My take on these ideas are similiar, Benj, but put differently, I think more naturalistically, as follows:

The human mind belongs to a natural system (i.e. the nested ecologies-constrained human body) which in turn is inseparable from the natural world that is constrained by constitutive, law-like regularities, or structural processes. Entropy is one of the natural world's structural processes and inexorable senescence (as well as temporality) of the human mind is a manifestation of entropy. Psychopathologies and cognitive biases are as well. One implication of this, I think, is that, to the degree the human mind denies its own structural process of entropy (i.e. increasing disorder aka "aging" ... impermanence) via various ruses, diversions, delusions, etc, the human mind frustrates, even afflicts, itself (à la Buddhism's "anicca", "anatta", "dukkha-karma", no?)

NB: As I see it, 'the business of philosophy' is primarily to reflectively discipline the human mind with study, dialectical engagement and praxis in order to gradually unlearn the maladaptive habit of 'denying the human mind's inherent disorder' while learning to be antifragile because of this fact. This striving to reduce foolery (& stupidity) seeks to align expectations with reality as an adaptive habit, or, to use P. Hadot's phrase, as a daily spiritual practice.

Unless I have misread this this seems inherently problematic.

You are going to be diagnosing mental disorders based on how closely someone's words or behaviour align to what you perceive to be an objective external world.

This is how they pathologized a lot of healthy people in the past who did not share other people's attitudes and what they still do in some countries.

Also people have changed our view the the external world by perceiving it or contextualising it differently.

If there was only one mental healthy way to view reality we would never make progress.

I view the external word as evidence but not evidence that is open to theories and and interpretation.

Depressive realism is a theory people who posit what you do don't like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism

Here it says:
"Some have argued that the evidence is not more conclusive because no standard for reality exists, the diagnoses are dubious, and the results may not apply to the real world"

And there you have the problem. It is probably best not to diagnose mental disorders based on how much someone fits into a norm but looking for causes of the distressing dysfunctional symptoms.

1). Let's assume that reality is ordered - consistent. Governed by laws and constants. (objective).

2). Lets also assume that the mind can perceive reality, receive data or input from it and store that data. — Benj96

What does reality being "ordered" mean? Is this order inherent in everything we perceive or are you referring to the hypothesised laws of physics including the quantum world?

We know the human body is hugely complex with a lot of unknowns and a lot of mechanisms and systems hidden to the naked eye.

We don't perceive cells, mitochondria and DNA these are the product of theories and enhancing our perception with instruments like microscopes but also a having to apply theories to interpret the findings caught by our instruments. We seem to have to interpret sense data to utilise it.

I would say that what we perceive as reality with our basic senses is not the kind of data on which to build a sophisticated world model (even though I believe perceptions are truthful and carry data).

So I think we are faced with a project of combining everyday perceptions with theories in an ongoing revisionary dynamic. I do not think we can draw any solid conclusions about how to behave from immediate sense data without our presumptions and subjectivity.

A wild animal is probably better than us at surviving based on unsophisticated accurate statistic reactions to sensory data with the sole goal of survival not the kind of complex human goals we have like deciding what career path to take or the meaning of life.caused by too much reality rather than too little.

mental illness could be

1). Let's assume that reality is ordered - consistent. Governed by laws and constants. (objective). — Benj96

Given. I can't imagine life, or any other ongoing process in nature, taking place in the absence of consistent order and constant laws.

2). Lets also assume that the mind can perceive reality, receive data or input from it and store that data. — Benj96

Also given, that being the definition of "mind".

3). Finally, let's assume that the mind can store said data in any number of relationships/associations with one another. — Benj96

That number, I think, would depend on the complexity and development of the mind under consideration. A fruit-fly mind would have the capacity for more limited observation, less data storage and fewer associations than an elephant mind. Further, I believe all organic minds - at least on this planet - have innate limits on their capacities and capabilities.

It can create an internal structure or "operative paradigm" to any "nth degree" of accordance or discordance with reality as it actually is — Benj96

Allowing for the above reservation, I can agree to a high degree - perhaps ath to jth, but well short of the nth. I'm puzzled by the insertion of

(ie degree of subjectivity or "bias" ) — Benj96

in that sentence. I see normally functioning minds at any level of complexity creating internal models of reality according to which they make decision regarding situations, phenomena and other entities they encounter - if that's what is meant by "operative paradigm". I can also see that the more closely that internal model accords with objective reality, the more effectively that organism is likely to function.

Proof of such a case is in predictive value — Benj96

I don't quite follow predictive value. In some situations, accurate prediction is the path to survival, which would give accuracy - and alignment with objective reality - a very high value. But there are also situation in the social life of highly complex, imaginative animals, where some kinds of bias, some emotional factor or even illusion would serve their interest better. (Pascal seemed to think so, anyway.)

For one, psychopathology or psychiatric illness would likely be the result of disordered mental paradigm. A failing to correctly place associations and relationships into logical (true or "realistic" ) order - likely due to previous trauma the consequent irrational emotional influence on subsequent beliefs and finally the paradigm they create. And therefore delusions (untruths) prevail. — Benj96

Convoluted as that sentence is, it's too simplistic to sum up mental illness. So: ye-e-es, partly, sort of.

It would also mean that these could be "cured" with re-education, or rational psychotherapy. Reformulation of one's perception of reality. — Benj96

The Russian and Chinese governments have applied this method extensively, with very limited success. Even if your motives are pure and your aim to guide the patient toward a more accurate or healthier internal model of reality, external logic doesn't work. The patient knows that your reasoning is different from his; what he cannot accept is that your model of the world is superior or preferable. He can be assisted, but ultimately, he is the only one who knows the language and structure of his own internal model of the world: he's the only one who can rebuild it.
So again: yes, sometimes, partly, if....

What would this mean for the current pharmaceutical approach to psychiatric illness? — Benj96

Very little. There are already many other therapies in the field.
Pharmaceuticals serve various uses, though they are usually not proffered as a cure.
Not the least important of their uses is calming violent or self-destructive impulses, to afford the patient some degree of control over his actions and his life, while other, slower approaches are attempted to reach the root causes of the malfunction.
Are drugs overused in western psychotherapy? Yes, definitely, as they are in all branches of modern medicine: we're always looking for the quick and easy solution. You can't altogether blame the profession: it's very hard to let a patient suffer, or be forced to restrain him, when you have a possible means of relief within your power to grant.

:up: Very nicely laid out!

1). Let's assume that reality is ordered - consistent. Governed by laws and constants. (objective).

2). Lets also assume that the mind can perceive reality, receive data or input from it and store that data. — Benj96

I think it foolish to deny that there is an order in nature, but I also think that the answer to the question of why there is such an order, and what this order means or implies is not at all obvious. And also the question of whether natural order extends to the human order - the framework within which we make decisions about values or assign meaning. What the place of humans is, in relation to this order.

(A Christian philosophical view would be that this natural order is instituted by God, and the appropriate response is that of obedience to divine commandments, which I will leave aside in favour of philosophical analysis. However it should be understood as part of the background of this question as modern culture has been shaped by rejection of that view - it defines what not to believe for a lot of people.)

Then, we could say that the degree of awareness or logic vs delusion of an given individual = the degree in which their minds internal relationships and associations or paradigm parallels/falls into alignment with that of external reality.

Proof of such a case is in predictive value - such an individual would be expected to have immense foresight (prediction) ability, as well as memory (accurate recall) , as well as explanatory power (their logic paralleling the innate logic of an objective reality). — Benj96

Aren't you describing here precisely the enterprise of science? Is it not the discernment and quantitative analysis of the objective order of nature which science is engaged in, and which has given rise to immense control over physical conditions and accumulation of information? Doesn't science already create predictive, mathematical models of the behaviour of nature with unprecedented levels of accuracy?

'the business of philosophy' is primarily to reflectively discipline the human mind with study, dialectical engagement and praxis in order to gradually unlearn the maladaptive habit of 'denying the human mind's inherent disorder' while learning to be antifragile because of this fact. — 180 Proof

Would you consider the possibility that this 'inherent disorder' is what is designated by 'avidya' (ignorance) in Buddhist and Hindu philosophy? And that in those schools of traditional philosophy, it is precisely detachment from the imperatives of nature that provides the pathway to liberation (mokṣa, Nirvāṇa)? Whereas the identification with 'what decays and passes away' (in their terms) binds to the 'wheel of saṃsāra' (detachment from same being the aim of 'daily spiritual practice').

(A Christian philosophical view would be that this natural order is instituted by God, and the appropriate response is that of obedience to divine commandments, which I will leave aside in favour of philosophical analysis. However it should be understood as part of the background of this question as modern culture has been shaped by rejection of that view - it defines what not to believe for a lot of people.) — Wayfarer

For me that way of framing it is tendentious. The Christian worldview held sway for a very long time, and its only guarantor was the voice of unimpeachable authority. It is not that rejection of that worldview is driven by nefarious motives or some kind of willful blindness, but rather that, as a paradigm, it has too many inconsistencies with human experience to be capable of continuing to convince those who look at it impartially, and it also flies in the face of a human sense of justice. It is unknown, unknowable, just how many it failed to convince in its heydays, since at those times espousing disbelief was dangerous.

I didn't intend to imply wilful blindness but that could equally be said of your second sentence, as, at the time, the Christian worldview comprised a distillation of whatever historical wisdom and science the culture possessed. But, let's not get into that - my only point was that whenever a discussion about 'the order of nature' is entertained, a sub-text to that debate is the possibility or non-possibility of there being a higher intelligence.

I agree that there could have been (probably mostly covert) willful rejection of Christian dogma, but I would not call that "blindness" because in my view some people, even uneducated people, are capable of great practical wisdom, sense of justice and general good will. and if they have acquired the habit of thinking for themselves, will reject any views which seem to contradict what they understand as good sense, rejection based simply on discordance with life experience.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the possibility or non-possibility of there being a higher intelligence". I suppose you are referring to a personal god, a god who is cognizant of and caring about human life, and has a "plan" in mind for us? Or do you mean that some poelpe are of greater intelligence than others?

If you mean the former, then I would question whether we have any generally convincing rational reason to believe such a thing. If you mean the latter, I'd say that's certainly true, but that those of lesser intelligence have no reason to follow those of greater intelligence other than blind admiration or else actually being able to understand and be convinced by whatever views the person of greater intelligence recommends.
.

I never used the word 'blindness'. I simply said that the popular rejection of the notion of the divine origin of natural law is a factor in the debate.

Right, I first used the word 'blindness' but it was in response to what seemed to be implied in what you refer to above as "popular rejection", as though it was a mere following of fashion coupled with a fixation on "things of this world" at the expense of the "higher other".

It seems plausible to think that acceptance of another world above this one was mainly on account of it being the authoritative dogma, as well as being motivated by fear of death and wishful thinking that there might be a world more perfect than this one.

:cool: Thanks.

Would you consider the possibility that this 'inherent disorder' is what is designated by 'avidya' (ignorance) in Buddhist and Hindu philosophy? — Wayfarer

No. More so: anicca-anatta.

And that in those schools of traditional philosophy, it is precisely detachment from the imperatives of nature that provides the pathway to liberation (mokṣa, Nirvāṇa)?

Is that so? Well, in other related dharmic traditions, I understand that it is 'detachment from the psychological habit of permanence' (e.g. anicca-anatta) that facilitates 'liberation'.

Whereas the identification with 'what decays and passes away' (in their terms) binds to the 'wheel of saṃsāra' (detachment from same being the aim of 'daily spiritual practice').

You would know better than I, Wayfarer. I only raised 'Buddhism' as a speculative resemblance to, or psychological recognition of, to the fact of entropy – inherent disorder-ing – and the implications of denying, or ignoring, it (i.e. avidya).

Whereas the identification with 'what decays and passes away' (in their terms) binds to the 'wheel of saṃsāra' (detachment from same being the aim of 'daily spiritual practice').

As I understand it, Gautama eschewed identification with what is permanent as much as identification with what passes away. In other words,, he rejected both the views of "nihilism" and "eternalism" as constituting obstructions on the path to liberation.

Is that so? Well, in other related dharmic traditions, I understand that it is 'detachment from the psychological habit of permanence' (e.g. anicca-anatta) that facilitates 'liberation'. — 180 Proof

To what end, though? The theory is, that ignorance is the attribution of permanence to that which is by nature impermanent, i.e. arising of thoughts, sensations, and one's sense of ownership and so on - clinging to what is impermanent. So it is ending the attachment to the impermanent that is the aim of the discipline.

All you're saying wisdom consists of is resigning yourself to the inevitable natural fact of death and decay, isn't it? 'Surrender' in the sense of abandoning hope of anything beyond that. Which is precisely what Buddhism describes as nihilism.

he rejected both the views of "nihilism" and "eternalism" as constituting obstructions on the path to liberation. — Janus

Eternalism is the belief that through the appropriate rituals and practices, one can return forever in favourable states of birth (including heaven) rather than seeking emancipation from the whole cycle of re-birth.

It seems plausible to think that acceptance of another world above this one was mainly on account of it being the authoritative dogma, as well as being motivated by fear of death and wishful thinking that there might be a world more perfect than this one. — Janus

In this case, the issue is one of accounting for, or explaining, why there is a 'natural order'. As you will probably recall, in Greek philosophy, there was a principle that the explanans has to be of a different order to what is explained. So, for example, the faculty of reason was thought to provide a higher level of explanation than sense-perception, because of its ability to discern causal factors not perceptible to the sense alone - that being the logos (according to Heraclitus and the Stoics), the reason things are as they are. This was the probable origin of the idea of 'natural law'. According to view there can't be a natural explanation for the natural order, because both explanandum (what is to be explained) and explanans (what explains it) are of the same order.

To what end, though? — Wayfarer

Are you asking about (a) Buddhist tradition or my use of it as a metaphor from outside of the scientific worldview (re: entropy)? If the latter, consider my post again, especially the second paragraph:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/804140

All you're saying wisdom consists of is resigning yourself to the inevitable natural fact of death and decay, isn't it?

That's quite uncharitable ... in light of what I wrote (also follow the embedded link):

... striving to reduce foolery (& stupidity) seeks to align expectations with reality as an adaptive habit ... — 180 Proof

is what I am "saying wisdom consists of".

This striving to reduce foolery (& stupidity) seeks to align expectations with reality as an adaptive habit, or, to use P. Hadot's phrase, as a daily spiritual practice. — 180 Proof

Then I can't see the point of you're introducing with ' Buddhism's "anicca", "anatta", "dukkha-karma"'. Are you saying that these are examples of the 'ruses or delusions' by which humans deny their own inevitable decay?

Are you saying that these are examples of the 'ruses or delusions' by which humans deny their own inevitable decay? — Wayfarer

Just the opposite – what in the opening sentence of my last post isn't clear ...

... my use of [Buddhist ideas] as a metaphor from outside of the scientific worldview (re: entropy)? — 180 Proof

Now re-read the first paragraph in my post. :roll:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/804140

The first paragraph is about 'the human mind' and how (my) scientific interpretation has affinities with (my) interpretation of some (non-scientific) 'Buddhist ideas'. The second paragraph is about the function philosophy (i.e. wisdom-seeking) can serve in reducing 'the human mind's' self-inflicted, immiserating handicaps.

So the second paragraph answers your first "to what end?" question and the first paragraph answers your second "these (Buddhist ideas) examples" question. If that isn't clear enough for you, Wayfarer, then we'll just have to go on talking past each other like we usually do.

what in the opening sentence of my last post isn't clear ... — 180 Proof

Nothing at all, but no need to go to any further trouble.

Eternalism is the belief that through the appropriate rituals and practices, one can return forever in favourable states of birth (including heaven) rather than seeking emancipation from the whole cycle of re-birth. — Wayfarer

That may be one interpretation: the one I am familiar with is that eternalism posits an immortal self, with nihilism being the idea that there is no self, immortal or otherwise.

Regardless of terminological issues, if there is no self which survives the death of the body, then impermanence is the reality for us..