Does that mean that Noam Chomsky will only reply to questions which have been raised so far on this particular thread? I was coming from the angle that he would have more of a live presence like David Pearce did.

I may be expecting too much from such an important figure, so it is useful for know whether he will only look at what has been raised on the thread as I am wondering whether it will be closed, and whether a new one will be started for when he engages on the site. I was hoping that the thread here would be a starting point and that questions could emerge in relation to points which he makes.

I like weather that I can forget about, rather than weather which becomes a source of stress. At the moment, in England, it is almost June and there has been no heatwave so far. This is great because there is so much expectation of intense heat. There have been sunny days but with a wind, on account of the solar storms. At least, it feels balanced and even if I am not groaning because the English are renouned for always talking and grumbling about the weather.

I agree that theory of mind is an issue for everyone. The reason why I found it an interesting area for thinking about in the literature on autism was because it was the underlying philosophy meeting point. Also, people have such varying social skills in both empathy and in reading other people's communication clearly. It may involve aspects of reasoning and social learning.

Sorry if you think I am getting off the point. One thing which I wonder about is the understanding of autism from a philosophy point of view. When I was reading literature on autism one particular aspect which I came across was how 'theory of mind' plays an important role, with autism often involving a lack of understanding of other minds. This is seen to be an important area in working with autism. As this is a philosophy site, I am wondering whether that is useful for discussion. It is also because I am aware from previous interaction with you that you have an interest in soliptism as a philosophy. I don't know to what extent that is something which you wish to think about in relation to the issue of autism.

I am not sure to what extent, or what people, argue that it doesn't need a 'cure'. To some extent, the approach in the post above my own may be more about the medical or psychological model having limitations. There are some who probably don't take autism seriously, except in the most severe cases that is probably a bad attitude, like the way in which many psychological issues are pushed aside.

The experience individuals have individually probably vary according to the social context in which a person is living because, as with many issues, there are varying degrees of knowledge. That may include the general population and even amongst medical professionals. Even though there is a growing awareness there are plenty of people who are not familiar with the autistic spectrum and it may be partly about whether one is fortunate enough to know people who have much knowledge or familiarity with autistic people.

I partly query the concept of 'cure' alongside the post above. However, at the same time understand that people who are seen to being on the autistic spectrum experience 'problems' which need to be addressed, possibly from many different angles.

I have worked with people on the autistic spectrum in mental health settings and have seen various approaches, sometimes being used in a combined way. Some aspects may be from the biological model and some from more psychosocial interventions. Of course, there are varying degrees of autism and most of the people who I worked with were having specific problems, including psychosis or difficulties which made it difficult to function on a day to day basis. These people needed psychiatric medication for these issues. However, some of them partook in therapies, including CBT and art therapy, as well as psychology input for social skills.

Part of the issue in thinking about a 'cure' or effective form of intervention involves the consideration of what causes autism. There are some biological theories and some which are more psychosocial and it may be a mixture of factors. As everyone who is autistic is unique there may need to be individually tailored approaches. Some people with less severe autism may have gone unnoticed in the past but there has been a gradual awareness of the spectrum as a whole which means that there is growing research, but the issue may be about accessing the best possible support.

Did you manage to get the 'Cannabis Satva', combined with passiflora over the counter or did you have to buy it online. I even find it hard to get Passiflora in health shops.

The inclusion of Passiflora is interesting because it has mild hallucinogenic properties. On one occasion, I think that I really noticed this. Although I am inclined to borderline sleep experiences, I had an intense experience of seeing white light a couple of years ago. It was a positive experience rather than a negative one.

If you only took one tablet of CBD it would be unlikely to do very much because most antidepressants take about 2 weeks to work. I took a fairly low strength and it may have taken a much higher dose to be effective, but CBD capsules are very expensive. Also, I have read that they are possibly bad for the liver. At this stage, there may be not enough evidence based research.

Before I was on a regular antidepressants I used to try a lot of over the counter medications and it was hit and miss. I did try St John's Wort and found they did make me feel less depressed but they gave me insomnia. They can give sunlight sensitivity and are dangerous to mix with some other medications, especially antidepressants.

Despite being on antidepressants I still have difficulty sleeping and it was for that reason that I tried CBD. I do often use over the counter sleeping tablets and I have found the herb passiflora which I have found worked quite well.

There was a brief time in Camden where you could get some cannabis products which were quite powerful in some cafes. I once had some cannabis cake and was tripping for several hours. But, shortly afterwards the cafe was shut down. I did take some legal highs from headshots before they were made illegal. I didn't have any problems with what I took but I think there were some really dodgy ones around because I knew a couple of people who got really sick, including someone who ended up in an intensive care unit after smoking some smokeable incense. I have heard of a recent craze of inhaling gas from gas balloons which sounds potentially dangerous.

It may be simpler if cannabis was legalized, especially as there may be more quality control rather than people having to go to dealers. One of the reasons why it may not happen is because there is all the concern about drug induced psychosis and dual diagnosis. Different people get such different effects. When I used to smoke it I did not get psychotic but I did see a lot of visual imagery on the borderline of sleep, especially if I was listening to music. I liked this though because the imagery was a source of inspiration for art work.

I tried some CBD capsules and didn't notice any effects at all. However, mine came from a health shop. It is possible that some have practically no CBD at all. That is what makes it a potential hype.

I have read that there is current research on microdosing on cannabis and other psychedelics for depression. I wouldn't mind taking part in a clinical trial but I would probably need to discuss this with my GP, who would probably say, 'No'.

[reply="Changeling;805226"
I definitely like Underworld, as well as psychedelic dance music, like Orbital and the Ozric Tentacles. I also recommend Daft Punk, especially their last album, 'Random Access Memories'.

It may be that it is hard to find ideas which do not occur in relation to ideas that have gone before. There is the question of how Infinite are aspects of thoughts, images and concepts, to make them so exclusive as to have never been tapped into by any other minds. Thoughts and ideas may evolve, be recycled and occur in crossovers of conceptual thinking. The basic mythical structures may remain and be brought forth in new innovations.

The ongoing aspects of innovation may be essential to creativity and philosophical possibilities. Without this there may be a crisis of culture, equivalent to that of ecology and climate change. The loss of potential original ideas may signify what the postmodernists describe as the 'end of history', as history is not just facts but the underlying framework of interpretation, which is an ongoing conceptual and mythical narrative in the making.

That's fantastic as he is such an important thinker. I haven't written on the forum for a while as I have a broken elbow but I hope to be able to interact with Chomsky.

I am not convinced that the distinction between the fields of thought are simple because while people do have contradictions, there may be overlaps. For example, I see a link between the ideas of determinism, Dennett's 'consciousness as an illusion' and a rejection of the importance of 'inner reality'. That is because such ideas may lead to an emphasis on the external world and people being seen almost as machines or robots. Also, such a viewpoint is compatible with some kinds of neo-totalitarianism, with the possibility of people competing for performance.

Even within physics there are different perspectives on religion and on politics. The aspects of the political within science may come down to competing political angles amongst scientists and of funding of projects at higher levels of power structures.

I am not sure that I really experienced much of a sense of 'grace' when I lived a 'religious life'. I used to go to Christian Union as a student and feel so 'different' from most of those around me. I was a bit taken aback by the way in which people were so opposed to other religious perspectives outside of Christianity and it does sound as you saw parallel ideas of other notions of God. I guess that I just didn't end up 'losing my religion' (great song by REM) in such a clear cut way. I have had many shifts and still experience them, but with more of an interest in comparative religion, but also with the whole area of interaction between spirituality and religion. Philosophy seems to fit into that as a foundation for rational examination of ideas and arguments.

The Sophists definitely saw winning arguments as essential. So, I sometimes think about that when reading some threads on this site, and I am sure that is how it is in many circles of philosophy.

I see what you mean about areas such as metaphysics, logic and epistemology not being political intrinsically. Nevertheless, such ideas may be used politically, especially with metaphysical ideas such as belief in God and life after death being used for political ends. However, it may be that genuine philosophy exploration is able to go beyond underlying political agendas and values.

As far as the interaction between philosophy and experience it may be complicated because although knowledge is not based on experience it may affect interpretation. For example, it was difficult experiences, including 2 friends committing suicide, which led me to question and question religion in a way which I had never done before. Of course, it is possible that I was getting to the point of questioning anyway and that experience simply speeded this up. I know that you got to the point of questioning while you were still at school when you gave up 'God' for lent. But, was the decision based simply on the basis of the rationality alone, or irrationally of the idea of God?

I guess that the use of the term and approach to it is so variable, ranging from the academic to the popular. In the tradition of Plato it may have been more about self-knowledge. That is not to say that many who approach disregard self-knowledge and the understanding of the nature of reality. However, the outer aspects of philosophy may be more about the ability to persuade and to offer credible and valid arguments. In that sense, philosophy can become almost a competition of power.

This may not be all that plurality involves but it does involve the politics of philosophy. That is in addition to the many possibilities of constructing worldviews, and all the many different angles and rational constructed arguments.

I am glad that you recognise the way in which construction of views is based on social and political factors. This probably occurs in many unconscious ways, with people having different ways of realising or acknowledging such biases and various prejudices which may come into play.

The cultural climate varies historically and geographically. It is also linked to the role of academic institutions, such as the general changes in allegiance to worldviews. In the light of science, postmodernism and other influences like existentialism and science, there may be a void. It may be that it is here that so much is seen as fictive, as a background for the emergence of 'post-truth'.

I am not sure that it matters entirely whether the term pluralism or relativism are used because it is about competing perspectives. Thinking about it more, the way I see it is that truth, reason or understanding are based on experience. This does depend on knowledge but there is a political dimension to this. Within social science and cultural studies there is recognition of intersectionality which involves social and categories as aspects of this, which affect perception of this. Of course, each person is a unique person in an ongoing process of structuring a philosophy outlook but intersectionality is likely to have some bearing on this.

The Ark of Philosophy can be like The Tower of Babel at times. It may also be because in the information age there is so much to access and put together from different times and cultures. In the issue of 'Philosophy Now' from which I read the article on postmodernism and science, there is also another relevant one, 'Bricolage: Natural Epistemology. The term was looked at by Claude Levi Strauss, as meaning '"to tinker' as a way of putting things together creatively. In a way, it can be seen as reconstruction as opposed to the process of deconstruction in postmodernism.

The line which you queried with the words, 'is reason a quest for reason' was actually a typo in my outpost. It should have read as 'is philosophy a quest for reason', so I will alter it when I look at the thread a little later today.

You also seem to prefer the concept relativism in favour of pluralism. The reason why I choose pluralism, which is similar because it is more about competing 'truths' rather than these simply being simply relative. The idea of competing truths was the way pluralist was used by William James in, 'The Pluralistic Universe'.

I have probably been through a lot of postmodern mazes. In particular, I found Foucault's ideas on sexuality very helpful, especially in conjunction with questioning religious beliefs.

It does seem that there is a lot of confusion about who is in charge or control as roles in social life have become more and more fuzzy. Power shifts a lot, especially as people change organisational roles. It is likely that this effects the way people hold beliefs and values as they shift within different structures and cultures of knowledge and ideologies.

I went to meditation this evening in Camden Town. Sometimes if I go to a group meditation I feel unable to switch off. However, what happened today was that I had been really stressed out earlier but became calm on the way so I was able to meditate fairly easy. I think that what happened was that I had worn out my 'monkey brain' so much that I was able to not have its intrusive chatter getting in the way too much.

Going back to its origins, philosophy involved the quest for self-knowledge and, as philosophy has become increasingly about analysis of concepts and understanding science, the aspect of self-knowledge may get lost at times. In some ways, the emphasis on self-knowledge may fall into the domain of psychology. However, even that may be more focused on the outer forms of behaviour and thinking about oneself.

However, I am not suggesting that self-knowledge is mere introspection, because self-knowledge is about feedback from others and self-knowledge. Therapies, including the cognitive behavioral therapies may help, and there is an overlap on questioning assumptions behind feelings. There is also an overlap between CBT and Stoicism.

You are definitely right that technological advances mean that people are becoming more robotic, less inclined to looking within themselves. As far as whether people change focus may vary. Jung saw the second half of life as more about inner growth, but if people have not been encouraged to think about their inner lives in the first place, this will not happen necessarily. Also, his understanding of introversion and extraversion is important. That is because often in popular thinking the terms are used to describe stereotypes of people who are sociable or withdrawn. Jung, who actually, as far as I am aware, invented the terms, was speaking more of the way people are oriented towards the inner or outer. Of course, it is not simple because everyone lives in both categories of experience. Nevertheless, there is an increasing move in technological society to the exterior. For example, even the value of the arts may be often flattened into the fast culture of entertainment.

As I am extremely influenced by Jung, I have thought about his understanding of consciousness a lot in relation to various thread discussions. It appears to me that there are ambiguities in his writings, which mean that his perspective can be interpreted in various ways. For example, recently I was reading, 'Philosophy: 100 Thinkers', by Philip Stokes, who listed Jung in the section on the materialists. However, in the discussion, Stokes acknowledged the way in which Jung incorporated a form of mysticism going back to the Greeks.

Part of the complexity of his perspective is that he starts from the assumptions of psychoanalysis drawn from Freud, which emerge from humanism and naturalism but he blends in so much from the various writers he has read. In a way, he rejects the supernatural by speaking of the collective unconscious as a natural source, but he does, at the same time, delve into metaphysics, including Kant. He sees archetypes as imminent in nature, but there is some parallel with the ideas of Plato. In doing so, he does come up with an understanding of mind which leans towards idealism, especially as he draws upon ideas in Eastern philosophy.

It is indeed interesting that Spinoza's ideas were suppressed, while Descartes ideas were mainstream. I wonder if it has a political aspect with Descartes' dualism being more compatible in the way in which life after death could be backed up according to Cartesian dualism.

Thanks for your thoughts on information and it does lead me to think of systems theory. I can remember how when I was studying biology, it made so much sense of everything by seeing the integral links. This did involve the connections between the mind and body, such as how the vague nerve, in response to stress leads to an increase in blood pressure, as well as the whole process of homeostasis in the body. The whole processes of minds or minds also make sense in the cybernetic theory of Gregory Bateson.

I had a read of your debate with Hanover. It showed how intricate the distinction is between substance dualism and property dualism. I think that it may be because the various historical figures, Spinoza, Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein had different underlying frames of reference. At least, in the twentieth first century there is at least a common frames of the neuroscience of the brain which gives some underlying basis for clarity about the nature of 'mind'.

I believe that I read something by Damascio, but not sure if it was the one you mentioned. I will look out for the one on Descartes, especially as Descartes' shaped so much of current thinking of the mind body/relationship. I had a friend who told me that Pink Floyd's,'The Division Bell', concept is based on the mind/body connection, but I don't know if this is true, or whether it was my friend's personal interpretation.

Yes, I may have mixed up various post discussions which I have had with you. However, I do believe that the philosophy of Spinoza has been particularly influential in your thinking, and thought that was in connection with substance dualism. I did read some of the thread on substance dualism about a year or two ago. It is interesting and, at some point, I would like to read further on the topic of substance dualism, as it may be important in connection with the materialism vs idealism spectrum.

I didn't think that you would reduce consciousness to information, but there are probably some people who do.

Yes, Skinner's perspective is complex, because although he did deny reflective consciousness, he did come up with potential modifications for life, in, 'Beyond Freedom and Dignity'.

The article which you provided a link to is a good overview. I certainly don't dismiss neuroscience as it does provide such a useful perspective. The article does bring in varying approaches because it is likely that these may be all useful. I am actually fairly interested in neurolinguistic programming because it may not explain consciousness itself but my help work with the subliminal aspects which affect the experiences of consciousness.

I know that you think that Spinoza's understanding of substance dualism is important. However, you seemed to agree with me that his writing is not the best place for this. So, which authors do you think offer a good overview of his approach?

I haven't read Yglotsky but I did begin reading Skinner's philosophy while I was studying psychology 'A' level. If anything, it seemed that he underplayed the role of inner experience, especially reflective self-awareness. We can question our own motives and look at these, which makes the whole issue relevant to that of free will. Behaviorism may be compatible with determinism, and it may come down to the actual reflective moment of choice. In some ways, the reflective element could be seen as connected to previously learned responses. On the other hand, it may depend on the level of self creation in the process of intentionality.

I had never thought of it as information until I read a couple of threads on this site on consciousness and information. To some extent, that perspective works, but what seems to be missing is both sentience and narrative identity in the construction of an autobiographical sense of self identity.

I come from the perspective of reading Dennett's ideas, which are so different from my own and that is why I think about it a lot. When I had a few out of body experiences on the borderline of sleep and on the two occasions when I took LSD I definitely had the sense of a separation between body and mind. This may have been a chemically induced illusion but it was certainly what I experienced.

Apart from the actual experiences the reason why I took acid a second time was I did feel that I had not got back into my body properly. At the time, I was starting my nursing training and others did notice my coordination difficulties. Also, I have always felt a little out of my body and it is as if I have to get into my body in order to do tasks. A couple of managers' queried my slightly delayed reaction times at times and it was extremely difficult to try to explain that I had to get into my body properly!

The fact that we all view everything with our own minds is a central aspect of philosophy. Mind is inherent in all thought and I believe that Thomas Nagel argued this in, 'A View From Nowhere'. It makes the issue of objectivity itself problematic.

I guess that I am interested in questioning the various perspectives on the mind and body question, as it is such a perplexing philosophical issue. I am not sure that I completely agree with his approach on introspection but I can see that he presents a valid argument. Self-knowledge through introspection is limited and open to doubt. I am sure that others' views of me are probably different from my own thoughts. Others' perspectives may be important as there are so many others, although those viewpoints would probably not be identical. But, with self-knowledge although it may be useful to know others' perceptions, including one's own blindspots, I have more time to devote to knowing myself. For that reason, I like to, as far as possible, be my own therapist.

I definitely see links between Ryle's understanding of the link between mind and matter and the nature of embodiment. In the last few months I read a few works in the phenomenological tradition and embodiment as expressed here does seem to be about such a fusion. I guess the other side of the issue is whether there is any possible separation, which goes back to Descartes' own thinking. Of course, a dead body is a dead body but I have heard anecdotal stories of people sensing a spirit leaving the body, but what that represents is open to question.