Specialization does not extrapolate reliably to the large picture. You need to be more of a generalists who is able to zoom out and take it a wider range of clarity, at the same time. From the big picture, the specialty details, can take on new meaning. — wellwisher

Although you use terms like specialisation and generalisation, aren't you just discussing abstraction here? (I mean "abstraction" in the sense that a software designer would use it.)

"[Nietzsche] thought that love of systems was a human weakness and that the stronger one’s character, the less one would need and the less attracted one would be to a system. Nietzsche holds that if God were to exist, he would not, contrary to eighteenth-century views, be a master geometer with a universal system of the world. He would see each thing clearly as precisely that which it is and nothing else, and he would not need to use a concept to catch it and reduce it to something else he already knows. Humans are not gods, of course, and so they cannot attain this state, but that is a failing, not an advantage that they have, nor is it anything to be especially proud of or pleased with oneself for having produced." (Geuss, Changing the Subject)

While I am no theist, I find something very beautiful about the idea of 'seeing each thing clearly as precisely that which it is', and I think it's entirely fair to say that there's a kind of divinity involved in any attempt to do just that. — StreetlightX

Yes, seeing 'that which is', exactly as it is, is Objectivity, I think. It is something only God can or could do. [Unless anyone knows of another being, real or imaginary, capable of perceiving 'that which is'?] The only useful part of this - and it really is useful - is that it describes clearly a shortcoming of human beings, and the way we can perceive the world. It's too easy and too tempting to pretend that we can see or understand more than we really can. Reminders such as this keep us grounded. :up: :smile:

Any computer program can be correctly and accurately described as a collection of bytes, but it doesn't matter. — Pattern-chaser

It can't... — tom

I am disappointed to discover that 32 years of designing and building programs did not leave me with a proper understanding of what they are. But, as I said, it doesn't matter. Focussing on my analogy, which is clearly not to your taste, ignores the simple point I am making:

the conceptual difference between the mind and the brain is just too big for humans to usefully span.

Let's try another analogy, to illustrate the point. I could accurately refer to your car as a collection of quarks. But if we wish to understand your car in the context of it being a means of transport, thinking of it as a quark collection is not in any way useful or helpful, even though it is perfectly accurate and correct.

atheism is largely connected to left-wing politics and religiousness to the 'right'. I believe it should be the opposite — Jacykow

I've always thought that. I must admit I come at it from the opposite direction: it has always seemed to me that the right-wing approach to capitalism, money (and acquiring it), and how to behave toward others, is diametrically opposed to traditional Christian values. [N.B. I am not a Christian.] Jesus preached charity, not hatred toward a government that tried to help the poor using taxes paid by the (relatively) rich. For everyone who becomes rich, others become poor in proportion. [The cake is of finite size.] And so on. Christianity, as Jesus preached it, is left-wing. The corollary to this is that right-wingers cannot be Christians.... :scream:

But I see no obvious reason to place atheism onto the political spectrum. :chin:

Thanks for that. I don't really have a response, because I see nothing to challenge or argue with. :wink: But I'm learning, and you're helping. Thanks again. :up:

↪Pattern-chaser
I should note that despite the following, I wouldn't say I follow a single school of philosophy, I often find myself in agreement with incompatible views.

Essentially, it's for the sake of consistency. Consistency is a theoretical virtue, that is, most of the time consistency is a property of a theory which makes the good or better relative to a theory which is otherwise identical save a for a contradiction amongst its assumptions or entailments. The more you pick views and assumptions between schools, the more likely you are to introduce contradictions into your set of beliefs. Of course, one can still find themselves in a school of thought who's tenets are inconsistent or results in a belief system with some other unwanted feature (ad hoc-ness, poor explanatory power, lack of fruitfulness, etc.) — MindForged

Thank you. I didn't realise that schools of philosophy overlap so often. I thought they considered distinct areas of thought. This being the case, I offer a follow-on question:

Where there are overlaps between schools of philosophy, should we consider them as differing perspectives (valuable), or contradictions (not so valuable :wink:)?

Is either one actually in contradiction of the other? Does one disprove the other, or otherwise show it to be unsuitable for philosophers to use? [These are sincere questions, and I am sincere in asking them, because I don't know the answers!] :grin:

The important point about this to me is the idea that the way we choose to approach a question can vary from person to person, time to time, and situation to situation. It's a choice. — T Clark

Indeed it is. But I wonder why anyone would deny themselves the whole toolbox to choose from? Each person, for each problem (or problem type) might choose differently from the toolbox, but why would anyone deliberately restrict their own choice of tools?

This is true, but completely useless nonetheless. :wink: To describe Microsoft Word as a collection of bytes is true. Winword.exe is just that. And yet the useful (and also true) way to define Word is as a word processor. It is still a collection of bytes, but the more abstract definition describes it usefully. I think that matters. — Pattern-chaser

I'm not sure it's true to describe Microsoft Word as a collection of bytes. The source-code archive is as much Word, and with different computer architectures, the collection of bytes will be different. Whatever Word is, it is not just a collection of bytes. — tom

Any computer program can be correctly and accurately described as a collection of bytes, but it doesn't matter. Addressing the details of my analogy ignores the point I was offering. There is a large abstract-level gap between a stream of bytes and a word processor. The gap separating brain and mind is much bigger. It's just too large a gap for us to bridge, when we try to think about the mind in terms of the brain. If/when we have filled-in some more gaps, things might be different. But today, now, we can't usefully describe the mind in terms of the brain.

N.B. I don't dispute the relationship between brain and mind; I'm concerned with understanding, particularly ease of understanding. You see? :up: :wink:

I think a scientific treatment of consciousness is premature, at the least. The distance between the concepts of brain and mind is just too large at the moment. There may come a time when this is no longer the case, but we haven't reached it yet. IMO, of course. ;)

I have long used this example: Microsoft Word is a stream of bytes. True. Winword.exe is just that. A more useful truth is that Word is a word processor. The conceptual/abstract gap between a stream of bytes and a word processor is just too large to bridge. And the gap between brain and mind is much, much bigger than this.

there is absolutely no such thing as metaphysical reason separate from the physical structure of the brain — Uber

This is true, but completely useless nonetheless. :wink: To describe Microsoft Word as a collection of bytes is true. Winword.exe is just that. And yet the useful (and also true) way to define Word is as a word processor. It is still a collection of bytes, but the more abstract definition describes it usefully. I think that matters.

Meaning is the relationship between some effect and it's subsequent causes. — Harry Hindu

Isn't that a very particular definition of "meaning"? One which violates the Principle of Least Surprise, I would say? :chin: Merriam-Webster says this (but I'm not sure it's very helpful):

Definition of meaning
1 a : the thing one intends to convey especially by language : purport
Do not mistake my meaning.

b : the thing that is conveyed especially by language : import
Many words have more than one meaning.

2 : something meant or intended : aim
a mischievous meaning was apparent

3 : significant quality; especially : implication of a hidden or special significance
a glance full of meaning

4 a : the logical connotation of a word or phrase
b : the logical denotation or extension of a word or phrase

And now that I think about it: what is the relationship between an effect and its cause(s)? It seems little more than that the effect is related to the cause that caused it, which hardly seems worth saying. Saying that the cause is related to the effects it has is similarly uninformative.

"to be useful, a word must refer to something in the world." — Harry Hindu

Where "world" refers to the physical spacetime universe plus the ill-defined and sprawling mass of human culture, in all its wonder, and all its guises? For the latter is where 99% of humans live out 99% of their lives. And some words, those that are often applied and used to describe human culture, or some smaller part of it, are equally ill-defined. I think "meaning" --- in the sense of 'the meaning of life', not 'Many words have more than one meaning' --- is one of these. Human concepts like wisdom, value, and quality are similar in this regard. We all know what they mean, but writing it down in words is next-to-impossible. :brow:

Taoism was originally written down in the form of instructions on how to govern. I'm not sure of the details, but that's the essence of it. Which is why it's sometimes phrased in that way. There is also an oriental tradition of saying what a wise man might or should do. And I suppose some of these wise men were rulers?

Just my two penny-worth. :smile:

Subjectivity is always less than objectivity because subjectivity can be seen as parts of objectivity. It's like having only one piece of the puzzle. — Harry Hindu

Ancient Greek subject-object metaphysics divides (life, the universe and) Everything into subject and object as its first cut (as Pirsig puts it). There is no way in which it is correct to view the subject or subjectivity as part of the object or objectivity. The "puzzle" is the combination of these two parts. They are complements, the two halves of Everything, as it were. :wink:

She's more likely to be awakened on Monday than Tuesday — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, she is. Because she is certain to be woken on Monday. So you could say "It's more likely that I am called Srap Tasmaner than that Beauty will be woken on Tuesday." Just select any certainty, and it is more probable than Beauty being woken on Tuesday. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. :chin:

So since there are three possible awakenings and only one is when the coin comes up heads, then won't that mean she has a 33% chance of it being heads? — Jeremiah

Two of the three awakenings always happen. Only one is variable. And it depends on the coin toss. Beauty can only guess, regardless of when she is awoken, whether the coin did (or will - she is woken on Monday) come up heads.

This would follow Bayesian philosophy on probability which suggest we should update our probability models when we get new information. — Jeremiah

Yes, and the only time we receive new information is at the start, when the experiment is explained to us and to Beauty. No new information is provided thereafter, therefore reappraisal of probabilities will lead to the same answer we got originally. Not like the Monty Haul problem, where new information is provided.

We attain a degree of objectivity by integrating all knowledge from every source, including other people, into a consistent world-view. — Harry Hindu

I think this is usually called consensus, not objectivity. :chin: Objectivity, at least in its most absolute sense, is unchallengeably correct. A consensus is an opinion accepted by most/all; it need not be correct.

When we are able to explain all subjective experiences, for everyone, not just for yourself, why they are useful and why they are different for each person, we would be at a more objective outlook. — Harry Hindu

What you seem to be saying here is that when we succeed in converting the subjective into the objective - and good luck with that! :wink: - we will "be at a more objective outlook". Well yes, but why would we even consider such a thing? Subject and object are complements, not enemies. Subjectivity is not less than (or greater than) objectivity; it's a different and complementary perspective.

I don't want to disrupt your thread, but I observe that you are deploying exclusively scientific tools to address these issues. Sociology tells us what an intelligent alien could deduce about us by remote observation. I think this problem could use a more intimate understanding than that. We need the human version of sociology, I think. I don't know what you'd call it, but it concerns what being a human means to a human. Similarly for psychology.

The mind-brain problem is a tricky one that requires (IMO) all the tools, techniques and perspectives we have available. Science is only part of that.

If the amnesia-inducing drug is effective, Beauty cannot know how many times she was woken, or even if she was woken. Beauty is reduced to guessing, using the information we all know about tossed coins: they come up heads about 50% of the time, on average. But 'on average' does not apply to individual coin tosses. The statistics are useful only for large numbers of coin-tosses, or for large numbers of subjects like Beauty. I think Beauty can only guess, and her only 'evidence' is the statistical 50% probability.

I think of "objective" as how someone completely outside the system, i.e. God, sees things. That's not a definition, but it helps me think about it. — T Clark

I think that's a good way of putting it. And I would contrast the meaning of "subjective" (as I have most often seen it used) as how someone (you or me) completely INSIDE the system sees things.

We have shortcomings in every aspect of our perceptions; God is lucky enough to (somehow) perceive everything as it actually is. And yet, no matter how superior objective perception might seem, God's view is foreign to us, and our view is comfortable and familiar. It is the human view. For that reason, it's the view I am most interested in. If I was God, I'm sure the opposite would be the case. :wink:

First, a clarification. I think autists can exhibit obsessive or compulsive behaviour without it meeting all the criteria for an OCD diagnosis. Maybe this applies to me; I'm not sure. So my experience should be considered 'similar' to that which OCD might cause. I offer this in the name of accuracy, not wishing to mislead either of us, or the discussion, and also because there's too much misinformation on autism about, and I really don't want to add to it. :smile:

Some neurological conditions are different. I have MS, which is a neurological condition. But it's just a disease, and might be compared with diabetes, or any other physical illness. But autism, and maybe other neurological conditions too, aren't simple physical illnesses. There's more to them than that, or at least there can be. This is what lead me to comment here initially.

My own repetitive/habitual behaviour is weird (to me). I can see that I do these things. I can see that they bind me quite thoroughly. I feel inside my head that I could over-ride them ... but I never actually do. So maybe I can't. But the compulsion, if that's what it is, is not something so strong that it cannot but be obeyed, or so I feel. If I had no legs, I couldn't walk. This compulsion does not seem as powerful as that. From the inside, the control exercised by this compulsion doesn't seem absolute; from the outside, it probably seems absolute. And I can't even tell which of those two thoughts is the closest to being correct. :meh:

Neurological conditions have the potential to adjust your thinking, at the physical level of your brain. So some of the effects they can have on you are mental or even emotional, not just physical, as most other illnesses are. I think this is the difference I have been struggling to describe.

patient X claims that his mental illness is just like diabetes and just as diabetes cannot be cured by reason, neither can his OCD.

My best guess is that patient X is correct, and his OCD cannot be cured by reason, if it can be cured at all. But let's remember: if the condition actually is incurable, then we could correctly observe that it cannot be cured by reason, by porridge or by Donald Trump. I'm saying this because I wonder if reason is a useful and contributing part of this discussion, or whether it's a trivial distraction, like porridge and Trump. :chin:

My favourites are not as erudite as most of those listed here. :wink: I have lived my life gathering (stealing :grin:) interesting ideas as I come across them, and keeping them for myself. <demonic laugh> :grin: Some came from books, some are merely well-known quotations, some arose during face-to-face conversation, and so on. Here are a few books that affected me enough that I still remember their titles. :wink:

Pirsig - Zen and Lila.
Lakoff - Metaphors we live by and Philosophy in the flesh.
Lao Tsu - Tao te ching (Ursula LeGuin translation).
Claxton - Hare brain, tortoise mind.
Alan Watts - Everything he ever wrote or said.

I would also add unspecified (but well-conceived and -written) fantasy novels, where the experience of different worlds/realities (albeit imaginary ones) can often be food for worthwhile thought.

The best thing I ever learned during 32 years as a firmware designer was about perspectives: nearly every different perspective you can discover is worthwhile, to some extent. Sometimes a problem can be solved simply by finding and adopting a different perspective, or by finding several, and using them in combination. Looking at something from every possible angle (or as many as you can manage/find) is the most valuable and useful problem-solving tool I have ever found. [ I mean "problem" in the broadest sense, intending to include the philosophical conundra (?) we encounter in communities like this one.] But I've never read about perspectives (in this sense) in a book....

my first exposure [...] was Ursula Le Guin's. I always come back to that translation. — frank

Me too! She was, until recently :cry:, our greatest living author, in my not-very-humble opinion. I describe myself, in religious terms, as a Gaian Daoist. The Daoist bit stems from my admiration for Daoism, the TTC, and (if I'm honest) Ursula LeGuin's wonderful comments and commentary in her translation.

What do you mean by a condition being intrinsic to a sufferer? — MetaphysicsNow

No easy questions, then? :wink: Diabetes (setting aside the possibility of a cure) is a degenerative condition that is just there, a sort of part of the diabetic's body. (?) In that sense it's intrinsic to the diabetic. In the same way, I might say that my leg is intrinsic to me.

What specific qualitative differences between OCD and diabetes leads you have some doubts about it being intrinsic? — MetaphysicsNow

OCD is a neurological condition. While some neurological conditions ccan usefully be compared with a disease like diabetes, others are quite different. My own Autism Spectrum Condition is neurological, but it isn't a disease, it's a difference in the way I'm wired. I suppose it is intrinsic, in the sense I'm using it, but it feels quite wrong to me to equate it with a physical disease like diabetes (by using the same term to describe both of them). OCD likewise.

I know I'm not making as much sense here as I would like. I'm struggling to find the most meaningful vocabulary.

When you say that your best guess is that you are not capable of learning not to behave obsessively, is that based on some general lack of confidence in your abilities or more based on your previous experiences of having tried? — MetaphysicsNow

I think it's mostly based on my reliance on my obsessive routines, despite their downside. I would find it difficult to function without them, so I don't fancy trying! :smile:

If it was a test, I think you passed! :up:

I vaguely resemble "patient X", and I think OCD is not quite as simple as you imagine. I carry out many obsessive routines and habits, and they can be a great help. :gasp: My short-term memory is so unreliable that I forget to do things unless I follow my obsessive habits rigorously. They can be a curse too, when they seem to take on a life of their own, and grow in complexity and detail.

Like patient X, I find it difficult or impossible to avoid obsessive behaviour. But I recognise that patient X suffers differently to me, as your OP describes, so I can't just apply my own experience and call it an answer to your query. Is OCD as intrinsic to the sufferer as diabetes? In my view, the answer is more yes than no, but I feel the qualitative difference between OCD and diabetes leads to some of the uncertainty here.

My own OCD-like behaviour stems from autism, a neurological difference, not a disease like diabetes. Could I learn not to behave obsessively; am I capable of doing that? I'm not sure. My best guess is no.

Yes, I think this is the best approach to this issue. My hand starts moving a quarter of a second before I consciously will it, because my non-conscious mind already made the decision. I find it easier to consider that "I" am a multi-faceted being, these 'facets' including my conscious mind, my non-conscious mind, any bits of the mind the preceding terms don't cover, and my body. All of them are indivisibly linked, and all of them, taken together, produce "me".

So,

Do we control our minds and personalities?

Seen in the context I just described, this question is confusingly phrased. :chin: :wink: Our minds are parts of ourselves; our personalities are attributes or reflections of our minds (the whole mind, not just conscious awareness). If your question means "is my conscious mind in control of the rest of me?", then I think the answer is no. All of you is 'in control' of you.

In a different sense, nothing controls you, not even you. I mean to say that you live your life being you(rself), not controlling you(rself).

I think everything that's happening is the exact result of all the things that have happened in the past. — tiffany

In a Newtonian universe, I'm sure this is so. But these days, even scientists don't think things are quite that simple. :wink: The most obvious and pertinent example I can offer is chaos and complexity theory, which considers systems that aren't predictable, for one reason or another. The existence of such systems in the universe seems to counter the predictability you expect?

...a forum based around the very ideals I hold close to my heart; logic, wisdom, discovery, freedom of discussion, and exploration of the unknown

Oh, I do hope so! You have the right aims, I think, and I hope this forum supports and nurtures them. I'm optimistic that it does. Time will tell, for both of us (I'm new here too).

Wow! I envy you! :smile: I would have loved to include Philosophy as a minor, versus the Electronics that was my major. It wasn't possible then (1975-78) in my university. Maybe it is now? :chin:

I have encountered the same difficulties with the non-physical as other respondents. I finally realised that, when I want to use the term non-physical or physical, what I intend is to distinguish the space-time universe (that science describes so ably) from everything else. [Where 'everything else' is more or less all-inclusive, and includes God and religion, politics, science (the discipline, not its subject matter), philosophy, art, design, music, and so on.] I don't actually have a term for this, but I know what I mean when I think about it. As for communicating these ideas (clearly) to others ... I'm still working on that. :chin: :smile: I'm open to helpful suggestions? :up:

Hello. I just arrived here, and would like to learn all about this forum. I am 63, cis male, a retired firmware architect, an autist, a father, a husband, a lifelong music lover (almost anything except opera), a Gaian Daoist (i.e. a tree-hugging hippy), and a committed armchair philosopher.

It's particularly important to me to find a forum where a diverse array of topics can be discussed. I just left a forum after 12 pointless years, when I finally had to accept that topics that were not science-based were considered 'nonsense', and their discussion was actively opposed, by trolling, insults, and so on. [Being autistic, my perception is acute in some ways, and non-existent in others. That's why it took me 12 years....] So I like to discuss science, but I also like to discuss (say) metaphysics, or human-oriented socio-cultural stuff (from a philosophical point of view, of course ;) ).

Am I in the right place? :chin: :wink:

...for any word to mean anything useful it must refer to something in the world.

[As a brand-new member here, please forgive me if I'm trampling on customs I'm not yet aware of. Thanks.]

When you refer to "the world", do you mean to include human socio-cultural stuff, or do you refer to the physical space-time world that science describes so ably?

I ask because "meaning"*, the term that lead to the words I quoted above, is an ill-defined, human-created concept that all humans understand, but few (myself included!) can define in precise and unambiguous English. It has no existence outside of human socio-culture, which is why I ask what you mean to refer to...?

Edited to add:

* - Here, I refer to meaning in the sense of 'the meaning of life', not the more literal 'the meaning of a word can be found in a dictionary'.