Since I was quoting a rather sloppy piece of work to quote a portion would suffer from the affliction you identify. To be more precise, in answer to your criticism - The person, which you term Self, does the actual sensing, with the brain perceiving that information and integrating it by means of reason into a coherent, understandable whole. You are correct, 'reason' is not directly responsible for the 'sensing' function but it is for the 'integrating' aspect, so I erred in quoting the whole section intact. Sorry I didn't split hairs finely enough for you.
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.
Then how do you know it exists? Zen Buddhists would say it doesn't, that it is an illusion. And I would quibble with the immeasurable claim since, by definition, it is unitary, thus one.
Yet since it appears 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, for "science" to occur at all, it hardly seems that science can just dump it down the memory hole of a superstitious human past without at the same time permanently putting itself "out of business."
I guess psychology doesn't exist then? This 'source' (curious wording) is somehow different than the 'ego' of said discipline? The idea expressed after the words “seems that science” appear to be a complete non sequitur. “The memory hole of a superstitious human past” means what exactly? Very poetic though.
And this goes to Robert Godwin's poignant question: "Does science really understand what it purports to know?" A question which you, LogicWings, completely dismissed in a recent post.
Yes, I dismissed it 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.
Which tells me, you missed two points: (1) that words actually have meanings that persevere over time, multigenerationally. They are (in a certain way) "stores" of a shared cultural heritage, expressions of actual human historical experience, passed down from generation to generation through time. If you think you can make words mean other than what they actually do mean in this context, then you are taking an ax to the foundation of human communication. The Tower of Babel (redux) is before our eyes....
I am not responsible for what your erroneously infer from what I write. I missed nothing, you didn't understand what I said. It doesn't matter how concepts are arrived at, whether words actually have meanings that persevere over time, multigenerationally or not. There is a certain hierarchy to conceptual development that determines the meaning of the word. I am not attempting to make words mean other than what they are, I am noting their place in the hierarchy of conceptual development.
names such as "big bang," "genetic program," "life," "consciousness," or even "universe" are all abstractions that subsume a set of concretes or other abstractions. That science has its own set of names for things it does not understand is irrelevant. The 'naming' is part of the process of attempting to understand . It is required for making this attempt. What you dismissed, or just missed, was the meaning of my statement “If our understanding were complete there would be no reason to investigate anything, an absurd situation.” Godwin is complaining that we don't know everything about everything. A silly complaint.
As to Godwin's second point — "what scientist has ever stood athwart and observed this thing called "universe?" — I gather you missed it entirely, dear LogicWings.
You only appear to be gathering wool. Universe is an abstract concept that represents what we have ascertained about the sum total of everything that exists. It Is Not A Thing! It is a concept, an abstract concept, so no one has to stand 'athwart' it, any more than one can stand athwart a society. To think you can is to Reify the concept. Which is what I said.
Let me give you an example that may be simple enough for you to follow, since this seems to be proving difficult for you. Suppose I say, “Hand me a furniture.” What do you do? What can you do? The abstraction 'furniture' is being Reified, so the statement is meaningless. This is the inverse of “Can't see the forest for the trees” which is a failure to see the abstraction.
Godwin, and apparently you as well, are making just the same sort of error. Committing the same Fallacy.
People do it all the time. Especially in discussions like this.
One more clue: Why is it said, “A house is not a home?”
“You are correct, ‘reason’ is not directly responsible for the ‘sensing’ function but it is for the ‘integrating’ aspect”
For the very sake of reason, you must acknowledge that this statement is false. Reason is merely the tool used by the self. This point is essential. Reason doesn’t do the integrating in your mind in the same sense that mathematics doesn’t compose or process computer algorithms.
“Then how do you know it (the self) exists?”
If you claim the subconscious mind exists, and your reasoning is based on the acceptance of fundamental principles of conventional psychology, then by the same reasoning you must accept the existence of the self. To establish a premise for the purpose of one discussion but deny it for another reveals the distinct possibility that you don’t believe your own claims. This error is prominent in the thinking of those whose world view is founded on the equally erroneous belief that absolute truth doesn’t exist.
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!