What would a physicalist explanation of mind look like? — Agent Smith

Gosh, won't this become another rehash of the hard problem of consciousness... a trip down the Dan Dennett superhighway?

John Searle says mind is to brain what digestion is to stomach. He's smarter than I am so he must be right... :wink:

Is it worth narrowing down the question further?

I'd be surprised if he wasn't, but yes it is speculative. Psychiatrist Christopher Gillberg has certainly suspected this. Based on W's behaviors as described by Monk and others - odd formal speech even in childhood, social withdrawal, reluctance to form friendships, easily slighted, eating exactly the same meal day after day, his obsessive narrowly defined technical interests, wearing same clothing each day, inability to do small talk...

Just do what you have to do, javi - there will always be people with opinions.

Agree with you. I've worked with depressed people for 30 years. Medication is sometimes necessary to help. Some people can take 2 or 3 hours just to stand up at the start of the day. Then there's suicidal ideation. Serious depression is no joke. Medications can and do work, but some people have strong views on this.

Depression comes about from a variety of causes. What I tend to see is people who have experienced sexual abuse and trauma as children or young people.

No idea about this event but I have assumed for some years that Wittgenstein likely had autism given his presentation and behaviour. This would have made communication difficult on occasions.

Sometimes on this site you hear similar claims made between people who privilege the superphysical and those who take a philosophy of language approach. The latter sometimes being accused of playing games rather than engaging in a deeper way.

My IQ is 159.9. Is the logical conclusion that I'm thin? — EugeneW

No, I said 'thick' not thin. If weight loss is needed, try cutting back on sugar. You probably know that, with a high IQ and all. :razz:

Much of talk therapy is aimed at getting people to accept their condition rather than cure it: learning to live with your problems instead of finding solutions for them. — Agent Smith

Not sure where you are or what you may have experienced, but based on what I've seen you're describing the opposite of today's approach and talk therapy is just one term - I am assuming by that you mean by counselling, which may not be 'therapeutic' but about problem solving and solutions focused to name key approaches. It's a big world out there.

No worries.

What I wrote:

The theme of freedom (where did that come from?) has never interested me. Life feels like free choice, That'll do me. — Tom Storm

Unpacking that, all I am saying is what people like Sam Harris have said - we may not have free choice, but it sure feels like we do. For me that will do given that I have no control about it.

At no point did I say feelings are all that matter or suggest that knowledge isn't possible. Epistemology is a minefield of a subject.

I was not interested in feelings. I was interested in information and knowledge. — Average

Nowhere did I say I am only interested in what feels true. You really need to read more closely.

Honest, pragmatic men must suffer for the greed of cheap, tasteless men. — theRiddler

I think that needs work. Pretty sure the greedy men who are in charge of making cheap and tasteless shit live in a world of heightened, plastic free luxury.

So is he drawing a distinction between will and thing-in-itself here?
This would seem strange since he repeatedly claims will is the thing-in-itself. — KantDane21

My understanding is that for S there is only will. All physical reality is just an instantiation of will - which is also translated as energy. For S will is instinctive and not meta-cognitive, it makes no plans and is not a god surrogate.

He uses a Derridean deconstructive approach to show that any value that is assumed to be beyond cultural contingency, such as universal notions of the good , the moral , the just or the generous , are incoherent. It is not just that we should prefer finitude over the eternal, the unconditional or the universal, but that all such assumptions fall prey to their own deconstruction. All valuation is contingent and relative. This is just as true of our imagining of a timeless deity, value structure, notion of the good or the true as it is of scientific and aesthetic endeavor. — Joshs

Of course.

If we fail to get out of boredom what do we face? — TiredThinker

Depends on the person. Boredom can lead to suicide or an artistic masterpiece. Like most things in life, it depends on what one 'chooses' to do with it.

Martin Hagglund’s argument is that essential
to faith in God is a belief in , and desire for, the eternal.
He argues instead that finitude is preferable to eternity. — Joshs

I don't disagree, but isn't that the act of choosing not to believe based on preferences, aesthetic or otherwise?

This problem can be traced even within religious traditions that espouse faith in eternal life. An article in U.S. Catholic asks: “Heaven: Will It be Boring?” — Joshs

These sorts of discussions were huge decades ago in circles I mixed in. A significant question we used to hear a lot was - Will there be penises in heaven?

The notion of eternity has never captured my imagination and I can't imagine how one would even conceptualize it.

Far from making my life meaningful, eternity would make it meaningless, since my actions would have no purpose. — Joshs

Certainly, but I'm assuming that in the logic of superphysical thinking, entering the realm of eternity with god would bring with it an entirely different perspective and value system, which would generate a different outlook on such matters.

I guess the modern approach to mental health is get used to it! or, roughly, shut up or put up! It makes sense, pragmatically speaking; after all, there's not much we can do to reduce all the suffering around us. — Agent Smith

Not really. If you look at public mental health campaigns in most Western countries the advice is defiantly not to shut up. It is the opposite. Usually it's, go see someone and talk to them about it - a doctor, a therapist, and shop around to get someone you click with and is actually helpful. Many big employers in my country offer free counselling to anyone who is dealing with trauma or grief and loss or depression. A lot of investment in this work was generated because of alarming suicide rates.

Rather than disbelieving in a god because there is no proof, one should disbelieve because the concept itself is repugnant. — Joshs

Isn't that more a case of refusing to accept a god on the grounds of personal taste? Would that not be analogous to saying I don't believe in the laws of my country because they are repugnant and limit my individual freedoms?

Ok. No problems.

In my defense, my words are not ad hominem because I am simply describing the phenomenon of the matter, or at least an interpretation of the phenomenon. I am also not attacking anyone at all, I am merely describing things in my view. So I find it interesting that you would accuse me of ad hominem. — IP060903

You could have made the point you just made in two sentences instead of three paragraphs. :wink:

The evidence that I have that they choose not to see is frankly simple and non-existent at the same time. It is non-existent as they will say that they do not see not because they choose not to see, but because there really is nothing else to see according to their opinion. Yet in simple view, many other people do see something else than just matter stuff, are you willing to categorize these people as being deluded, in a morally neutral way, and say that they are just making stuff up? — IP060903

This paragraph is incoherent to me, sorry. Do you want to try again or shall we move on?

Near as I can make out, it sounds to me like you are being disrespectful to other's experiences and attributing base motives to people and the position they hold based on nothing but some kind of confused smear. Are you saying they are lying? I can't see how this is any more rigorous or useful than an atheist accusing a believer of following childish fantasies because they can't handle real life.

Maybe a dumb idea, but it might help to have a brief glossary of the core terms being used , like 'reason' so that we don't need to keep interrupting the flow defining the key words.

A qualitatively greater thing than physical matter would be living tissue, life, a living being.

A qualitatively greater thing than life would be a thought, an emotion, a human personality.
— Joe Mello

This is a good example of why I do not understand you. First you say that a living being is greater than a dead thing. Then you say that a thought is greater than a living being. — Metaphysician Undercover

Isn't this simply putting things in their order of significance - a rock is less than a mouse; a mouse is less than a human?

t's not that they actually can't see, they certainly can see, unless they are truly blinded. Instead they chose actively to ignore the "otherworldly" and thus they do not see. — IP060903

Isn't that just a nasty piece of unnecessary ad hominem with no evidence supporting it? What evidence do you have that they choose not to see?

Good riddance. — Average

Take care.

You often ask questions and go on tangents when the answer has been given. Sorry bud. Done.

Correct me if I’m wrong but according to your own understanding of pragmatic truth a car accident would render your beliefs pragmatically false. That’s the only reason I said anything. — Average

I explained my view of this re-read it. I won't explain it again.

Clearly, then, depression is not the default state of man. Quote the contrary. It is only the default state for those human beings that are totally separated from their real 'default' state, namely the natural state. The natural state is to feel high all the time. The reason people do drugs is because they are trying to get a taste of the natural human state which is very similar to being 'high' on certain recreational drugs except without any of the negative aspects, or the dulling effect that such substances have on the mind. — Luzephyr

This reads like eccentric speculation. What is your source of this information?

Based on our pragmatic common sense understanding of how driving works in a pragmatic world, a crash is always a possibility. So what? One of the pragmatic truths about driving is that it has risks. And we know there are things you can do (truths) which decrease and increase risk. I don't generally measure anything in life, I go by common sense and inference. We all do.

I don’t know a lot about pragmatism so I won’t be able to truly understand your argument until I take the time to investigate the subject. — Average

I was using the word in its ordinary sense not the philosophical one. There is some overlap but basically it means if your belief about the world works then it is pragmatically true.

But if you don’t have a choice when it comes to what you believe then it doesn’t seem like you have any freedom. — Average

The theme of freedom (where did that come from?) has never interested me. Life feels like free choice, That'll do me.

I’m not a platonist so idk. I don’t know how you could possibly sift through good and bad information if you don’t know what is true or false. — Average

And yet we do every day. We couldn't interact with others, hold down a job, study or walk down the street safely if we didn't know pragmatically what is true or false. The fact that I can drive a car means I have knowledge of true and false when it comes to negotiating roads and traffic. If not, I would run into a bus or some other inconvenience.

If one were to take a radical view that everything is an illusion, all I can say to that is I have no choice but to believe it is real? What other plausible option do we have?

Where did I say I don't agree with it? I'm confused by your whole post. All I said is that Enlightenment values are not Romantic values. — T Clark

I think that's the correct running order - rationalism then romanticism, after that, the hula-hoop followed by where we are now: the yo-yo.

t's valuable because you get to understand that you are in fact an independent, co-equal producer of the source of value in the world. And that only a system that respects such, can be considered a valuable one, as those that don't destroy the source of value to sustain themselves. — Garrett Travers

Thanks, that's a bit clearer.

There is a reasoning process from start to fininsh. Sorry for they typos above. — Garrett Travers

Typos are fine - I'm big on making them myself. :cool:

Ok so a reasoning process is fine. I reason that Berlin is my favorite city in the world because I met my wife there and we had some great days and nights travelling around. How valuable is this type of reasoning philosophically?

Nothing about said were fair points. The proposition has remained entirely unaddress by anything other than simple opinion that isn't consistent with any modern scientific understanding of nature. If love isn't rational for you, I would reconsider that it is in fact love at all. — Garrett Travers

I don't understand your argument, sorry. What do I need to understand about reason that I don't?

All fair points, TC. I often find myself reflecting upon how most of the things we truly value in life are not rational at all - love, connection to places and people, art, music, sex, food, friendship, travel... We can talk rationally about them, but generally this ends up sounding like prattle.

Yes, evolution. We evolved to produce reason as our means of survival, rather than fangs or claws. We create concepts and frameworks of behavior through reason. To negate such an assertion, evidence will have to be provided that opposes this as a deductive conclusion, and evidence for some other processes will also have to be presented. — Garrett Travers

Thanks for clarifying. Reason does seem to separate us from the other animals but it's not as if reason has been very popular with people - politics, advertising, religion, art would not have such a massive and irrational influence on human behaviour if we used reason the way you think is right. Maybe your point is simply that reason is used? I would agree that humans have the capacity to use reason effectively - but it is just a part of how we think and act.

P2. and if it is only through this conceptual faculty of reason that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty — Garrett Travers

I struggle with this one. Is this circular? Only through reason we can we live by reason? Or are you saying that only through reason can we develop values that are based on reason? Same thing, kind of. Or are you saying that only reason can allow us to live according to the values we construct? For me we come back to the problem that humans use reasoning, certainly, but the quality of the reasoning is not clear - it often amounts to emotion directed choices or reasons that 'make sense' to the person.

I like him a lot and I think he covers a lot of ground.

P1. if humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival.
P2. if only through this conceptual faculty of reason can humans live a live according to the values he/she develops with said faculty
C. then only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals — Garrett Travers

Is there a reason these premises are written like this, Garrett? To me it sounds like it was translated out of Swahili into broken unclear English. Sorry. :smile:

If humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival.. I can't follow what this is trying to say. Humans are rational beings as a consequence of nature?

I sometimes entertain the rather subversive idea that the role of modern culture is to make the world a safe space for the ignorant ('ignorance' in the traditional sense of the absence of wisdom or sagacity). — Wayfarer

You make that sound like a bad thing. :razz: Thanks for expanding on the topic.

Anyway - with respect to the OP, there are states of endogenous depression, which I'm sure you know, and which are properly the province of mental health and medical professionals. But there's also the dimension of existential angst. — Wayfarer

I've worked with many people who are depressed - hundreds now. Many of whom wanted to suicide and some of them have done so. I have nothing much of value to say about the matter on a forum except that Andrew Solomon wrote a very good book on the subject, an anatomy of depression called The Noonday Demon. For me the question isn't really why do people get it, it's why do some people recover.

The radical problem with modern culture is that it seeks to 'normalise' the human condition, instead of seeing it as problematical or flawed, and then can't understand why happiness is still so hard to obtain. — Wayfarer

That's a juicy morsel for us. Can you elaborate a little?

Kill us? How so? Is the idea of an 'ultimate reality' a human construct based on innate desire to create meaning? Or is there something;'out there' for us to discover? We already know the various posited solutions, from Brahman to WIll.