Objectivism and Psychology

[Eiuol]

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.

How do you know my mind even has contents? That's the relevant question that I'd like answered. Look, I'm not saying it's valid for anyone to say that they know how Muslims think, but it's worlds apart from saying that it's impossible to know about mental states. Cognitive psychology has come far in the past 20 years in making scientific conclusions about mental states. That does not mean that the goal is mindreading, it only means that people study how the mind works. No one tries to replicate your exact feelings and say what your private experience is like - not anyone studying the brain. Please don't equivocate between private experience and mental states.

 

The analogy is more like: I see a home, but how do I know anything is inside? "What's inside" is what cognitive psychology studies indirectly, figuring out how mental states operate by observing behaviors.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Eiuol

[oso]

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.

What we don't seem to agree upon is that concluding that someone else is conscious and not just a robot is a conclusion about the contents of their mind. I can make that conclusion about the content of their brain through deduction, I don't need to actually see or experience it and it's not axiomatic. This is only the most basic deduction I can make about the contents of the brains of others.

 

As for what your purpose is, it doesn't matter. Eliminating what you call psychobabble may or may not be a worthy goal, but if your arguments against it are flawed, they need to be attacked.

[Spiral Architect]

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.

 

If your conciousness exists then it has an identity.  Having identity means it can be identified. 

 

That is what science does - study (identify) what exists.

 

I did read what you said and took you at your word - Trying to understand it involved unraveling the consequences.  Now you've stated the exact opposite.    

 

Does conciousness exist and have an identity, or does it lack an identity which means it does not exist? 

[howardofski]

If your conciousness exists then it has an identity.  Having identity means it can be identified. 

 

That is what science does - study (identify) what exists.

 

I did read what you said and took you at your word - Trying to understand it involved unraveling the consequences.  Now you've stated the exact opposite.    

 

Does conciousness exist and have an identity, or does it lack an identity which means it does not exist?

Of course it can be identified. I have identified it as an action as opposed to an object, but that is still an identification. I resist calling it an existent because I use that word to identify objects. Actions do not exist independent of the objects that act, so consciousness does not exist independent of the body (object) which acts. Would you say that running exists - all by itself? Or would you say that runners exist and running is an attribute? Consciousness is an attribute, not a thing. If you wish to use words differently, I might go along with you temporarily, but I think it is confusing to refer to an attribute as an existent. Simply put: I think existents are nouns, not adjectives or verbs, which refer to attributes of objects. Consciousness, though a noun in form, is a verb in fact.

And though science does indeed study that which exists, my point is that you cannot study consciousness in two senses of the term "study": 1) you have no verifiable information about any minds other than your own and 2) to "study" means to use your mind - but it can't study itself as if it is a separate object any more than a camera can photograph itself. You can use your mind and organize it as you wish, but it will never be a suitable subject of any science, for it is the means of science itself and it cannot separate itself from its own nature or function for the purpose of study. It cannot become its own subject, other than rhetorically.

If you believe otherwise, why not offer some examples of what you think are scientific statements about the human mind?

Edited February 26, 2014 by howardofski

[howardofski]

What we don't seem to agree upon is that concluding that someone else is conscious and not just a robot is a conclusion about the contents of their mind.

You make my point. I am not concluding anything about the minds of others. I do not see (sic) the difference between them and your hypothetical robot. It does not matter to me what their internal state is, since I have no way to know it. I say they have a mind because they are debating with me. But if they are cleverly made robots debating with me, mind is still the source back there somewhere. To make the point with different words, I am agnostic about the inner experience of anyone or anything other than myself for the simple reason that I lack information on the subject of inner experiences beyond my own.

[howardofski]

Cognitive psychology has come far in the past 20 years in making scientific conclusions about mental states... Please don't equivocate between private experience and mental states...

 

"What's inside" is what cognitive psychology studies indirectly, figuring out how mental states operate by observing behaviors.

This is exactly what I am challanging. I am convinced that no valid examples can be found to support what you have written above. We can have hunches about inner states based on behavior all day long, but they are unprovable, and therefore invalid. There is no evidence to support them. They are superstitions.

[Spiral Architect]

Of course it can be identified. I have identified it as an action as opposed to an object, but that is still an identification. I resist calling it an existent because I use that word to identify objects. Actions do not exist independent of the objects that act, so consciousness does not exist independent of the body (object) which acts. Would you say that running exists - all by itself? Or would you say that runners exist and running is an attribute? Consciousness is an attribute, not a thing. If you wish to use words differently, I might go along with you temporarily, but I think it is confusing to refer to an attribute as an existent. Simply put: I think existents are nouns, not adjectives or verbs, which refer to attributes of objects. Consciousness, though a noun in form, is a verb in fact.

And though science does indeed study that which exists, my point is that you cannot study consciousness in two senses of the term "study": 1) you have no verifiable information about any minds other than your own and 2) to "study" means to use your mind - but it can't study itself as if it is a separate object any more than a camera can photograph itself. You can use your mind and organize it as you wish, but it will never be a suitable subject of any science, for it is the means of science itself and it cannot separate itself from its own nature or function for the purpose of study. It cannot become its own subject, other than rhetorically.

If you believe otherwise, why not offer some examples of what you think are scientific statements about the human mind?

 

Ok - That breaks it down nicely.  You think conciouness is a unique entity that exists but only as action since it's form is within an existing entity (us).

 

Running is something an object does in the same way being aware is something our conciousness does. 

 

Consiousness is an attribute of certain living entities but it is a thing - we can identity it since everything that exists can be identified. 

 

Now if you want to say we are at the stage that we are poorly equiped to do it or have done a fantastically bad job of doing that so far, I could get behind that, but not whipping out the Law of Identity simply because we have approached it wrong in current scientific theory. 

 

Studying something basic, like chemistry requires you to observe and integrate data.  Somthing like nuclear physics is unseen and requires  vast abstractions to proof such data back to visual sense perception, but the fact it is unseen or hard to get at outside of the consequences of it's actions does not invalidate it.  It simply ment we had to have advanced knowledge, wide abstractions, and the tools to work through it.  Conciousness is much the same.  We have to accumilate what we do observe, integrate data, create abstractions, deduce from known proof, etc. 

 

As for one simple example of scientific determnations of conciousess, you have the laws of logic that tells us how to use our awareness to integrate and deduce data.   Another would be volition.  Another would be habit formation. Another would be theories on concept formation.  Or if you want psychology then there is vast integrations based on various mental illnesses which works  here since you can also point to how we have done that poorly (but is still measurable).

[tadmjones]

I think I like the "Art of Psychology"

[howardofski]

Ok - That breaks it down nicely.  You think conciouness is a unique entity that exists but only as action since it's form is within an existing entity (us).

 

Running is something an object does in the same way being aware is something our conciousness does. 

 

Consiousness is an attribute of certain living entities but it is a thing - we can identity it since everything that exists can be identified. 

 

Now if you want to say we are at the stage that we are poorly equiped to do it or have done a fantastically bad job of doing that so far, I could get behind that, but not whipping out the Law of Identity simply because we have approached it wrong in current scientific theory. 

 

Studying something basic, like chemistry requires you to observe and integrate data.  Somthing like nuclear physics is unseen and requires  vast abstractions to proof such data back to visual sense perception, but the fact it is unseen or hard to get at outside of the consequences of it's actions does not invalidate it.  It simply ment we had to have advanced knowledge, wide abstractions, and the tools to work through it.  Conciousness is much the same.  We have to accumilate what we do observe, integrate data, create abstractions, deduce from known proof, etc. 

 

As for one simple example of scientific determnations of conciousess, you have the laws of logic that tells us how to use our awareness to integrate and deduce data.   Another would be volition.  Another would be habit formation. Another would be theories on concept formation.  Or if you want psychology then there is vast integrations based on various mental illnesses which works  here since you can also point to how we have done that poorly (but is still measurable).

By way of reply, I would refer you to my 2nd paragraph, post #69, above. Also, to be precise about terms, I would not write, as you have, that being aware is something our conciousness does. Consciousness is not an object with being aware its action. Consciousness and being aware mean the same thing. The object acting is our body. The action is being aware or being conscious, whichever term you prefer. Consciousness is a specific kind of motion, not an object.

Edited February 26, 2014 by howardofski

[howardofski]

As for one simple example of scientific determnations of conciousess, you have the laws of logic that tells us how to use our awareness to integrate and deduce data.

The laws of logic are linguistic rules for the non-contradictory naming (identification) of objects and their attributes. They are verbal rules our minds can choose to follow or not. They are not evidence of our inner state. The are recommendations for ordering our inner state. We observe logic and its lack only in words. We are not observing minds, merely one of their products.

[Spiral Architect]

The laws of logic are linguistic rules for the non-contradictory naming (identification) of objects and their attributes. They are verbal rules our minds can choose to follow or not. They are not evidence of our inner state. The are recommendations for ordering our inner state. We observe logic and its lack only in words. We are not observing minds, merely one of their products.

 

The laws of logic are epistomological devices neccessary to think properly in addition to there metaphysical neccessity - We wouldn't care if they did not surve a human purpose, which is allowing our concious to take perception and make sense of it.  This is something we know from studying how human conciouness works.  In fact you can say this about the whole field of philosophy which  is very wide abstractions that are unseen but can be studied since it is built from integrating data.   

 

But even if you want to dispute that then you have the other examples I gave.

 

This is moot.  If it exists, then it has an identity which means it can be identified. If it cannot be identified, then it doesn't exist. 

 

You cannot whip out identity.  No one can.

 

In fact you are identifying facts about conciouness to tell be it cannot be identified.  Making the argument proves it can be studied and discussed. 

 

Like I said - I can accept the idea that we are not doing it well but not that conciousness exists but doesn't at the same time. 

[howardofski]

Like I said - I can accept the idea that we are not doing it well but not that conciousness exists but doesn't at the same time.

I can't accept that either. Lucky neither of us is saying such a silly thing.

[Spiral Architect]

When you claim it has an identity but can't be identified, that is the end result.  Dressing it up doesn't remove the essence of the assertion. 

 

It either exists and had an identity, or it does not have an identity and therefore it doesn't exist.

 

The assertion of God(s) fails due to the same issue, actually. 

[howardofski]

When you claim it has an identity but can't be identified, that is the end result.  Dressing it up doesn't remove the essence of the assertion.

Nowhere have I said something has an identity and cannot be identified, whatever that means. But it is a truth that the world is filled with things that "have an identity" (they exist), but which you have not yet identified (you don't know of them or can't study them), so I really don't understand what you are trying to say. What I have said - repeatedly - is that I have a mind (process) and you can't observe it. Would you care to debate with what I have actually said?

Edited February 27, 2014 by howardofski

[howardofski]

This is something we know from studying how human conciouness works.

My point is that you have only "studied" your own consciousness and even that is a misuse of the word "study" since you are trying to study with the same process (consciousness) which you claim is the subject of your study. How do you process a process?

[muhuk]

I've gone back and re-read your posts. As far as I can understand what you have said is consistent. In other words I tried to find where you said something and then denied it later.

 

I think this is the core of your disagreement:

 

 

Psychobabble is bad philosophy. Psychology is not a science, it is a guessing game. We can blab all day about what we think is going on in the minds of others, but we will never actually know. That is a fact. Psychology is almost always used as a means to insult others. Accusing others of “psycho-epistemological” sins such as “evasion” is guaranteed to offend, not convince, and it is an utterly unprovable accusation.  Telling others who they should be sexually attracted to is utterly offensive and invalid.

 

And since Ayn included these errors in her philosophy, I now call myself an objectivist. I still love and respect her memory. She was a great thinker and artist and I am convinced that her heart was in the right place. But she was mistaken about some important philosophical questions.

 

I didn't know Objectivism had a strong relationship with psychology, especially the psychological state of others. Am I misunderstanding what you wrote? Could you please explain how psychology plays a role in the core philosophy? Could you at least provide some references?

[Eiuol]

This is exactly what I am challanging. I am convinced that no valid examples can be found to support what you have written above. We can have hunches about inner states based on behavior all day long, but they are unprovable, and therefore invalid. There is no evidence to support them. They are superstitions.

Yes, your view, as stated, is an extreme skepticism about mental states. I've tried to point out the implication is you are unable to know that other minds exist. I brought up the zombie thought experiment, because denying that I am a zombie requires accepting the ability to know something about mental states. Some trivial support that you can know something about mental states is the need of certain cognitive architecture to do anything at all. You are right that I can't know the status of your private experience, in the same sense I'll never know what it's like a bat. See this paper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_it_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F

 

I encourage you to read up on cognitive psychology, which studies how the mind works, not the content of your mind. To me, you seem to agree that you can't know the content of the minds of others. What I don't know is if you agree that the architecture (how your mind functions in order to do the operations all people can do, e.g. form concepts) can be known. You may be surprised about what can be known just by observing behaviors.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Eiuol

[Plasmatic]

One of the premises behind Rand's criticism of psychologism is that one cannot access the intentional state of others. I'm referring here to the intentions or motivations behind why someone does or says something.

Armed with a smattering, not of knowledge, but of undigested slogans, they rush, unsolicited, to diagnose the problems of their friends and acquaintances. Pretentiousness and presumptuousness are the psychologizer’s invariable characteristics: he not merely invades the privacy of his victims’ minds, he claims to understand their minds better than they do, to know more than they do about their own motives. With reckless irresponsibility, which an old-fashioned mystic oracle would hesitate to match, he ascribes to his victims any motivation that suits his purpose, ignoring their denials. Since he is dealing with the great “unknowable”—which used to be life after death or extrasensory perception, but is now man’s subconscious—all rules of evidence, logic and proof are suspended, and anything goes (which is what attracts him to his racket).

While the racket of the philosophizing mystics rested on the claim that man is unable to know the external world, the racket of the psychologizing mystics rests on the claim that man is unable to know his own motivation.

I haven't read much of this thread but what I did read made me think of this.

[StrictlyLogical]

howardovski

 

Sorry if this is a bit off topic and I hope I am not asking about something already addressed in this long thread but just curious about the original post re psychology being a fraud:

 

If in the future the scientific study of mental processes included, in addition to verbal reporting methods, better and better instrumentation to measure, characterize, and map brain activities, i.e. monitoring and imaging, would you deem that science also to be a fraud? 

 

I think some psychologists are using MRI techniques now to study things like how the brain processes music.

 

I guess my question is do you take psychology (the study of mind) as such to be a fraud or just verbal reporting based psychological experiment?

[howardofski]

I didn't know Objectivism had a strong relationship with psychology, especially the psychological state of others. Am I misunderstanding what you wrote? Could you please explain how psychology plays a role in the core philosophy? Could you at least provide some references?

You make a good point here. I may have been wrong to imply that psychology is part of the core philosophy. I honestly am not sure where the "core philosophy" line should be drawn.

If we could also exclude political policy (another item in my list) from the "core", then I could brand myself a full fledged (core) Objectivist. What I dispute is psychology and coercive monopoly.

[Spiral Architect]

Nowhere have I said something has an identity and cannot be identified, whatever that means. But it is a truth that the world is filled with things that "have an identity" (they exist), but which you have not yet identified (you don't know of them or can't study them), so I really don't understand what you are trying to say. What I have said - repeatedly - is that I have a mind (process) and you can't observe it. Would you care to debate with what I have actually said?

 

You say that conciousness cannot be studied, which means be identified (that is what science does).

 

I am debating what you said - I'm simply not getting off the cosequences of you wanting to have your identity and eat it too, so to speak.

 

As for the observed, there is a lot you cannot observe which I ppointed too earlier in that is what high level abstractions are do - allow you to integrate data from perceptual data to unseen concepts.

 

No that it matters.  If it has an identity, then it can be identified.  Period. 

 

I gave you an out twice by saying I can accept the notion if you wanted to claim we are not in a possition to do that right currently, which I would agree in that modern psychology is a mess due to bad premises and methodology. 

 

But not the blanket statement that we cannot study (identify) conciousness because it is unseen and this somehow makes it different from every other unseen abstraction manageed by science.

[Spiral Architect]

My point is that you have only "studied" your own consciousness and even that is a misuse of the word "study" since you are trying to study with the same process (consciousness) which you claim is the subject of your study. How do you process a process?

 

The fact you have conciousness doesn't invalidate it.  Although that could be a great insight into how it is currently missused since most modern psychologists evade important parts of having a conciousness!  I'll have to chew on tha but that is interesting. 

[howardofski]

howardovski

 

Sorry if this is a bit off topic and I hope I am not asking about something already addressed in this long thread but just curious about the original post re psychology being a fraud:

 

If in the future the scientific study of mental processes included, in addition to verbal reporting methods, better and better instrumentation to measure, characterize, and map brain activities, i.e. monitoring and imaging, would you deem that science also to be a fraud? 

 

I think some psychologists are using MRI techniques now to study things like how the brain processes music.

 

I guess my question is do you take psychology (the study of mind) as such to be a fraud or just verbal reporting based psychological experiment?

I think I answer your questions in posts #46 and #54(2nd paragraph). That 2nd point is important to me. I do not discount the imaginary science-fiction possibility of "group consciousness" (sort of like a chat room), but highly doubt it will ever be achieved. Until it is, there is no way to verify that your new mind-reading technology is accurate, except testimony and that isn't verification at all. I do not like the term "fraud" since it implies that I know the motives of the researchers, but I do dispute the validity of what they are calling the science of mind. It all appears to be the study of physical motion, mislabeled.

[Spiral Architect]

You make a good point here. I may have been wrong to imply that psychology is part of the core philosophy. I honestly am not sure where the "core philosophy" line should be drawn.

If we could also exclude political policy (another item in my list) from the "core", then I could brand myself a full fledged (core) Objectivist. What I dispute is psychology and coercive monopoly.

 

Philosphy really in really only about what is.  Everything that follows is a science and really outside of philosophy as a study.  In the field of psychology, for example, an many lectures Peikoff has refused to asnwer psychology questions since his purpose was to focus on philosophy - Which in this case only says you have a mind and to live man qua man you have to use it.

 

Objectivism however is more specific in that it is a system of philosophy and it does explore consequences to it's philosophy in realted fields for a total integrated system.  Ethics and politics are two since they have a direct consequence to the neccessity of life man qua man and are explored.  If you want to lifve, then you need to do X to live and in a social context Y needs to happen to protect your ability to do X.

 

While Objectivism is a system "to live on earth" there is no such thing as "Objecitvist psychology" or "Objectivist physics".   

[muhuk]

What I dispute is psychology and coercive monopoly.

 

I thought free market economy was the conclusion objectivism would lead/encourage/sanction. Isn't it the exact opposite of the idea of coercive monopoly?