It's precisely here, LogicWings, where our "dialog" goes off the rails, every time it seems — in a clash of fundamental worldviews.
I do not believe the universe is merely an abstract concept. In philosophy, that sort of belief is called Idealism. (Kant is usually sorted into that school. I hope you're enjoying his company.)
But I am a philosophical Realist who recognizes that the substantial reality of the living universe is not dependent on me noticing it.
In other words, my answer to the question: If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? is: YES.
From my perspective, the universe pre-exists (and post-exists) me; and because I notice it as something independently real apart from myself, I can engage with it and think about it. IOW, It is something real without any help from me at all. And I am a part and participant in it. And so are you.
Definition of REIFICATION:In short, you evidently regard the universe as an immaterial abstraction, a figment of thought, so to speak, and nothing more. And I do not. No wonder we have such difficulty understanding one another!
the process or result of reifyingDefinition of REIFY:
transitive verb:
to regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing
Which sheds light on your reaction to Godwin's question, "Does science really understand what it purports to know?" Your response:
I dismissed [the question] because it is a sloppy Reification. “Science” doesn't understand anything. It is an abstract concept representing a system of study via a set discipline and method to gather knowledge about reality. Individuals understand things, and some individuals understand things more clearly than others. And since individuals disagree about any number of aspects within that system of study to say science 'understands' anything, or should, is fallacious.Well, at least you admit that science is somehow about gathering knowledge "about reality." But it seems according to your method, "reality" may be only a "reification" of your own. And, from your own statements, I gather you do not trust reifications. So, where does that leave you?
One might say that science, as it is currently understood and practiced, is excessively devoted to abstractions, in a sort of process of "reification" in reverse. But reification of what? Anomie? Mindlessness??? If science is not permitted — by its own method — to understand what it knows, then what is the point of science?
A typical answer nowadays is that science justifies itself because it gives us so many wonderful techniques for (in effect) exploiting Nature in the service of man. But such an answer is blind to the historical understanding of the mission of science (called "natural philosophy" before the 18th century): To discover the universal truths which inform and uphold the natural world.
As the mathematician/systems theorist/theoretical biologist Robert Rosen observed (in Life Itself):
It is not perhaps generally appreciated, especially by experimentalists (i.e., by those who actually perform measurements) that any measurement, however comprehensive, is an act of abstraction, an act of replacing the thing measured (e.g., the natural system N) by a limited set of numbers. Indeed, there can be no greater act of abstraction than the collapsing of a phenomenon in N down to a single number, the result of a single measurement. From this standpoint, it is ironic indeed that a mere observer [i.e., the experimentalist] regards oneself as being in direct contact with reality and that it is "theoretical science" alone that deals with abstractions.Fortunately for us, the greatest scientific minds of all time did not follow your definition of science (above, bolds). I'm speaking of (for example) Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, oh so many others. Not even Charles Darwin followed your definition!
I don't know how you fit them into your "model," LogicWings.
What all these world-class thinkers had in common was: They practiced intuition-led science. They were not what I call "bean counters."
From which, a trial conclusion: Were it not for "intuition-led science," science could not advance at all.
I was perplexed by your question: "I guess psychology doesn't exist then?" It seems a complete non sequitur to what I was trying to say, to wit: "We need this Self to explain our own thought processes — as the source that can discern, identify, collect, integrate, analyze, and attempt to explain its findings — indeed, [we need this Self] for 'science' to occur at all."
And if we're talking "Self," then we are definitely in the mode of psychological investigation. By "Self," I intend psyche — which Plato "put on the map" for the very first time roughly four centuries B.C. Other people have had other names for it, e.g., Ego. Some people have actually empirically isolated it — e.g., William James — but will not give it a name. (James — perhaps the greatest American psychologist who ever lived, a rigorous experimentalist with — arguably — positivist leanings — just referred to it as "Thought" — with a capital "T".)
So, NO, I am not attempting to abolish psychology, for heaven's sake. Why would you even impute such a thing to me, LogicWings? I've spent a whole lot of time and energy with readings in psychology for a long time by now (since age 17) — Plato, Freud, Jung, James, Rosmini, Godwin, others. On the logic of your argument, the only reason I'm reading them is to dig up the dirt whereby "I" shall abolish psychology as a knowledge discipline. I can't even imagine how you could justify your conclusion that I am somehow trying to abolish psychology.
Especially in light of the fact that, for me, other than the problem of Life itself, the problem of Mind (psyche) is the single most important question in the world.
Then you argue that Self itself is something that I must prove to you. But that would be like asking me to prove that you exist: But I cannot even conceive of you absent the idea of a unique Self. So what do you want me to prove?
Must stop for now, though I could go on. Enuf's enuf for now. Please do get back to me, dear LogicWings, at your convenience. I don't know if we'll ever get "on the same page"; nonetheless I am enjoying our conversation very much, and thank you so very much for your participation!
Godwin:
"... most of the psychology journals I see are so dopey as to be laughable. And I mean that literally. (Let me say at the outset that there are a number of excellent psychoanalytic journals, but psychoanalysis is not exactly an academic discipline but a clinical one; it only becomes stupid in the hands of academics.)
"I don't subscribe to any of the big journals in my field. In fact, I'm not even a member of my professional association, the American Psychological Association, because it's just a front for a totolerantarian gang of leftist activists. "
"..A magazine such as Psychology Today represents stupidity squared, because it mostly boils down the nonsense of academia for a semi-literate audience, in the same way that Time or Newsweek purvey idiotarian liberal conventional wisdom to the 8th grade mass-mentality. " ...."
And hi there, LogicWings, long time no chat!
I apologize for my long absence from this discussion - we are up to our necks in elder-care and have one of the elderly cousins scheduled for an iliac arterial bypass on Friday which the cardiologist wanted to delay for four weeks after her stent last week. But she is at risk for sepsis from a staph infection in her toe, so they moved it up. It'll be risky either way.
So I must just post and run as time permits.
betty boop: It's precisely here, LogicWings, where our "dialog" goes off the rails, every time it seems — in a clash of fundamental worldviews.
I do not believe the universe is merely an abstract concept.
Indeed, the measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation from the 1960's forward agree that the universe is finite and expanding. Or to put it another way, space/time does not pre-exist, it is created as the universe expands - which of course means there was a real beginning of space and time.
Beyond that I should note the obvious, that language terms and symbols are representations and not the thing or event they represent. The encoding and decoding of those terms and symbols in ordinary conversation (Shannon) can result in faulty communication.
Thus when LogicWings states that Universe is an abstract concept that represents what we have ascertained about the sum total of everything that exists. It Is Not A Thing! he is not speaking of that which is but the word that represents what he believes is that which is.
And he is wrong on both sides. First, the word "universe" is not the universe. His last sentence would indicate that he understands this but if so then why not finish the sentence, i.e. "The word 'universe' is an abstract concept that represents what we have ascertained about the sum total of everything that exists."
Even so he is wrong on the second as well for the "universe" is finite according to the above science which means it is a subset of "all that there is."
For instance, mathematical structures exist outside of space and time (Tegmark). Indeed according to Tegmark's Level IV Parallel Universe model, things "in" space/time are manifestations of those mathematical structures.
As another example, manifestations of pi exist throughout space/time - but pi is outside space/time. Pi is not "in" the universe or multi-verse and yet it is.
The word "universe" does not represent the sum of all human knowledge about all that exists.
1. (the universe) all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.
2 a particular sphere of activity or experience: the front parlour was the hub of her universe
3 (Logic also universe of discourse)another term for universal set
God's Name is I AM
I do not believe the universe is merely an abstract concept. In philosophy, that sort of belief is called Idealism. (Kant is usually sorted into that school. I hope you're enjoying his company.)
Sometimes I wonder if you actively strive to misunderstand me. I was not asserting that the Universe is “merely an abstract concept” but was 'merely' objecting to Godwin's complaint the 'science' uses the term without 'understanding' what it is. I consider this an amateur complaint.
I would think that you know me well enough by now to know I am not that limited. And considering all of the posts I have made deriding Kant's sophistry I would think you would know better than to lump me in with him in any fashion.
But I am a philosophical Realist who recognizes that the substantial reality of the living universe is not dependent on me noticing it.
The “living Universe” - now that's an interesting turn of a phrase.
In other words, my answer to the question: If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? is: YES.
Ahh, definitions again. Depends how you define sound. Is it just vibrations through the air, or is it the perception of vibrations through the air? My Webster's has the latter as the first connotation and the former as the second. In Zen, from whence this Koan arises, it would be the first, without a hearer there is no sound.
From my perspective, the universe pre-exists (and post-exists) me; and because I notice it as something independently real apart from myself, I can engage with it and think about it. IOW, It is something real without any help from me at all. And I am a part and participant in it. And so are you
Agreed.
In short, you evidently regard the universe as an immaterial abstraction, a figment of thought, so to speak, and nothing more. And I do not. No wonder we have such difficulty understanding one another!
No, as I have explained, I do not regard the Universe as an immaterial abstraction. It appears to me that you are so intent in proving everything I write wrong that it all is extrapolated in extremis, thus you end up construing meaning I did not intend. I do make a distinction between the object under discussion that the concept that represents it. There is a way of looking at this that was illuminated in a dictum by philosopher/scientist Alfred Korzybski, “The map is not the territory.”
The Universe is what it is and what we are building in the concept “universe' is the map of what we have learned about it. This is the abstraction and Godwin's comment, to me, conflated the two. His objection that we (science) doesn't 'understand' the Universe I thought was unfounded. As I said before , if we already knew everything about the Universe and 'understood' it, there would be no need to study it. So we aren't supposed to have a concept 'universe' because we don't understand “Universe?” That was my point, not that all we have is the abstract concept but we do have a working model or map, in fact must have a working model or map, in which to place what we learn about it into a coherent context.
Well, at least you admit that science is somehow about gathering knowledge "about reality." But it seems according to your method, "reality" may be only a "reification" of your own. And, from your own statements, I gather you do not trust reifications. So, where does that leave you?
Have I sufficiently explained this to you that you understand that this is not the case? This not an accurate assessment of my position?
One might say that science, as it is currently understood and practiced, is excessively devoted to abstractions, in a sort of process of "reification" in reverse. But reification of what? Anomie? Mindlessness??? If science is not permitted — by its own method — to understand what it knows, then what is the point of science?
Well, I think abstractions are unavoidable, and since science is so mathematically based in this day and age it must needs be abstract. Abstractions are ubiquitous and unavoidable, even in ordinary language, so it isn't surprising to me that science consists of mostly higher level abstractions. And, I don't know what 'science is not permitted' means. Scientists 'understand' what science 'knows' but a formal discipline (for lack of a better identifier) cannot 'know' anything.
I won't repost your Rosen quote but I quite agree, since I see abstractions as more prevalent than most people.
Fortunately for us, the greatest scientific minds of all time did not follow your definition of science (above, bolds). I'm speaking of (for example) Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, oh so many others. Not even Charles Darwin followed your definition!
As I have explained, you have misinterpreted my definition. I hope I've cleared this up.
What all these world-class thinkers had in common was: They practiced intuition-led science. They were not what I call "bean counters."
From which, a trial conclusion: Were it not for "intuition-led science," science could not advance at all.
I do tire of arguing these points that are merely opinion, cannot be proven and thus are, yes, Begging the Question. Even if the men you quoted all believed they were following an intuition-led discovery I do not accept the idea that the formulations themselves were not rooted in the sum total of their sensory experience as a working background for their 'intuition.' Neither do I accept your aforementioned conclusion. We will just have to agree to disagree on this point. (BTW – I consider the comparison to 'bean counters' a typical 'Straw Man' fallacy. Setting them up as diametrically opposed to this in order to prove, unsuccessfully, they are that.)
I was perplexed by your question: "I guess psychology doesn't exist then?"
I was being facetious. You had written:
Of course, the problem for the scientific method is this Self is immaterial, intangible, immeasurable, and thus unisolatable as a datum of scientific observation and experiment.
And since psychology is the study of this “immaterial, intangible, immeasurable, and thus unisolatable” self then it would follow psychology is attempting something it cannot do. But then you say:
Some people have actually empirically isolated it — e.g., William James — but will not give it a name. (James — perhaps the greatest American psychologist who ever lived, a rigorous experimentalist with — arguably — positivist leanings — just referred to it as "Thought" — with a capital "T".)
And a little later say:
Then you argue that Self itself is something that I must prove to you. But that would be like asking me to prove that you exist: But I cannot even conceive of you absent the idea of a unique Self. So what do you want me to prove?
So why didn't you just refer me to James, if he 'empirically isolated' it? I didn't ask you to prove it exists, I was asking if it is,' immaterial, intangible, immeasurable, and thus unisolatable' then how do you know it exists? Yet you say James did empirically isolate it. So which is it?
Especially in light of the fact that, for me, other than the problem of Life itself, the problem of Mind (psyche) is the single most important question in the world.
Let me ask you, do you make a distinction between psyche and consciousness?
Catch you on the flip side.