:up: :up: Of course.
:grin:

I think this is a little bit of a red herring when it comes to theorizing in teh way we do here (or, philosophy in general). I think if the theory has no knock-downs, we can hold unparsimonious theories. They just shouldn't take precedence. But, the "brain-as-receiver" theory is as old as time and has some explanatory power so I like that it's not being written off. — AmadeusD

Do you have the conscious experience of homunculusly controlling a meat puppet through some sort of communication channel? If so, what do the controls (that homunculus-you uses to control meat puppet-you) looks like?

Are they red?

It is a question that has been argued many times here on the forum. I've made my arguments so many times, it's hard to work up any enthusiasm to do it again. — T Clark

Same here. :wink:

You and I understand metaphysics differently. It's not that we haven't found proof that free will exists or doesn't exist, it's that it is not a question that can be answered empirically. — T Clark

This is a topic for a thread. A thread which I have no interest in starting. :razz:

I did not take the passage as a matter of intention. It was more a reporting of a gap. We do stuff and find out later what it brought about. Maybe. — Paine

:up:

Are you saying that free will doesn't exist - that it's somehow a alllusion to mysticism or the supernatural? — T Clark

Free will doesn't exist in the sense Peck thought it did. That doesn't mean it isn't reasonable to think about what would be a more realistic notion of free will - something along the lines of what Peter Tse is pointing towards with The Neural Basis of Free Will: Criterial Causation

I don't see it that way. Sometimes it makes sense to act as if ours and others' behaviors are the result of outside influences and sometimes it makes sense to act as if we are in control. — T Clark

Sure it makes practical sense, to go with the simplistic modelling of things that our brains generate, including our models of other people. However, I would think it unfortunate, to not be able to see beyond the simplistic modeling, even if only a bit.

Free will vs. determinism is a metaphysical issue. Its not about facts - true or false. — T Clark

All the more reason to take consideration of free will out of the box of metaphysics.

The phrase "the road less travelled" is from a poem by Robert Frost - "The Road Not Taken." It is ironic that the Peck used this quote because Frost meant it ironically. It is not meant as a paean to a life of non-conformity but rather a wry comment on how we look back on our lives and try to show how we are masters of our fate. — T Clark

I liked this discussion of the poem:

The poem masquerades as a meditation about choice, but the critic William Pritchard suggests that the speaker is admitting that “choosing one rather than the other was a matter of impulse, impossible to speak about any more clearly than to say that the road taken had ‘perhaps the better claim.’” In many ways, the poem becomes about how—through retroactive narrative—the poet turns something as irrational as an “impulse” into a triumphant, intentional decision. Decisions are nobler than whims, and this reframing is comforting, too, for the way it suggests that a life unfolds through conscious design. However, as the poem reveals, that design arises out of constructed narratives, not dramatic actions.

To me the poem suggests recognition of determinism - that many little things make all the difference in the courses of our lives. I think Peck somewhat recognized determinism. And perhaps, that by writing TRLT, he would to some degree determine the course of other people's lives. However, he also had a woo based belief in free will, and yes, using the metaphor from the poem is pretty ironic.

Yea maybe my word choice wasn't the best. I guess I think emotions provide the motivation for thinking, but I suppose a thinking process can work just fine once it gets going without further emotional input. — Brendan Golledge

Well, I wouldn't go that far either, although I'd be hard put to give much of an account of the role of emotion when I'm deep into doing electronics design. It's not something I've thought much about, and I suspect that if I were to pay more attention to the role of emotions in such a case, I'd see that emotions were playing a subtle role all along. If nothing else, I think there is a background of desire to achieve a design I'm happy with.

I agree with this. I thought of consciousness as just being, "having a model of the self," and this can clearly occur in degrees. And as I said before, it seems to me that reason and emotion are inseparable in their operation. — Brendan Golledge

I largely agree as well, but I balk at saying "inseparable". I'd say having emotions is what drives the process which results in our developing models of selves in the larger world.

The Road Less Travelled by M. Scott Peck

This has not aged well. Absolutely horrible at times. — fdrake

That was an important book for me at one time, but yeah. I see books on psychology as having a shelf life of about 20 years.

Protestants do more splitting than an atom smasher, which, I think, keeps them strong and healthy — BC

:lol:

"Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing" is a Christian hymn written by the pastor and hymnodist Robert Robinson, who penned the words in the year 1758 at the age of 22. It was set to a number of tunes, including shape-note tunes which were generally sung at a fast clip, a cappella. Here is a Primitive Baptist congregation a cappella performance to its most familiar tune. — BC

I also know that one well.

My parents both grew up in Evangelical United Brethren churches. Some interesting tidbits:

The United Brethren took a strong stand against slavery, beginning around 1820. After 1837, slave owners were no longer allowed to remain as members of the United Brethren Church. The Evangelical United Brethren churches sustained a strong fellowship with Nazarene (believing) Jews. In 1853, the Home, Frontier, and Foreign Missionary Society was organized. Expansion occurred into the western United States, but the church's stance against slavery limited expansion to the south.

By 1889, the United Brethren had grown to over 200,000 members with six bishops. In that same year they experienced a division. Denominational leaders desired to make three changes: to give local conferences proportional representation at the General Conference; to allow laymen to serve as delegates to General Conference; and to allow United Brethren members to hold membership in secret societies such as the Freemasons. The denominational leadership made these changes, but the minority felt the changes violated the constitution because they were not made by the majority vote of all United Brethren members. One of the bishops, Milton Wright (the father of aviation pioneers Wilbur Wright and Orville Wright), disagreed with the actions of the majority. Bishop Wright and other conference delegates left the meeting and resumed the session elsewhere. They believed that the other delegates had violated the constitution (and, in effect, withdrawn from the denomination), and deemed themselves to be the true United Brethren Church. Therefore, the body initially known as the United Brethren in Christ of the Old Constitution,[1] now called the Church of the United Brethren in Christ.

The denomination merged with the Evangelical Church in 1946 to form a new denomination known as the Evangelical United Brethren Church (EUB). This in turn merged in 1968 with The Methodist Church to form the United Methodist Church (UMC).

My father was ordained into, and began preaching in, the First Brethren church. (Not sure where First Brethren fits in.) However, when I was 10 he decided to try farming the family farm, and we began going to the United Methodist church which had been the EUB church that my father went to as a child.

...might be loathe to admit it... — Gnomon

Though I appreciate you trying to use a possibly archaic word I recently used on the forum, I have to call a language foul. There are two different words, "loath" and "loathe".

You might say, "might be loath to admit it"
or, "might loathe admitting it"
but "might be loathe to admit it" is right out.

I suspect the lion’s share of those intuitions are formed by early adulthood , which may explain why philosophers like Heidegger, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were able to generate profound psychological insights while living essentially monastic lives. — Joshs

Perhaps. I have only a superficial view of those three.

I tend to find both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard rather overwrought, and not to my taste. Still, I can see how both express things that I can understand others to find psychologically liberating, even if I don't much relate.

I found it pleasant enough, even compelling at times, for many years. — BC

A wonderful renditions of what was my favorite song when I was seven years old:

Egads. Mormons would constitute 0.61% of Christians and UU would constitute 1% of Mormons. You are talking about tiny outliers here. — Leontiskos

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if the presence of UU churches in the US is strongly correlated with the location of academic institutions.

Now the only Church leader who will say, "Oh okay, I agree that you are already Christian and require no baptism or initiation before joining our community," would be a Mormon leader. So you can go on claiming that Mormons are Christians, so long as it is admitted that 99% of Christians disagree with you. — Leontiskos

I can't say I have spent a lot of time in Unitarian Universalist Churches, but I wouldn't be surprised if a large percentage of UU leaders would be untroubled by such a claim by a Mormon. It seems more a matter of a church leader's ability to see past a tribalistic mindset, to me.

But I do value his attempt to order the world in such a way, even if it is ultimately missing something or wrong. By seeing his logic of synthesis of various fields, it might provide some insights into other things along the way, even if simply thinking of contrary perspectives to its totalizing tendency. — schopenhauer1

Agreed. :up:

Just like the Multiverse, "Information" seems to be a "catchall" for the "ground of being". apokrisis for example, will have a grand Peircean version of this consisting of a triadic grouping that must always be in the equation... — schopenhauer1

:rofl:

I think "Procrustean" would fit as well as "Peircean" a lot of the time.

In another thread I recently had a similar discussion where I got all hard-ass and philosophical about what a belief really is. — T Clark

Are you sure it wasn't this thread? :cool:

"endless forms most beautiful" that Darwin saw in Nature, and attributed to an unspecified "creator"*3. — Gnomon

You seem to be promoting misinformation, given the title of the book being On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

At least the link you provided corrects the record:

In March, 1863, Darwin wrote about this inclusion of the three significant words ~ by the Creator ~ to his friend and scientific confidante Joseph Hooker:-

"I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion & used Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant “appeared” by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish thinking, at present, of origin of life; one might as well think of origin of matter."

This opens up a huge debate. Bringing up good citizens (let's suppose that this society is at least on some winding pathway towards civilization.) is a complicated and messy business. Formal education, as we understand it, is an important part of that. Don't think that I'm trying to disparage it. But play-time and parenting are important parts as well. Beyond that, I'm very confused. — Ludwig V

I just want to say, that I appreciate your thoughtfulness.

The suffering wouldn’t be from being isolated, but rather it would be discussed communally without being gaslit, distracted from it, or ignoring it, facing it and recognizing it communally. — schopenhauer1

Long ago I was fortunate to be part of a community along such lines, although these days I get such needs met through talking with individual friends. Anyway, I'll PM you, because a public forum isn't a very good place for discussing such things.

It is the extreme I am against. If someone believes they have an idea that can alter society 'at large' then they are peddling some form of ideology. I do not care how good the outcome they are hoping for is I just know it will not come to fruition how they expect.

No one is a prophet, they just play at being a prophet. Just because we remember those whose faulty predictions seem to have played out roughly as they said they would, this does not discount the hundreds of others who appeared to have had equally valid arguments but whose forecasts turned out to be completely wrong.

There is no 'Social Science' in anything but name. When people forget this horrific things happen. — I like sushi

I couldn't agree that there is no social science, although I'd likely agree that there is a 'fuzziness' to the 'objects' of social science, which is considerably different than the fuzziness of objects studied in physics. It seems to me that consideration of social science (or at least pseudo social science) plays a big role in philosophy. Of course social science on its own is a huge area of study, and we can't really expect anyone to have a complete understanding of all the subjects involved.

In any case it seems that you are opposed to is something I would think better labeled as social engineering.

The word used was "encourages" not demands or implores. Rather, if one is feeling isolated, lonely, and the only one suffering, it may be best to communicate this in a communal way with others feeling the same way. — schopenhauer1

So what if participation in such a community results in someone no longer feeling isolated, lonely, and as being the only one suffering? Would that person still be able to contribute to the community or would they need to persist in seeing themselves as the only one suffering to be recognzed as a member of such a community?

Changing society at large ... Have you already managed to pull off one, single change to society, no matter how small?
— Tarskian

I warned against anyone trying to do so and am against anyone trying to do so. — I like sushi

This seems a bit extreme to me. I see education as something that changes society, but I'm not against education.

Philosophical pessimism, as I have laid it out, encourages the development of communities based on real understanding and support, rather than superficial optimism. — schopenhauer1

And then calls doing so malignantly useless?

Modern Unitarians are as Christian as Mormons, which are not. Ancient unitarians are something else, which why we don't simply call them "Christian", but a modifier comes before. — Lionino

I'm inclined to leave arguing about who is truly a Christian, to those who want to call themselves Christians. It's not as if there exists some essence of True Christian.

But even if the answer to our initial question, “Can human behavior be studied scientifically,” is yes, that doesn’t imply it can be studied easily.

So you have gone from it being sheerly impossible to experimentally test human behavior to not easy.

FWIW, I just experimentally tested your behavior, and found that you were capable of going from making a ridiculously hyperbolic claim, to something more reasonable. It seemed like a pretty easy experiment to conduct to me.

The problem is rather that it is sheer impossible to experimentally test human behavior. — Tarskian

Why do you think that?

, are you familiar with the sort of psychological conditions associated with black and white thinking?

The Journey uses music. Isn't that a kind of universal language? — Amity

I'd have to say, that a more useful language for the companions is dancing. :grin:

But there is no theory of 'how brains generate consciousness'... — Wayfarer

You are thinking in black and white terms.

First off, we should be talking about a theory of minds, rather than mind.

Secondly, I certainly have a rough working hypothesis that has a lot of predictive strengths. Of course, it is certainly not anything like a complete theory. There is an enormous amount still to be learned, and good reason to doubt that any human could actually grasp what might (on some unknown criteria) be considered a finished theory of minds.

Thirdly, the fact that you don't have much of a working hypothesis yourself, seems like something that you might want to correct.

So, I have very little other than my own opinions of my ideas as a check on whether they are right or not. — Brendan Golledge

Perhaps this is a problem with considering a monastic life to be conducive to developing psychological insight? Considered from a neuroscientific perspective, a monastic life could be considered to be starving one's brain of the input that comes with interacting with diverse people in diverse situations. It doesn't seem to me like a monastic life would be very conducive to developing robust intuitons regarding human psychology.

To take it back to Christianity, do you think the diversity of people who Jesus is purported to have associated with might have been relevant to Jesus being particularly psychologically insightful?

Sam mentions the idea of the body as a 'receiver' or 'transmitter' akin to a television. Why is that necessarily a daft idea? — Wayfarer

It's not necessarily daft. However, in light of modern scientific understanding of the nature of brains, and the sort of information processing that can occur in neural networks, it's unparsimonious. I.e. "I have no need of that hypothesis."

:sparkle:

Thanks for sharing :sparkle: — Amity

Something Journey related I posted in another thread recently, that I think will give you a sense of how deeply affecting the game can be:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/924182

I gave a definition of "belief" in a previous post - "attitudes about the world which can be either true or false." You must be using a different definition, which makes fruitful discussion impossible. How can a picture or video be true or false? — T Clark

I was thinking about a mental model of an electronic circuit, with "picture" or "video" being words used to try to roughly convey a sense of what it is like for me subjectively to consider such a mental model.

By "true" in this case I mean that my mental model has a correspondence (or isomorphism) with what is going on within the physical system being mentally modeled. That correspondence (or lack thereof in the case of my mental model being false) is not dependent on whether I have attempted to convey my mental model using language.

Not to be cute, but since saying things uses words, how can you say you know things that aren't expressed in words. That's a serious question. — T Clark

Well knowing something about an electronics design I'm considering is often for me a matter of pictures or maybe something somewhat analogous to videos. (Although probably better to just substitute the more ambiguous term "mental model" for "video", because I wouldn't say that it is literally like a video.)

In any case, saying I know something is a different matter than expressing what it is that I know. I'm not likely to be able to express my knowledge of something without resorting to words in a lot of cases. Though I imagine that in some cases I could communicate things in pictures and without resorting to words, if I were attempting to communicate with someone with relevant background knowledge, who was aware of the somewhat strange communication game being played.

In fact the video game Journey is an example of such a strange communication game, as it doesn't provide for language use between players, but it certainly allows for teaching aspects of Journey-world physics via a sort of monkey-see/monkey-do mechanism. It tends to involve a bit of repetitive doing, until the other player develops recognition of a pattern to what is going on in our interactions, and the other player realizes that they can do something that they didn't previously realize that they could do.

So, can you have a belief that is not expressed in words? I think maybe the answer is "no," but I'm not sure. — T Clark

I find it interesting, in light of your career as an engineer, that you question having beliefs that are not expressed in words. I often believe, and I'd say know things, without the belief being expressed in words. For me putting my beliefs into words is often obviously secondary to having the belief itself.

You mentioned once, funneling facts into your head and engineering solutions arising later as a result. If you don't mind me asking, were the results that arose from this process results in the form of words?