving, but without any awareness? 

 

My answer that I can see that I and others possess basically the same faculties of thinking (a human brain), and since I experience consciousness and my brain is clearly the faculty that gives rise to that consciousness, others must experience consciousness in a similar way that I do. They aren't just complex robots. I can't make a conclusion that something else is conscious just based upon it's behaviour as demonstrated by the Chinese room thought experiment. There's certainly an entity acting in the Chinese room, but I don't know that it is conscious. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Edited February 26, 2014 by oso

[howardofski]

But how can you know that other's minds are conciousness? How do you know they aren't like robots, taking in information, processing or "thinking" and behaving, but without any awareness? 

 

My answer that I can see that I and others possess basically the same faculties of thinking (a human brain), and since I experience consciousness and my brain is clearly the faculty that gives rise to that consciousness, others must experience consciousness in a similar way that I do. I can't make a conclusion that something else is conscious just based upon it's behaviour as demonstrated by the Chinese room thought experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

I don't disagree with this. We can know that we all have brains and we can know that we all are conscious, but you will never be able to see the contents of my brain, so you would be presumptuous to discuss them. You do not know how my brain is organized or how I have chosen or will choose to use it. You do not share my consciousness, and you have no way to verify any of my statements about it. So you really do not know how similar our minds are, no matter how similar our physical brains are.

My own purpose is to eliminate psychobabble from debate. I want to save debate since I see it as the only alternative to violence. And I find that those most enthusiastic about violence are the most prone to dismissive psychobabble aimed at anyone who disagrees. Listen to Karl Rove tell us all about how Muslims think. Listen to the Global Warming crowd tell us how skeptics are "in denial". Dismissing other minds is a way to ignore other arguments.

[howardofski]

Whether Psychology as it exists today is science or not is irrelevant to his point. He's claiming that one CANNOT generalize about the human mind, at all. Not that some specific person is wrong in his generalizations.

This is almost correct. I'm sure we can generalize about the human mind to some shallow degree, but such generalizations are pretty useless. Allow me an analogy: I see from the outside that you have a home, but I do not presume to know what is in it or what you do in there.