Thread: Desert Daughter, you spout the most arrogant crap sometimes Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026895
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
In the Akedia thread, where you say all sorts of unjustifiable things.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Acadia/Depression is very often the price one pays for understanding things.
There seems to be a tendency amongst some to try to clearly differentiate Acedia from Depression. After all, Acedia is considered to be a "sin", and depression has, in modern discourse, been clearly declared to be an "illness", hence 'not-evil'.
Its terrible isn't it, these people who seek to differentiate between a debilitating mental illness, those who are lazy, and those who couldn't give a fuck any more. Far easier when they were all the same.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
In that vein, the man afflicted by acedia is said to have a superiority complex, thinking himself superior to his fellow men, and that of course is a big no-no in postmodern discourse.
I am glad that in your world arrogance is acceptable. it must make you very happy.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Whereas the poor chap who is afflicted by depression suffers from an inferiority complex, which immediately makes him an object of concern, care, and various attempts by well-meaning others to "uplift" him, since, in the same postmodern discourse of careful PC-ness, we are all equally wonderful, and all equally "okay".
All very nice and very fuzzy-cosy.
But it ain't that simple.
I take it you have never suffered from depression? No of course not, because you would not spout this insane drivel if you had. So you are talking from a position of ignorance. Quite deep, probably bottomless ignorance.
People who suffer from depression have a shit time. We are subject to the same sort of well-meaning concern that those who are just fucked off with the whole enterprise are. We are subjected to the same platitudes that you church out.
We don't get "uplifted". We don't get told "that is OK". At the best, we get support and concern, but it is the same concern that anyone with doubts or lethargy regarding their spiritual life would get.
Not, of course, that you would have a clue.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Acedia is more complex than that, the "noonday demon" also (and heavily) strikes hermits (who are not surrounded by mediocre brethren to whom they could feel superior).
Just as "depression" changes its meaning throughout the ages, and we should not take the latest pronouncements of (heavily culture-dependent) bodies such as the American Psychological Association on the matter as The Gospel (TM), Acedia too has meant different things to different writers throughout the ages.
The Noonday Demon is a term used for depression. I think you are confusing your arrogances here. And it is good that depression changes its meaning, as does Acedia. That is the nature of scientific progress and development, that the nature and understanding of terms grows and develops.
I presume that you would prefer terms stayed exactly as they were when your thinking was considered acceptable.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
So seeking to sharply distinguish between the two is a merely pseudo-academic (and rather futile) exercise; the Zeitgeist of course might have it otherwise, but in the end both are afflictions of the soul and as such, sin or not, must be addresed with a judicious mixture of prayer, discipline (as in "pulling oneself together") and expert help.
They are "sharply distinguished" only in that they have different roots, and probably different ways of dealing with them. Generally accepted ideas these days (I know this is all a bit post-modern for your antedilluvian brain cell) is that depression, as with all mental illnesses, has a large range of presentations, degrees, and experiences. So the sharp defining lines are not that sharp or defining.
However, having said that, the prescription of "pulling oneself together" is not valid for depression or realising that the whole of Christendom is a corrupt waste of space. Really "Prayer and Discipline" - maybe some expert help in removing oneself from the stupidity of some practitioners of the faith, and a chance to realise that not all are are mindless, incompetent and dangerous as you are.
Karl kindly suggested that you might get torn limb from limb for some of your comments. Consider this the initial stringing up.
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
So basically another variation on "depression sufferers need to stop whining and pull themselves together" under a microscopically thin veneer of intellectual bullshit.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Makes a change. DD is usually so boring.
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on
:
And, Desert Daughter, be aware that the majority of people who feel targeted by your judgementalism and arrogance will just have slumped back in their chairs thinking 'Yeah, the world just thinks I'm crap.'
Thanks SC for being able to articulate this.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
Also, enough with sneering down your nose at les Anglo-saxons already. You’re giving a very nice country a bad name.
Apart from which, lumping all the anglo-saxons together is a load of nonsense. I reckon I have more in common with the average French person than I do with the average American.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
Thanks SC
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
There seems to be a tendency amongst some to try to clearly differentiate Acedia from Depression. After all, Acedia is considered to be a "sin", and depression has, in modern discourse, been clearly declared to be an "illness", hence 'not-evil'.
Yes - exactly right.
Desert Daughter - Depression is an illness and not in the slightest bit evil. Whoever has caused you to think otherwise is an unkind bastard.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
DD: I would say "I wish you'd come down with clinical depression so you'd know what it's like" but honestly I don't wish that shit on anyone. I'm quite happy to invite you to come out all over in hideous green pus-filled boils though. I'm not a good person or anything.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
Thanks SC for being able to articulate this.
There are times I find it therapeutic to stick people who spout this crap to the wall with their own blood.
Metaphorically, of course.
Probably.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Its terrible isn't it, these people who seek to differentiate between a debilitating mental illness, those who are lazy, and those who couldn't give a fuck any more. Far easier when they were all the same.
Thank you for starting this. We had a potentially quite interesting thread on Acedia, and I felt this post had been patronizing and condescending, at which point it seemed like a waste of time getting involved any more.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Desert Daughter - Depression is an illness and not in the slightest bit evil. Whoever has caused you to think otherwise is an unkind bastard.
Depression is evil, there is no better term for the sodding thing that ate what should have been the best years of my life.
Depression is an evil, insidious, insatiable parasite that feeds on despair and unhappiness, and will usually subtly get the moves in place to isolate you from anyone and anything that might be able to counter it before you realize this is happening. That's evil, IMO.
[ 07. February 2014, 17:50: Message edited by: Ariel ]
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
Thank you for all your kind wishes.
Now if you'd read my previous posts a bit more carefully, you'd have noticed that I did indeed acknowledge that therapy and/or pills do have a valid role in overcoming depression.
Also, I did not say anywhere that I thought depression was evil.
And I most definitely have nothing against anglo-saxons. Au contraire.
You see, I'm a sort of ethnographer, and it is my day job to analyse what is called "discourse". In other words, I try to understand how certain cultures at certain points in time "frame", or address, certain issues. How they talk about it. What they consider is important, and what is, or is not, allowed to be said.
So I merely noticed that (a) there is a specific sort of discourse concerning depression that is currently common currency especially in anglo-saxon cultures; (b) I dared to point out that this is likely to be subject to change (it has changed in the past), and (c) I did, admittedly, poke a bit of fun at that discourse.
And before you get into another fit of self-righteous indignation, I poked fun at the discourse , not the condition (depr./acedia).
I also tried to make a distinction between acedia (and the different ways it has been understood throughout the ages, including the noonday demon) and depression.
And all I said was that there are indeed "conditions" where the best way out is to pull oneself together. I did not say anywhere that this was supposed to be the "only" way.
That's all, really. If you want to keep tearing me apart, feel free to do so. This sort of indignation is, after all, part of a certain...discourse. And most people engage in shared emotional discourse because they need self-affirmation.
So by all means if it makes you feel good go on and hate me for making fun at the way you talk. But don't try to read something into my posts I never said.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
I also tried to make a distinction between acedia (and the different ways it has been understood throughout the ages, including the noonday demon) and depression.
and
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
So seeking to sharply distinguish between the two is a merely pseudo-academic (and rather futile) exercise; the Zeitgeist of course might have it otherwise, but in the end both are afflictions of the soul and as such, sin or not, must be addresed with a judicious mixture of prayer, discipline (as in "pulling oneself together") and expert help.
You truly are an expert at discourse! I, a mere amateur, would never have thought that saying it is "rather futile" to "sharply distinguish" the two was somehow trying "to make a distinction" between them.
Oh, wait! I see it now. You were trying to make a distinction but then failed miserably at it!
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
DD, you've been called to Hell for being obtuse and condescending in the presence of suffering, and for hiding behind tediously pretentious academic discourse.
So you appear, confirm the hell-call in every word of your post, and add to it passive-aggressiveness.
The Desert Fathers' prescription for acedia was manual work. Your manual work for today might be pulling your broomstick out of your bottom.
[ 08. February 2014, 07:28: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Thank you for all your kind wishes.
Pleasure. Could you make some of them happen please. And Fuck Right Off.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
You see, I'm a sort of ethnographer, and it is my day job to analyse what is called "discourse".
Some sort of ethnographer? If this is any indication, it is a bad sort of ethnographer. Really crap, because you seem to have no clue what you are talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
And before you get into another fit of self-righteous indignation, I poked fun at the discourse , not the condition (depr./acedia).
No you didn't. You dismissed the people who suffer from it. Whatever your intent.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
So by all means if it makes you feel good go on and hate me for making fun at the way you talk. But don't try to read something into my posts I never said.
Lets be clear, I posted your post in its entirety (except for one final paragraph that didn't impact the tenor of the rest of it). Nothing was taken out of context, nothing was misquoted. And it was the utter crap that I pointed out, and others have agreed with.
So in what way are we reading things into your posts that are not there? I mean, apart from not being able to know that what you write is not what you mean? Which would make you a lying little bitch.
Or maybe a troll. Although creatures made of stone, or creatures who can be fooled by 3 goats, might be insulted by this.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
DD, you've been called to Hell for being obtuse and condescending in the presence of suffering, and for hiding behind tediously pretentious academic discourse.
Not just pretentious academic discourse. Also a pious, arrogant 'these people are far from God, unlike me' discourse.
As if depression is some sort of evil action by the sufferer.
As I said before. Depression is not caused by some sort of external evil or internal evil.
It is an illness. A medical, chemical imbalance in the brain.
There is NO fault attached, not from the person with depression or any sort of other imagined 'devils' or evils.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Depression is a bit of sacred cow topic when it comes to rational discussion on the ship because too many shipmates suffer from it and it pushes lots of emotional buttons.
The worst button seems to be the "pull yourself together" one ( or as DD described it: discipline)
Interesting reading the purg thread that the symptoms of Acidie and Depression seem to be the same but Acidie is caused by an elevated sense of self whereas Depression is usually associated with a poor sense of self.
The "pull yourself together" pushes all the wrong buttons because it makes the depressed person feel more worthless than they already do because they are unable to "pull themselves together".
Or are they?
Seems entirely dependent on what kind of depression of course. Depression is a spectrum. Some people can and should and do "pull themselves together". Others cannot.
The other problem is that if you delegate depression purely to mechanistic and materialistic language ( it's just chemical imbalances in the brain ) you cut off dialogue about possible causes and treatments (besides purely pharmacological ones).
It seems to me causes and treatments are complex and manifold and depend on the type and severity of depression.
The bigger issue seems to be why it's one of the biggest health issues today that the western world faces whereas it hasn't been historically. You can attribute this to "better recognition and treatment" if you like, but I think that's far too simplistic and simply wrong.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Previously people just died. Because stress depresses the immune system, because it was a struggle to survive for many and hopelessness impairs your ability to struggle and because people often died young - difficult to get, for example, post-natal depression if you die n childbirth.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The Desert Fathers' prescription for acedia was manual work.
Which is interesting. One of the treatments for depression is physical exercise.
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The Desert Fathers' prescription for acedia was manual work.
Which is interesting. One of the treatments for depression is physical exercise.
And often a very effective one.
I don't deny that there may well be similarities between the two, I just dislike intently the bile that spews forth from DD on this subject.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Depression is a bit of sacred cow topic when it comes to rational discussion on the ship because too many shipmates suffer from it and it pushes lots of emotional buttons.
No, it is not a sacred cow. There can be a lot of rational discussion of it on the ship. In fact, there is an entire board dedicated to discussion of mental health issues, in a spirit of acceptance and rationality.
But because so many shipmates suffer from it, or have been associated with it in families, spouting stupidity about it does tend to cause rather heated responses, because so many of us have heard this sort of crap spouted at us in churches, by Christians, and it can take us a long time to recover from it, and start to deal with the real problems.
When people who know nothing about the subject spout trite banalities to people who know far more about it than they want to, the result will be aggressive responses. I actually think this is a good think, because some of these people couldn't tell their vicar to "fuck off and stop spouting crap", but can express it here.
So, to everyone*: Fuck Off with your bigoted opinions on things you know nothing about, especially to people who do know.
*Includes myself.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The other problem is that if you delegate depression purely to mechanistic and materialistic language ( it's just chemical imbalances in the brain ) you cut off dialogue about possible causes and treatments (besides purely pharmacological ones).
Only if you think nothing but pharmacology can affect brain chemistry. Which is a radically stupid thing to think.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The other problem is that if you delegate depression purely to mechanistic and materialistic language ( it's just chemical imbalances in the brain ) you cut off dialogue about possible causes and treatments (besides purely pharmacological ones).
Only if you think nothing but pharmacology can affect brain chemistry. Which is a radically stupid thing to think.
Exactly.
All the many and varied treatments for depression are ways of helping to repair and heal the brain chemistry. The treatments are many and varied because people are many and varied.
One thing it isn't is a spiritual battle. I resent implications that a closer walk with God will heal it. It won't.
I very nearly lost my husband, three times, to depression. He took to his bed for three months when my children were tiny. I became the only breadwinner. It took him four years to recover. Now he seems to be on an even keel - but it's hard not to look over your shoulder sometimes.
I resent Desert Daughter's implication that he could have healed himself.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Originally posted by Boogie
quote:
One thing it isn't is a spiritual battle. I resent implications that a closer walk with God will heal it. It won't.
It is this attitude I found annoying as well.
She did come round to say "never said only" but....
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Just a point of clarity. Depression is a spectrum of disorder. Not always brain chemical thing. Not always reactive to life. It may one, or the other or both. But it is not a choice anyone would make to have, anymore than anyone would choose to have any other potentially life threatening condition.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I became a Christian during the fourth year of a fourteen year struggle with depression. Which returned after a couple years' remission, and continues to be an issue twenty-five years later.
God has done a lot of things for me, but one thing he declines to do is to banish my depression. "My strength is made perfect in weakness," I think is the phrase.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Boogie
quote:
One thing it isn't is a spiritual battle. I resent implications that a closer walk with God will heal it. It won't.
It is this attitude I found annoying as well.
She did come round to say "never said only" but....
That made it worse. The backtracking indicated ignorance, which in company with arrogance is a toxic combo.
[ 08. February 2014, 20:19: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The other problem is that if you delegate depression purely to mechanistic and materialistic language ( it's just chemical imbalances in the brain ) you cut off dialogue about possible causes and treatments (besides purely pharmacological ones).
Only if you think nothing but pharmacology can affect brain chemistry. Which is a radically stupid thing to think.
I think that most people who think depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain also think mainly in terms of addressing this through pharmacology. Yes, this is probably "radically stupid" - isn't it clear that Evensong also thinks it's stupid?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The other problem is that if you delegate depression purely to mechanistic and materialistic language ( it's just chemical imbalances in the brain ) you cut off dialogue about possible causes and treatments (besides purely pharmacological ones).
Only if you think nothing but pharmacology can affect brain chemistry. Which is a radically stupid thing to think.
I think that most people who think depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain also think mainly in terms of addressing this through pharmacology. Yes, this is probably "radically stupid" - isn't it clear that Evensong also thinks it's stupid?
Yes but she draws the wrong conclusion from it, viz., that depression is not a chemical imbalance in the brain.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes but she draws the wrong conclusion from it, viz., that depression is not a chemical imbalance in the brain.
Where does she do that? I don't get that from what she said at all.
[ 08. February 2014, 23:15: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes but she draws the wrong conclusion from it, viz., that depression is not a chemical imbalance in the brain.
Where does she do that? I don't get that from what she said at all.
Then one of us is reading it wrong. Let Evensong explain what she means if it's not what I read her to mean. Although I'm sure you're a competent defender of the oppressed, I'm sure she knows better what she meant than you do.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Then one of us is reading it wrong.
you are, you moron.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Seems entirely dependent on what kind of depression of course. Depression is a spectrum. Some people can and should and do "pull themselves together". Others cannot.
[...]
The other problem is that if you delegate depression purely to mechanistic and materialistic language ( it's just chemical imbalances in the brain ) you cut off dialogue about possible causes and treatments (besides purely pharmacological ones).
"possible causes and treatments besides purley pharmacological ones" says nowhere quote:
from MT:
nothing but pharmacology can affect brain chemistry.
I'm one of the last people around here to defend Evensong. and her wierdass attitude about depression annoys the fuck out of me. but your black and white view of everything, and need to say if she doesn't agree with you completely then she must disagree with you completely just manages to illustrate how much you have completely lost the fucking plot on this topic.
Mousethief, I know you are not an idiot. I've witnessed you not being an idiot, oh, several times - but on this topic, you're a fucking idiot.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Depression is a bit of sacred cow topic when it comes to rational discussion on the ship because too many shipmates suffer from it and it pushes lots of emotional buttons.
No, it is not a sacred cow. .......... and here follows four paragraphs of cleverly disguised love/hate worship to disprove my point.
There fixed it for you.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The other problem is that if you delegate depression purely to mechanistic and materialistic language ( it's just chemical imbalances in the brain ) you cut off dialogue about possible causes and treatments (besides purely pharmacological ones).
Only if you think nothing but pharmacology can affect brain chemistry. Which is a radically stupid thing to think.
He's smart, this one.
Much of my life revolves around managing my tendency to have low serotonin levels. Sure, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) is one way of managing it, but so is a good night's sleep. Or a cup of tea. Though I suppose that might count as pharmacology.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Depression is a bit of sacred cow topic when it comes to rational discussion on the ship because too many shipmates suffer from it and it pushes lots of emotional buttons.
No, it is not a sacred cow. .......... and here follows four paragraphs of cleverly disguised love/hate worship to disprove my point.
There fixed it for you.
As I said, Pyx_e love, rational discussion is not a problem. Declaring answers and not listening to the sufferers is. Dismissing the many people who actually know something about the subject is a problem, as with any subject.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
DD--
Question: when you do your ethnographic work, how do you do it? Filtering pre-existing data, talking to members of a particular demographic, comparing notes with other ethnographers, or...?
ISTM that most people of any particular group are apt to react negatively if an outsider deconstructs the group's culture--especially if it's done in front of them.
On the Ship, any mention of a particular group is apt to bring group members out of the woodwork--with their experiences, opinions, and corrections to others' posts.
You're speaking TO people with depression, DD, so *of course* we get upset when your deconstruction (seems to) minimize and repack our experiences.
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
@ Golden Key:
what I do is called "Discourse Analysis", but my using that term can be misleading, because among sociologists many associate this method with a Foucauldian stance, which I most certainly do not share. My own research approach is called "critical realism".
As to methods, I mix based on the sort of empiria available to me in the field: participant observation wherever possible, and open, unstructured interviews, inviting people to engage in "storytelling". These are then transcribed and coded. Coding is done, if possible, with colleagues, so we get a variety of perspectives on a phenomenon.
The main idea behind this is to try and "deconstruct" (yes, that term can be used, even though I need to stress that I am not a postmodernist -I have no political agenda in trying to "give voice to the Silenced" etc...) the discourse and understand underlying patterns, assumptions, etc.
In short, we try to underdstand why and how certain "tribes" dance around certain "totems" and how this choreography can and does change over time.
/Tangent/There are different schools of thought in Organisation Theory that use these tools in different ways, there is a lot of squabbling going on and I find most of it ridiculous, but such is the world of modern Academe. I stopped taking it seriously several years ago/Tangent ends/
And even though in publications one is required to write in a sober and rather boring style I (and some colleagues) cannot help but sometimes smile at the mimetic forces at work that make us and the rest of the world think and speak in a certain way. Between ourselves we call those the "Waldorf and Statler moments", after the two cranky old guys in the Muppet Show.
It becomes a habit, and I deconstruct almost anything I come across, and it's great fun.
So what I did in that contentious first post (and I must say I have the impression few people really read it) was to hold a mirror to common discourse on depression/acedia.
I had no intention to poke fun at the condition.
I addressed the discourse, not the condition. But And I most certainly did not say it was a sin. I was actually quite surprised by the things people thought I had said. Some people really saw red, and became so emotional that they did not bother to really read what I had said.
You are of course right in saying that
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
most people of any particular group are apt to react negatively if an outsider deconstructs the group's culture--especially if it's done in front of them.
On the Ship, any mention of a particular group is apt to bring group members out of the woodwork--with their experiences, opinions, and corrections to others' posts.
-- this is precisely what happened. Well, I did not intend to offend, but it is clear that many people are uncomfortable with looking at themselves from the outside We all take our totems seriously, otherwise they would not be totems. And Samespeak and Samethink are powerful totems indeed.
I suppose I transgressed a Taboo.
And to quote Evensong: quote:
Depression is a bit of sacred cow topic when it comes to rational discussion on the ship because too many shipmates suffer from it and it pushes lots of emotional buttons.
.
Indeed.
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on
:
I think you need to get back to basics and try to recall that people are individuals with feelings.
And maybe you need to go back and read your own words dispassionately if you really believe that you have been misunderstood.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Well, I did not intend to offend, but it is clear that many people are uncomfortable with looking at themselves from the outside
Er... that's not a problem. What is a problem is being looked at in a condescending, analytic sort of way as if we're nothing more than a case study - and your making it explicitly clear in your post above that's how you regard people.
We're not here for you to practise your analytical skills on, though we can't stop you doing that. If you want to approach the boards as an interesting sociological experiment with yourself as a trained observer who is by implication free from and above all these petty emotional inconveniences, dispassionately analysing, noting and commenting on people's emotional reactions, we can't stop you doing that either. But please don't be surprised if we aren't impressed by it, and call you on it.
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
It becomes a habit, and I deconstruct almost anything I come across, and it's great fun.
I'm glad we provide you with a source of fun. To some people, it's not a bit of fun, it's some ill-informed idiot passing judgement.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Well, I did not intend to offend,
Well, you did.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
but it is clear that many people are uncomfortable with looking at themselves from the outside We all take our totems seriously, otherwise they would not be totems. And Samespeak and Samethink are powerful totems indeed.
WTF does this even mean?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
what I do is called "Discourse Analysis", but my using that term can be misleading, because among sociologists many associate this method with a Foucauldian stance, which I most certainly do not share. My own research approach is called "critical realism".
As to methods, I mix based on the sort of empiria available to me in the field: participant observation wherever possible, and open, unstructured interviews, inviting people to engage in "storytelling".
Mind-fuck™* much?
*ask Fritz
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
I think you need to get back to basics and try to recall that people are individuals with feelings.
This.
I have never suffered from depression (and never want to!)
Have you ever suffered form depression or 'akedia', Desert Daughter?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
[QUOTE}
1. ... It becomes a habit, and I deconstruct almost anything I come across,
2. .. and it's great fun.
3. ... but it is clear that many people are uncomfortable with looking at themselves from the outside We all take our totems seriously, otherwise they would not be totems. And Samespeak and Samethink are powerful totems indeed.
I suppose I transgressed a Taboo. [/QUOTE]
1. I'd suggest that it is well past the time to break the habit before it bites you hard. Try deconstructing yourself. You simply come across as yet another academic specialist presuming to persuade the rest of us to conform to your world view.
2. I don't think anyone else is laughing - and if you find this that risible you really have no right to be reporting on people's lives.
3. Some self analysis here would be very helpful. Why is it that you are seeking a special pleading ... "I didn't mean it that way...?" I've news for you: intention is generally trumped by description, form of expression or delivery.
Perhaps another trip into the desert to reflect on being a self centred, self deluded tub of lard would be appropriate
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Well, I did not intend to offend,
The decent thing to do in such circumstances is to apologize and not compound your error by saying things like
quote:
it is clear that many people are uncomfortable with looking at themselves from the outside We all take our totems seriously, otherwise they would not be totems.
Playing with the "totems" of hurting people, and flinging it in their face, is inhumane. It is not the behavior of a civilized person. It is assholic in the extreme. You are a nasty person and not fit for decent society. Fuck you.
[ 09. February 2014, 15:33: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
Maybe DD needs to meditate on the difference between "I didn't mean to offend" and "my comments were the biggest load of pus and bile ever to spout forth from a human orifice"
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Mind-fuck™* much?
-quite. I don't take it very seriously, either. It's a game. Academics do get paid for it. Personally, I wouldn't mind if tomorrow the government stopped all funding of this sort of stuff. At the risk of infuriating a different group of people I'd say that most of the research going on in this field is a lot of totally useless crap. But some of it is interesting, and, as I said, fun. Don't tell me nobody else studies people and their ways. Some people study, and comment upon, others' dress, say. And they are not always charitable either.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Have you ever suffered form depression or 'akedia', Desert Daughter?
contrary to many people on the ship for whom this appears to be natural, I do not like to publicly comment on, or much less discuss,my personal ailments or the lack of them. I only speak for myself when I say that I don't think it is appropriate.
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Try deconstructing yourself.
I do that all the time. It's sometimes amusing, sometimes less so. I do not take myself, my job, and the world in general, very seriously. But I try to be very aware of when I am culturally conditioned, and where I am "authentic", so to speak.
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
You simply come across as yet another academic specialist presuming to persuade the rest of us to conform to your world view.
Yes, I am aware of that. Except that I don't try to persuade anyone. I merely voice my views, like everyone else.
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Perhaps another trip into the desert to reflect on being a self centred, self deluded tub of lard would be appropriate
Oh, please. Do you, -and some previous posters- really derive pleasure from throwing out these insults?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Mind-fuck™* much?
-quite. I don't take it very seriously, either. It's a game.
There's a name for people who make a game out of hurting others. It's not a nice name. Did you shoot puppies as a child?
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Do you, -and some previous posters- really derive pleasure from throwing out these insults?
The irony here would be delicious if it weren't so painful. How dare you accuse others of deriving pleasure from insults?
[ 09. February 2014, 15:46: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
DD - do you actually care about the distress you've caused?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Have you ever suffered form depression or 'akedia', Desert Daughter?
contrary to many people on the ship for whom this appears to be natural, I do not like to publicly comment on, or much less discuss,my personal ailments or the lack of them. I only speak for myself when I say that I don't think it is appropriate.
An interesting and very telling answer.
I wonder where you would get your material from if others followed your lead on this?
The Ship is a community of people, not an academic exercise. If you don't agree have a wander round All Saints (or Heaven or the Circus).
[ 09. February 2014, 15:58: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The Ship is a community of people, not an academic exercise.
But it can be that and a public forum, can't it?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The Ship is a community of people, not an academic exercise.
But it can be that and a public forum, can't it?
Of course it can.
But Desert Daughter has come unstuck because she's forgotten that behind every post there is a living, breathing, feeling person.
I remember, some time ago, s/he said s/he was an extreme introvert, so s/he probably doesn't interact much IRL away from work situations. But I don't see this as any excuse for writing hurtful, thoughtless, careless posts. Especially about such a difficult and painful topic.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Don't tell me nobody else studies people and their ways. Some people study, and comment upon, others' dress, say. And they are not always charitable either.
Yes, and they're not usually liked very much. Nor are people who make a habit of laughing at others.
It's your life, but nobody likes to be made to feel as if they're some kind of creature in a zoo, where the attitude is "come and look at the funny monkeys". Whether you like it or not, these are discussion boards, there is a sense of community, the threads are mostly about discussion and conversation, and inevitably some kind of spin-off into community can and does happen. People do volunteer experiences, and share them: that's a normal part of human inter-relations.
You've said in previous posts a while ago, if I remember correctly, that you regard yourself as particularly introverted? Either way, I really think you'd benefit from leaving aside the detached, academic approach, and making a simple, unpretentious effort to get to know some real people. Of course they're going to be flawed and imperfect. And so are you. But I think it would do you the world of good to attempt to have an ordinary, non-academic conversation. Ideally a face-to-face one. It might make you a little more human.
And if you think I think you're coming across as suffering from being alone too much and its consequent detachment, yes, I do, that is how you're coming across from where I'm standing.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
DD wrote : quote:
In short, we try to underdstand why and how .....
See I hate it when shipmates do that.
"We think ......" is a subtle form of ganging up. Adding weight to your argument because there is a imagined many of you who think this way . Just make it what YOU think and remember that there are people at the other end for who it is not an intellectual exercise
A loled when you stuck your stick in the hornets’ nest of depression and now only the smoke of a deserved apology is going to work.
[ 09. February 2014, 17:11: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
[QUOTE]But I don't see this as any excuse for writing hurtful, thoughtless, careless posts. Especially about such a difficult and painful topic.
DD has not chosen to reveal whether she has ever been afflicted with depression or not. (I'm referring to DD as "she" because it seems likely that someone choosing Desert Daughter as a screen name will not object, even though I realize DD could be a man).
Nonetheless, even if she has never had to fight depression-mild or severe-there is no guarantee she won't. Indeed, if she lives long enough she will almost certainly taste the age-related form, where the pleasure goes out of the things which once made life worth living. When her world slowly, almost imperceptibly turns sepia, perhaps she will have a better idea of why people have found her remarks so abysmally out of bounds.
To address Evensong's post for a moment, I'm not certain I know of a single person fighting depression who thinks pharmacology is the only tool they need. Rather like migraine sufferers, they learn their own specific triggers and how to avoid or ameliorate them. They often have a more disciplined thought process and higher degree of self-knowledge than those who have never suffered.
Posted by DOEPUBLIC (# 13042) on
:
DD, I am sure you are capable of deducing that not everything that fits in a box is a box. Also that 1% on a spreadsheet can be 100% a person's life.
My further observations are posted on the original thread.Where people may wish to reconvene.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
Let me start this out by saying I'm one of the number. The Maudlin Majority™ on this thread. I'm diagnosed with depression and anxiety due to MS and I hate it. a lot. So, while mine is a little different, I do get it.
Desert Daughter has been insensitive. From my reading, it's insensitivity based on ignorance, not malice. As you all know, this happens a lot.
What also happens a lot is people carrying the particular weight we all carry take everything extremely personally. I speak from experience, here.
What i'm seeing in this thread is a whole giant helping of over-reaction.
Let's face it: everyone has something that makes us "different" - even DD probably has a misshapen head or a third thumb or the communication skills of a gnat. We all have our bears to cross. It does the community of Depressives no service whatsoever if every time someone says something out of ignorance we start squealing like we're bleeding to death. "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"
No. Someone who has never dealt with clinical depression will not understand. How is it even possible to put this giant sensation of drowning in viscous, dirty crude oil into words?
So often in our modern world I see people screeching about how they're not understood. Seems to me the first step is to step the fuck out of your own myopic little world and rather than demand to be understood, do your best to understand. Someone says something plug-ignorant, take a moment before you scream and consider where the fuck it's coming from. Can you help educate? can you shine some light into the dark cave they're speaking from?
or would you rather do what we all do so well and curl up into a little ball, lick the fresh addition to the wounds, and bite every hand that comes near?
Because the reality is, no one is ever going to get an understanding on how best to communicate and cope with our little Tribe of The Black Dog if we can't get over ourselves and actually attempt to communicate with the outside world.
When a dog is seriously injured, they are embodying the pain. They can't recognize help, or friendship, or understanding. they are just living the pain. and any open hand is just more possible pain, so they lash out. They run and hide. they bite those who would help them. At some point, the one who would help them is going to give up risking their own blood spillage and think, "fine. fucking suffer!" and walk away.
Depression is such a severe and relentless form of pain that we become that dog. Every offer of help is attacked. every attempt at understanding is met with great yowls and whines. It does us all no favors.
I see a lot of whining, and howling, and biting going on on this thread. But this is an opportunity, my fellow freaks. Doesn't it make a hell of a lot more sense to correct misunderstandings and be patient with the people who, in fact, do not understand, but could potentially be educated?
Frankly I'm sick to death of putting up with all the stereotypes and misconceptions around depression. All you bitchy little things are not helping.
Get off my team.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Desert Daughter has been insensitive. From my reading, it's insensitivity based on ignorance, not malice. As you all know, this happens a lot.
Yes, but what I think is rubbing salt in the wounds here is that ignorance has been trying to pose as intellectual superiority. There were some interesting ideas in there somewhere, but the sneer got in the way. And I don't mean that it prevented people hearing what DD was trying to say; I think a whole bunch of half-baked crap got mixed up with some genuinely worthwhile points for debate - all muddled together in a failed attempt to impress. Greater humility would have brought more clarity - and I can say this because I can recognise so many of my own failings there.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
what I think is rubbing salt in the wounds here is that ignorance has been trying to pose as intellectual superiority. There were some interesting ideas in there somewhere, but the sneer got in the way. And I don't mean that it prevented people hearing what DD was trying to say; I think a whole bunch of half-baked crap got mixed up with some genuinely worthwhile points for debate - all muddled together in a failed attempt to impress. Greater humility would have brought more clarity - and I can say this because I can recognise so many of my own failings there.
Most ignorance is remarkably un-self-aware.
Sounds to me like a place to start.
But, you know, calling names and throwing toys might work, too.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
quote:
1. It's a game.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Perhaps another trip into the desert to reflect on being a self centred, self deluded tub of lard would be appropriate
2.Oh, please. Do you, -and some previous posters- really derive pleasure from throwing out these insults?
1. Do you honestly see dealing with people's lives and commenting on it, as a game? If you do, then you really are disconnected from reality - life is a serious business.
2. No pleasure at all - simply gratuitous advice which may or may not be considered helpful.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Doesn't it make a hell of a lot more sense to correct misunderstandings and be patient with the people who, in fact, do not understand, but could potentially be educated?
What, exactly, have you read by DD that indicates that she is in the least open to being educated on this subject? When called on it, she doubles down and insults us for not being able to see oursels as others see us. These are not the behaviors of a person who is merely ignorant but not malicious, and yet willing to be corrected.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
There is a kind of willed, academic ignorance which feels a hell of a lot like malice and to which the only cure is howling etc. until this shatters the academic cocoon and focusses the relevant individual's attention on the fact that there are real people and raw emotions involved. Calm reasoning is no substitute for rawness under such circumstances, since it serves to reinforce the intellect.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
I hoped that the term ignorance could have given people a clue as to its nature. Ignorant people ignore things. Sometimes one can reason with them but mostly they will ignore that too.
I have some two-by-four that might help. Not as punishment you understand, just to get their attention. A rustic clue bat if you like.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
comet, I would be genuinely interested in knowing why you think DD might be educable, given the manner in which she has already slagged off the entire American Psychological Association.
I'll admit that raised my eyebrows--it's not as though ethnography is considered a universally respected science.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
But, you know, calling names and throwing toys might work, too.
Certainly more fun.
I am not entirely disagreeing with your previous post, but QLib and mousethief have valid points in thinking DD not amenable to possible correction.
side note: It is rather amusing for the proponent of one soft science to so denigrate another.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Is what someone says any less valid or worthy if it does not change the mind of the intended receiver?
Posted by AmyBo (# 15040) on
:
As a long-time lurker, I really do think that the depression-bashing assholes need it handed to them, since a lot of us black-doggers are lurkers. I first started reading the ship when I was recovering from a really bad episode, and every Boogie-type post that was supportive balanced off the fuck-ups spouting off about suck it up.
I tried replying on the Purg thread, but couldn't keep the "fuck you DD," out of it. I get that a lot of it is just not understanding the difference between a well person with a bout of sadness and a completely cut-off, physically unwell person sitting at her desk with a knife in her hand, but when that second person can be reading DD's fucking bile, it's time for her to crawl back under the rock she came out from.
Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
I see a lot of whining, and howling, and biting going on on this thread. But this is an opportunity, my fellow freaks. Doesn't it make a hell of a lot more sense to correct misunderstandings and be patient with the people who, in fact, do not understand, but could potentially be educated?
Frankly I'm sick to death of putting up with all the stereotypes and misconceptions around depression. All you bitchy little things are not helping.
Get off my team.
No. And no.
There are places to educate, places to keep smiling and talking when people’s malice and ignorance gets behind your eyes and makes you want to lay down and cry. On the Ship, there’s Heaven and Purg.
But sometimes all the smiling and talking gets too much, especially when people don’t listen. And here, in Hell, there’s a place to howl.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
I see a lot of whining, and howling, and biting going on on this thread. But this is an opportunity, my fellow freaks. Doesn't it make a hell of a lot more sense to correct misunderstandings and be patient with the people who, in fact, do not understand, but could potentially be educated?
Physician, heal thyself. In what way are you being patient with your "fellow freaks" who are not as enlightened as you are, and react to DD's cruelties with pain and vituperation and not with your studied aplomb?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Comet--
FWIW, people have explained to and tried to educate DD.
The glitch seems to be that she's stuck looking through a particular academic lens that even she thinks is crap, and not perceiving that her words and actions have real effects on real people--who are not her interview subjects.
DD--
Maybe you can turn your kaleidescope a bit, and see the *people* that the data is *about*??
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
In my lifetime, there's been a lot of change in discourse about cancer. Why don't we all have a good laugh about that?
That had actually been all I intended to say, but having thought about it further, there may well be an interesting discussion to be had on, say, what the consequences would be of cervical cancer being moved out of the cancer space and into the STD space. And perhaps on a discussion forum dedicated to epidemiology this could be discussed relatively bluntly. But on a general interest forum, most people posting would have some consideration for the feelings of people affected by the cervical cancer and would not see the question of how we talk about it as a purely academic discussion.
And most definitely not as something to be made fun of.
[ 10. February 2014, 12:29: Message edited by: Erroneous Monk ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'm reminded of gastric ulcers. You know, those things that, for goodness knows how many years, sufferers were told were stress-related. And therefore told to go and relax and have less stress.
Instead of being given antibiotics to get rid of the Heliobacter pylori that actually do cause gastric ulcers. Heck, they may well be encouraged to grow and multiply by the presence of stress, but if someone nowadays decided to ignore the modern discoveries about what's actually going on and to go back to a 'traditional' understanding of the condition, they'd be stared at by the medical profession with amazement.
If someone wants to ignore all the modern knowledge about what goes on with neurotransmitters and biochemistry during depression, allow me to stare at them with amazement.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
On the "Relatives" thread Comet wanted me to quit being such a delicate flower and stop thinking it was all about me and now she wants us all to stop whining and howling and throwing toys and just try to educate ourselves about how to get better gosh darn it!
Any minute now she's going to link us to a cheery version of Put on a Happy Face.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
On the "Relatives" thread Comet wanted me to quit being such a delicate flower and stop thinking it was all about me and now she wants us all to stop whining and howling and throwing toys and just try to educate ourselves about how to get better gosh darn it!
Any minute now she's going to link us to a cheery version of Put on a Happy Face.
Not here. "Calling Twilight to All Saints"?
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm reminded of gastric ulcers. You know, those things that, for goodness knows how many years, sufferers were told were stress-related. And therefore told to go and relax and have less stress.
Instead of being given antibiotics to get rid of the Heliobacter pylori that actually do cause gastric ulcers ....
If someone wants to ignore all the modern knowledge about what goes on with neurotransmitters and biochemistry during depression, allow me to stare at them with amazement.
I'm not sure the implied analogy is apt, because although certain brain events are implicated in depression, I don't think that means we know that the cause of depression rests in the biochemistry of the brain, even though we have some insight of that kind into Seasonal Affective Depression. Nor are we particularly clear about cures for depression, though we can relieve some of the symptoms with varying degrees of success in some (most?) sufferers.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm reminded of gastric ulcers. You know, those things that, for goodness knows how many years, sufferers were told were stress-related. And therefore told to go and relax and have less stress.
Instead of being given antibiotics to get rid of the Heliobacter pylori that actually do cause gastric ulcers ....
If someone wants to ignore all the modern knowledge about what goes on with neurotransmitters and biochemistry during depression, allow me to stare at them with amazement.
I'm not sure the implied analogy is apt, because although certain brain events are implicated in depression, I don't think that means we know that the cause of depression rests in the biochemistry of the brain, even though we have some insight of that kind into Seasonal Affective Depression. Nor are we particularly clear about cures for depression, though we can relieve some of the symptoms with varying degrees of success in some (most?) sufferers.
No, that is true. But we are part of the way there to understanding, and we are further along than than we were.
In the last year or two I remember seeing a media report that someone had worked out why some antidepressants take a couple of weeks to work, ie what's happening during that period.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
If your mind arises from your brain, when your mind is depressed then your brain must be in some way different from times when your mind is not depressed. There is a correlation / cause issue. Conversely, people treated with talking therapy have been shown to have changed brain chemistry as they recover.
Causation is probably a complex combination of factors, but even if cause was purely psychological - that would not make depression somehow less of a significant illness / disability.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In the last year or two I remember seeing a media report that someone had worked out why some antidepressants take a couple of weeks to work, ie what's happening during that period.
That sounds interesting but personally I'd settle for an antidepressant that actually worked without putting my life in danger or having embarassing side effects.
Huia - not holding my breath.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
]Conversely, people treated with talking therapy have been shown to have changed brain chemistry as they recover.
Really?! It is bloody hard to investigate human brain chemistry. What would we be talking about, MR spectroscopy? I'm too lazy to PubMed this, any refs at hand?
(It is also far from easy to investigate animal brain chemistry, technically speaking, and it is also difficult to establish decent animal models of depression - still, that sort of thing presumably can be done, and probably has been.)
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I'll dig out the reference for you when I get home, it was a small study but it makes sense to me for the reasons I explained above.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
This, is all I can find rapidly - link is embedded in the article (I appreciate is not a neurotransmitter study) - but I am sure I have seen a similar paper on serotonin levels.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
This is a good summary and includes some findings form SPECT analysis.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
OK--this is not related to depression, but it does illustrate just how delicate the balance of brain chemistry can be.
My partner is diabetic. In the 12+ years we have lived together, he has had some trouble with low sugars. Normally, he feels this and is able to treat before anyone would know. I know him well enough I can usually sense the subtle changes in voice and behaviour that tell me his sugar is dropping. Twice in those 12 years, though, as he has been sleeping, his sugar has dropped dangerously low. That will wake him up, but he has no real idea where he is. He is unable to balance himself, he does not know who I am, and he can even lose the use of language. He can start having involuntary muscle movements, and if it were allowed to go far enough he would undoubtedly go into convulsions.
We keep a glucagon kit handy, and on those two occasions when I've used it he hasn't even realized he was injected. Within ten to fifteen minutes, he is "back"--one minute there is no sense that the injection is working, and the next he is speaking and knows what is going on. The personality comes back as quickly as flipping a light switch. Even after all these years, that moment of immediate return to lucidity amazes me.
There is undoubtedly a lot we don't know about brain chemistry, but I am (anecdotally) convinced our personalities and minds are more dependent on it than we usually are willing to believe.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
There is undoubtedly a lot we don't know about brain chemistry, but I am (anecdotally) convinced our personalities and minds are more dependent on it than we usually are willing to believe.
Our minds and personalities are entirely dependent on brain chemistry, for the simple reason that brain chemistry is what those things are.
That doesn't mean we understand more than a fraction of the chemistry involved, of course.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
There is undoubtedly a lot we don't know about brain chemistry, but I am (anecdotally) convinced our personalities and minds are more dependent on it than we usually are willing to believe.
Our minds and personalities are entirely dependent on brain chemistry, for the simple reason that brain chemistry is what those things are.
Since when did you become a materialist? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You don't believe in free will then?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
There is undoubtedly a lot we don't know about brain chemistry, but I am (anecdotally) convinced our personalities and minds are more dependent on it than we usually are willing to believe.
Our minds and personalities are entirely dependent on brain chemistry, for the simple reason that brain chemistry is what those things are.
Since when did you become a materialist?
You don't believe in free will then?
Actions are a consequence of free will. One's mind and personality underlie that.
Evensong, that was a "doh" moment, even by your standards.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
How can action (mind and personality?) be a consequence of free will if its nothing but chemicals making you act (or defining your mind and personality)?
My mind and personality most certainly are not just chemistry.
[ 11. February 2014, 13:30: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
There is undoubtedly a lot we don't know about brain chemistry, but I am (anecdotally) convinced our personalities and minds are more dependent on it than we usually are willing to believe.
Our minds and personalities are entirely dependent on brain chemistry, for the simple reason that brain chemistry is what those things are.
Since when did you become a materialist?
You don't believe in free will then?
Actions are a consequence of free will. One's mind and personality underlie that.
Evensong, that was a "doh" moment, even by your standards.
Not at all. Marvin is talking nonsense. And what he is saying does indeed lead to determinism.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Our minds and personalities are entirely dependent on brain chemistry, for the simple reason that brain chemistry is what those things are.
Since when did you become a materialist?
You don't believe in free will then?
It's almost like you think the brain chemistry that controls what you think and do is something independent of "you", to the extent that it can rob "you" of agency. But the brain chemistry is "you", and therefore "you" are the one controlling what you think and do!
As far as I'm concerned that is free will.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
No, your brain chemistry is NOT you. Category error.
What you are - your being - is not simply what you are made of.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
How can action (mind and personality?) be a consequence of free will if its nothing but chemicals making you act (or defining your mind and personality)?
My mind and personality most certainly are not just chemistry.
You know this how?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
No, your brain chemistry is NOT you. Category error.
What you are - your being - is not simply what you are made of.
What is it then? There's nothing else there...
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on
:
Strict materialism mandatory now? Really? Why? Exactly.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Wow! We've got people here who reckon we know how the mind works. Shit, we aren't even sure how the brain works, except that it doesn't give the same results twice.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think equating experience with chemical interactions isn't very useful, actually. It tends to erase experience, and then we are into a complete cul de sac.
In order to talk about our experiences, thoughts, feelings, and so on, we can discuss them as is, without having to say, oh they're chemicals.
In fact, of course, nobody does this, as life would be impossible.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
How does acknowledging the brain works on a mechanical level erase experience? Simply because I know that careening around curves on a track at high speed releases adrenalin and dopamine to stimulate areas in my brain does not then mean I cannot say it is fun.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How does acknowledging the brain works on a mechanical level erase experience? Simply because I know that careening around curves on a track at high speed releases adrenalin and dopamine to stimulate areas in my brain does not then mean I cannot say it is fun.
But then you are not erasing experience. But some materialists seem to do this, by arguing for example, that there is no self, or the self is an illusion, or that our thoughts have no meaning. But this is fairly extreme, and I would have thought, unlivable. I suppose you end up having to deny intentionality.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I also think that showing biological change that correlates with something, doesn't show it causes it.
London taxi drivers brains physicially change to accomodate their learning of the routes around London over at least two years. The changes in the brain do not cause them to learn routes, the need to store the information they are learning causes the brain to adapt to what they are doing.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
But saying experience is stored mechanically does not address that question at all.
Addresses to quetzalcoatl though DT answered better
[ 11. February 2014, 16:53: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
How can action (mind and personality?) be a consequence of free will if its nothing but chemicals making you act (or defining your mind and personality)?
I don't think the chemicals cause us to act. They enable us to act.
That is why depression can be so very debilitating - because the brain chemicals are often out of kilter.
I am sure most of this discussion can be filed under 'nobody knows' but Martin has a point.
It's hard to imagine our 'selves' free of the bodies which make us us.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I've seen some data that indicate the at the level of neurons, when a chemical or ion is present, the cell membrane develops channels to receive them. Further, we have neurons which mirror what someone else's neurons are likely doing. The topic was pain, but the fundings are extremely interesting. They then showed how altering thoughts and perception altered the neurology. (This comes from "Explain Pain" from the Neuro Orthpedic Institute out of Australia.)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think equating experience with chemical interactions isn't very useful, actually. It tends to erase experience, and then we are into a complete cul de sac.
In order to talk about our experiences, thoughts, feelings, and so on, we can discuss them as is, without having to say, oh they're chemicals.
In fact, of course, nobody does this, as life would be impossible.
Of course we can discuss these things without having to talk about the basic chemical interactions that are driving them. That's what we do with virtually everything.
I mean, nobody talks about muscle movements in terms of the biochemical processes that cause them to happen at a cellular and sub cellular level, but when it comes down to it they're just a bunch of chemical reactions causing muscle cells to contract.
It's the same with everything we do, from washing our hands to driving a car. We don't have to talk about the molecular-level science that's going on, but going on it is.
Posted by DOEPUBLIC (# 13042) on
:
Note this UK context
Psychiatrists deal with chemistry
(CPN - Community Psychiatric Nurses)
Psychologists the emotional/thinking
Mental health Social workers can liaise with the above.
See my post on 'Akedia' for a context of 17 variables that IMO can effect the context of a health journey.
Sadly, the physical gets the publicity. This negates the uniqueness of each of us.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DOEPUBLIC:
Note this UK context
Psychiatrists deal with chemistry
(CPN - Community Psychiatric Nurses)
Psychologists the emotional/thinking
Mental health Social workers can liaise with the above.
See my post on 'Akedia' for a context of 17 variables that IMO can effect the context of a health journey.
Sadly, the physical gets the publicity. This negates the uniqueness of each of us.
Is that part of the problem? Different aspects of the whole are handled by different profesions? It might be too much to expect a single practicioner to deal with all of it but is one profession better placed?
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think equating experience with chemical interactions isn't very useful, actually. It tends to erase experience, and then we are into a complete cul de sac.
In order to talk about our experiences, thoughts, feelings, and so on, we can discuss them as is, without having to say, oh they're chemicals.
In fact, of course, nobody does this, as life would be impossible.
Of course we can discuss these things without having to talk about the basic chemical interactions that are driving them. That's what we do with virtually everything.
FFS. This is exactly what your materialist reductionism does do. This is in fact what you DID do.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
You know, fuck the term materialist and fuck the term scientism. What the fucking hell do you expect atheists to believe? Simply because you think there is any undefinable whosis piloting the universe doesn't mean they have to. Same goes for the undefinable whatsis that you think you are.
BTW, thinking mechanical processes cannot also constitute free will is akin to believing in a 6k year old universe.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think equating experience with chemical interactions isn't very useful, actually. It tends to erase experience, and then we are into a complete cul de sac.
In order to talk about our experiences, thoughts, feelings, and so on, we can discuss them as is, without having to say, oh they're chemicals.
In fact, of course, nobody does this, as life would be impossible.
Of course we can discuss these things without having to talk about the basic chemical interactions that are driving them. That's what we do with virtually everything.
I mean, nobody talks about muscle movements in terms of the biochemical processes that cause them to happen at a cellular and sub cellular level, but when it comes down to it they're just a bunch of chemical reactions causing muscle cells to contract.
It's the same with everything we do, from washing our hands to driving a car. We don't have to talk about the molecular-level science that's going on, but going on it is.
I think you're missing the point. There's a good reason that we don't talk about the brain in normal social interaction, (but it would be OK in a neurology seminar).
Thus, if instead of saying 'I feel sad', I described to you the neurological processes going on, that would be quite disturbed behaviour, maybe, dissociative, because I would be talking about myself as an object, in the third person.
But when I say 'I feel sad', I am a subject, in the first person, interacting with other subjects.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
You are correct in saying dealing with people it is not always good to reference biological mechanism. This is not the same as this not being how things work.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are correct in saying dealing with people it is not always good to reference biological mechanism. This is not the same as this not being how things work.
I think it's worse than 'not always good', it's fucking crazy. I've met people who talked about themselves in the third person, and believe me, it is well alienating. They are in big trouble. Just try it for a while, and see the reaction you get.
Posted by DOEPUBLIC (# 13042) on
:
I have been advised to place my comment on the Akedia thread :-
Would appear that DD may have got stuck up her own 'totem'pole. Demonstrating the disconnect that language can provide, especially when being clinically deconstructed without a deep sense of humanity. :-
Posted by DOEPUBLIC (# 13042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by DOEPUBLIC:
Note this UK context
Psychiatrists deal with chemistry
(CPN - Community Psychiatric Nurses)
Psychologists the emotional/thinking
Mental health Social workers can liaise with the above.
See my post on 'Akedia' for a context of 17 variables that IMO can effect the context of a health journey.
Sadly, the physical gets the publicity. This negates the uniqueness of each of us.
Is that part of the problem? Different aspects of the whole are handled by different profesions? It might be too much to expect a single practicioner to deal with all of it but is one profession better placed?
The practitioners can work as a team. The ignorance is more in the public domain, where social and psychological issues are relegated to medical solutions primarily.
Posted by DOEPUBLIC (# 13042) on
:
Research in USA
Brain
Posted by DOEPUBLIC (# 13042) on
:
And
brain facts
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... thinking mechanical processes cannot also constitute free will is akin to believing in a 6k year old universe.
I don't think so. There are very respectable neuroscientists and philosophers who are prepared to argue that free will and/or the persistence of a "me" identity across a human lifespan is/are illusory. Just as there are, of course, equally respectable folk who disagree with them.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... thinking mechanical processes cannot also constitute free will is akin to believing in a 6k year old universe.
I don't think so. There are very respectable neuroscientists and philosophers who are prepared to argue that free will and/or the persistence of a "me" identity across a human lifespan is/are illusory. Just as there are, of course, equally respectable folk who disagree with them.
One of the interesting debates is about intentionality, and whether it can be reconciled with materialism, and it can be argued both ways. I suppose the eliminative materialists take a 'strong' position, that, in Alex Rosenberg's phrase, 'we'll have to embrace physics as the whole truth about reality'. One problem with this is that it is a philosophical assertion - is this also part of physics?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course we can discuss these things without having to talk about the basic chemical interactions that are driving them. That's what we do with virtually everything.
FFS. This is exactly what your materialist reductionism does do. This is in fact what you DID do.
Knowing how something works doesn't diminish the wonder of it happening. The fact that I know that it's "just" planetary rotation causing a distant ball of fusing hydrogen nuclei to come into view from my position in such a way that some of the photons released from said fusion reactions are refracted in the atmosphere and detected by the cone cells in my eye, which then pass information down my optic nerve in such a way that the visual centre of my brain interprets it as colours in the red end of the visual spectrum doesn't stop me from saying "what a beautiful sunrise".
But if someone says "mighty Apollo is riding his fiery chariot across the heavens" in such a way that I'm apparently supposed to agree with that definition of what's actually going on, I may well be moved to point out that I don't. And if they then said that my materialist reductionism is taking all the wonder out of the universe I'd fucking well tell them they're wrong.
Some people seem to think science is dull and boring. I think it's fucking awesome, and far more fascinating, exciting and wondrous than merely saying "god did it".
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are correct in saying dealing with people it is not always good to reference biological mechanism. This is not the same as this not being how things work.
I think it's worse than 'not always good', it's fucking crazy.
Actually, there's at least one type of discourse in which talking about biochemical processes is immensely good - and that's the area of disease prevention and cure. Our increasing knowledge of these processes has enabled us to make massive leaps in curing all sorts of ailments.
Why should that cease to be the case just because we're talking about a disease that affects the brain?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are correct in saying dealing with people it is not always good to reference biological mechanism. This is not the same as this not being how things work.
I think it's worse than 'not always good', it's fucking crazy.
Actually, there's at least one type of discourse in which talking about biochemical processes is immensely good - and that's the area of disease prevention and cure. Our increasing knowledge of these processes has enabled us to make massive leaps in curing all sorts of ailments.
Why should that cease to be the case just because we're talking about a disease that affects the brain?
Sure. I was making the point that talking about neurological processes in the normal run of interpersonal relations, is, well, pretty disturbed, if you did it consistently. Talking about yourself in the third person is pretty strange.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Talking about yourself in the third person is pretty strange.
Yes and no, I think. Would saying "my fingers are typing these words" rather than "I am typing these words" be pretty strange? After all, my fingers are part of me, and thus are part of the "I" in the second sentence.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Talking about yourself in the third person is pretty strange.
Yes and no, I think. Would saying "my fingers are typing these words" rather than "I am typing these words" be pretty strange? After all, my fingers are part of me, and thus are part of the "I" in the second sentence.
Although you have sneaked in a 'my' in your first sentence, which is first person. Try 'fingers are typing these words'; it sounds odd to me.
Similarly, 'there is disturbance in the Limbic Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal axis' would be an odd way to tell your wife that you feel low this morning. Well, maybe I'll try it.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Similarly, 'there is disturbance in the Limbic Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal axis' would be an odd way to tell your wife that you feel low this morning. Well, maybe I'll try it.
Would it be better if you said "there is disturbance in my Limbic Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal axis"?
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know, fuck the term materialist and fuck the term scientism. What the fucking hell do you expect atheists to believe? Simply because you think there is any undefinable whosis piloting the universe doesn't mean they have to. Same goes for the undefinable whatsis that you think you are.
BTW, thinking mechanical processes cannot also constitute free will is akin to believing in a 6k year old universe.
Wow, are you an idiot. There's no question mark, because that isn't a question. It's a statement.
Atheism and theism have nothing to do with this. People who are confused about this always seem to think this has something to do with God. In fact, the most robust demolition of material reductionism I've ever read is in Heidegger, and I have no idea if he believed in God. Either way, he didn't let it interfere with his work.
There is a couple of ways to approach this. We could talk about the difference between the brain and the mind, which despite your moronic last sentence is actually a very real distinction. If it wasn't, we would be at the absolute mercy of brain chemicals, and to all intents and purposes would have no free will. Which would make psychotherapy (other than pharmacology) basically a waste of time. Which it isn't. At least, not in my experience.
Or, we could go along a more phenomenological route and say that one of the major problems with materialist reductionism (i.e. reducing everything an entity is to brain chemicals, or electrons reacting, or whatever - I don't really care as I don't think its that important for me to know about) is that it leads us down the path of believing that what is real - what things 'actually are' - is to be found at the most elemental level. That isn't what things are. In a much more important sense, what a thing "is" constitutes the way that we experience it. That isn't to say brain chemistry is unreal, or unimportant. When things are fucked up up there, it can be really important. Probably more to a neuroscientist or psychiatrist than me, who neither knows nor cares to know what is going on with those chemicals or electrons. I've got other shit to do.
It's like saying a cake "is" flour, eggs and water. A cake might be made of those things, but that isn't what a cake 'is.'
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Similarly, 'there is disturbance in the Limbic Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal axis' would be an odd way to tell your wife that you feel low this morning. Well, maybe I'll try it.
Would it be better if you said "there is disturbance in my Limbic Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal axis"?
Well, try it. See how you get on.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
Speaking as professional computational neuroscientist:
- At a minimum, brain activity is to be characterised as electro-chemical. And even that ignores the absolutely essential role of anatomy (structural organisation) and physiology (function as living tissue). Not to speak of issues of development, embodiment, etc. Apart from every philosophical consideration, to say that the brain is just biochemistry is like saying that Shakespeare is just ink on paper, a basically meaningless simplification even if one is only interested in mechanism.
- We know a lot about the brain, but in fact very little about how it works precisely in a mechanistic sense. How do the neurons (and astrocytes and ...) do their job, make the brain perform as it does? We basically do not know. Where we have some idea how the brain is working is almost exclusively in primary sensomotory areas. That is, the very first (cortical) stage of sensory input and the last (cortical) stage of muscle control output is not completely beyond our grasp as far as mechanism goes. To put it in terms of a computer analogy: trying to understand how a laptop works, we have sort of figured out the USB port. Hooray us.
- People do get confused by the incredible amount of data that experimental brain scientists are amassing. Data however is not a synonym for understanding. Furthermore, people do get confused by the unending stream of publications about where some function of the brain is supposed to be located (or perhaps about what rhythms are connected to what function). This is not the place for sorting reasonable work from the "new phrenology" that has ensued with our capability of creating pretty pictures from fMRI data. Suffice to say that practically all of this is at the level of pointing an infrared camera at a running car, noticing where most heat is coming from, and then pointing at the bonnet and saying "that's what drives the car". Of course, in a sense this is correct. But it hardly has the mechanistic power of explanation that laypeople tend to attribute to it.
- To get anywhere near a materialistic claim for the brain, i.e., to be able to say that "I am my brain" in any sense or form beyond sophistry, roughly the following would have to be achieved: First, the total "performance space" of the brain would have to be mapped out, so that we exactly know what it is capable of doing. Second, the total "state space" of the brain would have to be mapped out, so that we exactly know what the brain is like and what its parts do. Third, a complete "mechanistic explanation space" would have to be constructed on the "state space", so that we know exhaustively how the state of the brain that we know can lead to all possible performances. Fourth, a complete match between observed "performance space" and derived "mechanistic explanation space" would have to be established, so that we know that the brain function can be explained fully in terms of brain state. Our ability to do all these things is roughly comparable to the ability of cavemen to explain the nuclear reactions powering the sun. I cannot totally exclude the possibility that one day this might be possible. But to claim that we have some clear insight into this now does not even rise to the level of risible.
- There is an essential problem with studying the connection between mind and brain, that hopefully will never go away: ethics. We are very constrained in what we do experimentally and observationally in order to understand the human brain. What we can do is basically this: 1. Study animal models. 2. Use non-invasive observations in situations that do not cause ill health effects or death. 3. Use rare instances where medical intervention justifies invasive observations or where nature provides us with observations of brains in detrimental circumstances. It is far from clear that this ethical window we have on human brains is enough for us to actually figure them out. And no, it is unlikely that technological progress will ever be able to completely overcome this. Just like it is unlikely that technological progress will ever allow us to teleport. Nothing in known science suggests that we will ever have the sort of observations about human brains that we would really want. Nature has for obvious reasons protected brains against the external world, and there will always be limits to our ability to peek past these defences while constrained by ethics.
I would like to add to this some philosophical concerns. At a minimum we need to explain:
- Experience - how do we get from registering a red dot in a mechanistic sense to experiencing it? One can certainly build a robot that detects a moving red dot and points a stick at it. But it is unclear in what sense such performance is related to experiencing the presence of a red dot, which would be integral part of our achievement of the same performance.
- Abstraction - people appear to be able to operate on abstractions from experience, rather than experiential data itself. We can argue, for example, that parallel lines never meet in the real plane, but at infinity, though none of these statements can be experienced, or directly extracted from experience. There are no fully parallel lines in reality, much less some that would stretch across all space, or even to infinity (which is certainly not an experienced place). What we have done there is to abstract from experience into a conceptual space and then operate on that. It is unclear how this can be achieved by some mechanism.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course we can discuss these things without having to talk about the basic chemical interactions that are driving them. That's what we do with virtually everything.
FFS. This is exactly what your materialist reductionism does do. This is in fact what you DID do.
Knowing how something works doesn't diminish the wonder of it happening. The fact that I know that it's "just" planetary rotation causing a distant ball of fusing hydrogen nuclei to come into view from my position in such a way that some of the photons released from said fusion reactions are refracted in the atmosphere and detected by the cone cells in my eye, which then pass information down my optic nerve in such a way that the visual centre of my brain interprets it as colours in the red end of the visual spectrum doesn't stop me from saying "what a beautiful sunrise".
But if someone says "mighty Apollo is riding his fiery chariot across the heavens" in such a way that I'm apparently supposed to agree with that definition of what's actually going on, I may well be moved to point out that I don't. And if they then said that my materialist reductionism is taking all the wonder out of the universe I'd fucking well tell them they're wrong.
Some people seem to think science is dull and boring. I think it's fucking awesome, and far more fascinating, exciting and wondrous than merely saying "god did it".
I don't think science is dull and boring. I have absolutely no idea where that sentence came from, but it has nothing to do with our interactions on this thread.
And my point of view has nothing to do with my religious belief.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
We could talk about the difference between the brain and the mind, which despite your moronic last sentence is actually a very real distinction.
I'd say it's a bit like the distinction between a hand and holding something. The hand is what it is, holding something is what it does.
quote:
If it wasn't, we would be at the absolute mercy of brain chemicals, and to all intents and purposes would have no free will.
What is the "we" in this comment?
I don't think "I" am at the mercy of the electro-chemical interactions in my brain, I think "I" am the electro-chemical interactions in my brain. That's a significant difference, or so it seems to me.
(And to respond to part of IngoB's post, I don't have to know exactly how it all works to make that assertion, any more than I have to know exactly how an engine works to assert that it's what's making my car move.)
quote:
Which would make psychotherapy (other than pharmacology) basically a waste of time. Which it isn't. At least, not in my experience.
Of course it's not a waste of time, any more than pharmacology has made physiotherapy a waste of time for any ailments of the rest of the body. You need the right tool for the right job.
quote:
It's like saying a cake "is" flour, eggs and water. A cake might be made of those things, but that isn't what a cake 'is.'
Of course. But if you want to know why your cakes don't rise properly, or taste bad, or have any other problems that mean they're not the cakes you wanted to bake, then it's a good idea to know about all that fiddly "flour, eggs and water" stuff so that you can try to fix the problem. Otherwise you're just chucking a random bunch of ingredients into an oven and hoping they'll somehow become a tasty victoria sponge.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Would it be better if you said "there is disturbance in my Limbic Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal axis"?
Well, try it. See how you get on.
My wife is a medical professional and I have a degree in biochemistry. We say shit like that to each other quite often, actually ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
(And to respond to part of IngoB's post, I don't have to know exactly how it all works to make that assertion, any more than I have to know exactly how an engine works to assert that it's what's making my car move.)
As mentioned, there are significant reasons to doubt the possibility of explaining the mind "materialistically" in terms of the brain, at least in terms of what we now consider as an appropriate description of matter. These reasons are philosophical, but that does not mean that they can be so easily dismissed. We have clear evidence that brain activity and mind activity are intimately linked, as far as we can observe. That they are one and the same thing does not follow at all, however, and it is simple faith in materialism to assert that this must be the case.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As mentioned, there are significant reasons to doubt the possibility of explaining the mind "materialistically" in terms of the brain, at least in terms of what we now consider as an appropriate description of matter.
In terms of technology and evidence gathering, I agree that we are very unlikely to ever be able to fully explain the way our brains work. But that in itself does not mean there must be some kind of non-material agency at work.
quote:
These reasons are philosophical, but that does not mean that they can be so easily dismissed.
Nor does it mean they must be accepted.
quote:
We have clear evidence that brain activity and mind activity are intimately linked, as far as we can observe. That they are one and the same thing does not follow at all, however, and it is simple faith in materialism to assert that this must be the case.
What is the difference between brain activity and mind activity?
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
To get anywhere near a materialistic claim for the brain, i.e., to be able to say that "I am my brain" in any sense or form beyond sophistry, roughly the following would have to be achieved...
Is it more likely that I am my arse?
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on
:
I wanted to be a professional computational neuroscientist: when I grew up, but I changed my ...(wait for it...) mind.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
[QB]
You see, I'm a sort of ethnographer, and it is my day job to analyse what is called "discourse". In other words, I try to understand how certain cultures at certain points in time "frame", or address, certain issues. How they talk about it. What they consider is important, and what is, or is not, allowed to be said.
Non sequitur.
Discourse analysis belongs to linguistics, not ethnography. Discourse analysis is patently NOT about a whole culture on a whole topic in a given timeframe. It is far more limited than that, at best providing the analysis of a closed group of people within a given context interacting with another. I have carried out discourse analysis myself; it is hugely time consuming to analyse a single conversation; it would be impossible to analyse the expressions of a whole culture.
If you extrapolate from the individual or small group to the culture as a whole, then you are likely to make some very wrong deductions.
quote:
So I merely noticed that (a) there is a specific sort of discourse concerning depression that is currently common currency especially in anglo-saxon cultures;
There is no such thing as 'anglo saxon cultures'. I am not sure where you get that terminology from, but it is meaningless. It is not a term used in linguistics (the nearest term to this with any meaning would be 'Germanic'. It may be useful in a broad sense in historic terms, although even here there is a clear distinction between cultures of Saxons and Angles; there is not one homogenous group. It is meaningless in relation to the present day; far too imprecise, far too inaccurate.
Discourse analysis can enable you to say something about the subjects and interactions you are analysing. It is a huge mistake to extrapolate from those subjects to any given notional group to which those subjects may belong, and then infer sweeping generalisations. In plain English; you are likely to end up stereotyping.
quote:
(b) I dared to point out that this is likely to be subject to change (it has changed in the past),
Big whoop. Everything changes except God.
quote:
and (c) I did, admittedly, poke a bit of fun at that discourse.
'Poking fun' at subjects of academic study is, imho, inexcusable and unprofessional.
quote:
And before you get into another fit of self-righteous indignation, I poked fun at the discourse , not the condition (depr./acedia).
I would respectfully suggest that there is precious little to laugh about in either case.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In terms of technology and evidence gathering, I agree that we are very unlikely to ever be able to fully explain the way our brains work. But that in itself does not mean there must be some kind of non-material agency at work.
Sure.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Nor does it mean they must be accepted.
Indeed. However, when reasonable argument is dismissed without any attempt at counter-argument, based simply on a prior conviction, then we call this "blind faith". Blind faith is intellectually ugly not just when it comes from a religious corner.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What is the difference between brain activity and mind activity?
I can record signals that speak to the activity of your brain, the electrical fields neural groups generate (EEG / MEG), the metabolic impact of neural activity on blood dynamics (fMRI BOLD), etc. I cannot record signals of what your mind is doing, only in the sense that I can judge certain behaviour patterns that you exhibit (like talking, and in talking "making sense") are similar to the behaviour patterns that I exhibit when I experience in myself a state that involves "thinking". And no, I cannot really specify or quantify well what I mean by that, which is part of the problem. At any rate, practically speaking the distinction would be between the objective reality of brain activity as measured changes to the physical states of the organ, and the objective reality of mind activity as the universally reported experience of human mental life. What we do not know is how these two can fit together.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What is the difference between brain activity and mind activity?
Imho, awareness.
We may have considerable awareness of what our minds are thinking. Brain activity happens outside that awareness; mostly maintaining homeostasis.
[ 12. February 2014, 15:10: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Sure the brain is like a kidney or pancreas. Just secretes chemicals and dumps them into the body. Except that the system has a whole bunch of feedback loops and multiple effects. Such that changing your thought processes, e.g., cognitive behaviour therapy, mindfulness, affects neurochemicals the same way that a drug might. There is something special when the organ responsible for the trouble can actually consider what the organ itself is doing and do things to change it. Unlike a pancreas or a kidney.
Further, the changes in neural structure (the HPA axis as discussed above) are reversible to an extent, by taking drugs - locally they are using beta blockers like propranolol to derail some of the responses in PTSD, and also neurofeedback where actual brain function is changes by observing it on screen and training the patient to alter ongoing function.
The point is, that the fully materialist explanation is useful and powerful, but it's more complicated than as it is often discussed to explain everything. It ain't just neurochemcials, it's neurochemicals, feedback to them via other neurochemicals, changes in physical structures in the brain and peripheral nervous system, with additional feedback loops, which all change structure and affect neurochemicals and structure.
I've learned far too much about this, both regarding PTSD and CRPS (complex regional pain symdrome). I haven't found any professionals who have what I might term a 'semi-materialist' approach. Even the biologically-based psychiatrists allow for more than what's been expressed on this thread thus far.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Also, a lot of psychotherapists today work interpersonally or via the relationship between therapist and client. This is partly out of the view that a lot of the distress found in clients, was also arrived at interpersonally. But it's also needed to build up trust and openness.
I suppose one has to add to this the notion of 'client-centered' therapy, which has also been popular for a long time - in this view, the therapist is not an expert, dispensing medico-psychological information. You might argue that such a position is itself damaging to the client, and may well restimulate old wounds.
But this approach doesn''t rule out medication completely; in fact, with some people, it is indispensable. So, anti-psychiatry has died down considerably.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Nor does it mean they must be accepted.
Indeed. However, when reasonable argument is dismissed without any attempt at counter-argument, based simply on a prior conviction, then we call this "blind faith". Blind faith is intellectually ugly not just when it comes from a religious corner.
If there's no way to gather meaningful data, then we're all just using "blind faith".
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What is the difference between brain activity and mind activity?
I can record signals that speak to the activity of your brain, the electrical fields neural groups generate (EEG / MEG), the metabolic impact of neural activity on blood dynamics (fMRI BOLD), etc. I cannot record signals of what your mind is doing,
Theoretically, if we could do that would it change your view of all this?
quote:
At any rate, practically speaking the distinction would be between the objective reality of brain activity as measured changes to the physical states of the organ, and the objective reality of mind activity as the universally reported experience of human mental life. What we do not know is how these two can fit together.
I'm not so sure the latter is an objective reality. We're all perceiving our own mind activity subjectively, and we have no real way of knowing that what we're really experiencing is the same as what anyone else is really experiencing. It's like the old "how do we know we're actually seeing the same colours" problem.
But even allowing for that, what's to say that thw two aren't the same thing? That the brain activity isn't just the physical process by which the thing we call mind activity takes place, in the same way that the shortening of actin and myosin filament crossbridges is the physical mechanism by which muscle activity takes place?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Talking about yourself in the third person is pretty strange.
This is a total straw man. Who talks about themselves in the third person? Certainly nobody on this thread. You have allowed that saying "my" about fingers makes finger talk into first person talk. Who says "brain chemicals are doing blah" rather than "chemicals in MY brain are doing blah"? Maybe some extreme philosophical solipsists. Nobody on this thread.
You appear to be trying to have it both ways. If we talk about our hands, that's okay. If we talk about our brains, we're talking in the third person and that's just nuts.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Talking about yourself in the third person is pretty strange.
This is a total straw man. Who talks about themselves in the third person? Certainly nobody on this thread. You have allowed that saying "my" about fingers makes finger talk into first person talk. Who says "brain chemicals are doing blah" rather than "chemicals in MY brain are doing blah"? Maybe some extreme philosophical solipsists. Nobody on this thread.
You appear to be trying to have it both ways. If we talk about our hands, that's okay. If we talk about our brains, we're talking in the third person and that's just nuts.
Well, that's my point, that people don't normally talk about themselves in the third person, hence,'there is disturbance in the Limbic Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal axis' is quite an unusual way to say 'I'm feeling low'.
I think talking in terms of hands is also quite odd, e.g. 'my hands are typing this post', compared with 'I am typing this post'. It sounds sort of disembodied, and the LHPA stuff, just dissociated.
So, it's not that bio-chemical descriptions are false, but they're generally inappropriate between people, (but OK when talking about bio-chemistry).
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If there's no way to gather meaningful data, then we're all just using "blind faith".
That is physicalism, which is easily shown to be self-defeating, i.e, strictly wrong. (That nothing but analysis of empirical data has value for discussing what the world is like is not itself a statement based on the analysis of empirical data. Thus the assertion refutes itself.) We can indeed make reasonable argument apart from data analysis in the empirical mode, and we can expect to learn about the world from it. The two philosophical difficulties I have raised are not at all statements of "blind faith", they are entirely reasonable queries about underlying principles. In fact, they are the sort of thing that would guide empirical data analysis so as to provide us with actual understanding.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Theoretically, if we could do that would it change your view of all this?
Whether this tells me something fundamental about the mind-brain connection would depend on how you are doing that, and on what these mind recordings show as compared to simultaneous brain recordings. Be more specific, and perhaps I can answer more specifically.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm not so sure the latter is an objective reality. We're all perceiving our own mind activity subjectively, and we have no real way of knowing that what we're really experiencing is the same as what anyone else is really experiencing. It's like the old "how do we know we're actually seeing the same colours" problem.
We know that most of us are essentially seeing the same colours by the fact that traffic lights work. Likewise, my individual mental state is not objective, but subjective - nobody but me can access it. Still, that human beings experience mental states that are similar enough to each other to be considered as multiple instances of "the human mind" is confirmed objectively and beyond reasonable doubt by the similar reports people give about their mental states, and the similarity in behaviour that follows from them. We have no problem asserting that human beings have a liver, even though not one of these organs is exactly the same as the other. But they are the "same sort of thing". Likewise, human minds are the "same sort of thing".
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But even allowing for that, what's to say that thw two aren't the same thing? That the brain activity isn't just the physical process by which the thing we call mind activity takes place, in the same way that the shortening of actin and myosin filament crossbridges is the physical mechanism by which muscle activity takes place?
I've mentioned two problems for this assertion above. They are challenging for "materialistic" approaches, and you could spend some time thinking about them. But anyway, you could say that the constriction and relaxation of muscles acting through tendons on a skeletal frame is the physical process by which dancing takes place. That however does not explain what dance is, and it is simply facetious to claim that dance is just that. My point is that it could be entirely true that all mind activity is "physically enacted" by brain activity, and yet mind activity would not be described appropriately in terms of brain activity alone.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Wow, are you an idiot. There's no question mark, because that isn't a question. It's a statement.
I'm gutted you should think so. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Atheism and theism have nothing to do with this.
I did not specify God. There are those whose view fits between Theist and atheist. Given where we are posting and the Usual Suspects in these discussions, my comment was not stupid or unfounded, but I may have used a broader brush than necessary. Given that, here, theists use those words as terms of derision towards atheists, not that much too broad.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
It's like saying a cake "is" flour, eggs and water. A cake might be made of those things, but that isn't what a cake 'is.'
Never said a cake is identical to its component parts. Simply saying a cake is those components and recipe. Any significant variation and the cake is now different. Making that cake does not require any essential "cakeness" beyond the ingredients and process.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Speaking as professional computational neuroscientist:
Speaking to a professional neuroscientist, what of machine learning? When/if a constructed entity can reason, learn, emote in a manner similar to ours, what then? When a machine has its own, unique personality, is it then a person as well?
--------------------
Who we are as individuals is measured by our abilities, personality and character. We know we can change this by physically altering our brains.
By physically altering our brains, we can change that which makes us who we are by any reasonable measurement or observation.
-------------
Do we understand all of the process? No. Can we ever is an open question, but the answer is not more reasonably no than yes.
-------------
As we begin to delve into quantum mechanics, the classic materialist model seems a little outdated, yes, but not beyond adjustment.
--------------
Materialist and scientism are, in general use, often no more than a derisive interjection at the same level as God-botherer, bible thumper or theidiocy. And this is what prompted my post.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I read every word of IngoB's post at 6:59 and it caused my tinnitus to flare up.
He has post 10,000 coming along any minute now. I think we should do something special.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think talking in terms of hands is also quite odd, e.g. 'my hands are typing this post', compared with 'I am typing this post'. It sounds sort of disembodied, and the LHPA stuff, just dissociated.
How about, "My hands ache from cold"? Is that odd? Why not?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
We know that most of us are essentially seeing the same colours by the fact that traffic lights work.
That means we slice up the spectrum in roughly the same places. It doesn't mean that my experience of what we both call "red" is the same as their experience of what we both call "red."
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Speaking to a professional neuroscientist, what of machine learning?
Machine learning is interesting. But classification, even if it "generalises", is not quite the same as abstraction. If you have seen a hundred horses, and can use this to identify a new entity that is also a horse, it is not a given that you have actually understood what a horse is and that you can use this new concept freely in combination with other concepts to reason (like evaluating the proposition "one should not ride on a young horse because its back is too weak"). In fact, most machine learning applications make this rather clear by the limited information being used. Clearly being able to identify the picture of a horse after having been trained on many pictures of a horse does not give much of a chance to the computer to do anything but classifying pictures. It becomes interesting if you stuff all sorts of info into a computer and then see whether something more than garbage comes out. The answer is generally that this is not the case. Of course, if you throw lots of money at such a problem, and get dozens of very intelligent people to craft such systems with a specific application in mind (like IBM Watson vs. Jeopardy), then it will do quite well. But the question is there how much you basically borrow human intelligence precisely in the construction of the system and endless data massaging. (A somewhat similar concern has been raised, by the way, about the performance of apes in sign language. A really smart animal trained by humans over a very long time is perhaps not very helpful in answering what animals can do. It's more answering what humans can make animals do...)
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
When/if a constructed entity can reason, learn, emote in a manner similar to ours, what then? When a machine has its own, unique personality, is it then a person as well?
Well, I'm not an anti-silicon speciesist. However, I deeply worry about this "Turing test" inspired line of thinking. After all, we already know in specific aspects that nothing could be further from the truth than that equal "performance" means equal "essence". Modern chess computer can beat the hell out of human beings at playing chess, including even the top grandmasters. But this does not really mean that computers are the same as human grandmasters. In fact, it is rather interesting how little the success of chess computers ultimately has come down to computers imitating humans "internally". In a like manner, I can at least theoretically imagine a perfect android whom I cannot distinguish from a human being unless I open it up and look at its positronic brain. And I might name this entity Lieutenant Commander Data, and interact with it as I would with a human being (since it would be designed to be interacted with that way, really). But pace Turing, I'm not convinced that that is a strange kind of human being then. I would not even be sure that that is any kind of "personal being" in the proper sense. Just as I don't think that a chess computer is a chess grandmaster just because it plays chess well. There is something odd in declaring performance to be the same as being. I am not sure that we can abstract like that, and frankly evidence so far suggests to me that this instinct is right. I also think that it is wrong to say that I recognise another human being as a person by its performance. In fact, I think I recognise other human beings as persons because I recognise myself as a person, and I use then entirely insufficient evidence (some entity looks a lot like me...) to jump to the conclusion that it must be another person. I never really test other humans for their humanness...
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Who we are as individuals is measured by our abilities, personality and character. We know we can change this by physically altering our brains.
By physically altering our brains, we can change that which makes us who we are by any reasonable measurement or observation.
The question of personal identity is frankly a lot more complicated than that. In what sense are you you, given the rather obvious changes of you that have occurred since your birth (or your conception, if you will)? Likewise, me typing this post is in fact changing my brain in many subtle ways, yet I would not say that a continuum of different IngoBs have typed this post as it was being produced. Arguably identity is a bigger problem for materialists than for dualists. It is true of course that you can alter my mental performance by changing my brain. But then you can also alter my running performance by smashing my knee caps. It does not really follow that my legs are my running. Rather I run with my legs, and if you damage them, then my running is impaired. That A is instrumental for B does not tell us that A is identical with B.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do we understand all of the process? No. Can we ever is an open question, but the answer is not more reasonably no than yes.
As we begin to delve into quantum mechanics, the classic materialist model seems a little outdated, yes, but not beyond adjustment.
Well, if the adjustment to materialism is going to be as significant as the quantum adjustment to classical physics, then I really do not know how much sense it would make to retain the same label "materialism". One could call hylomorphic dualism a kind of materialism, since after all it does not posit some kind of spiritual entity "soul" which mysteriously influences the body, but rather considers "soul" to simply be the form of the body. So that's very materialistic. But then it also says that this form has its own activity, in which it can even subsist in the absence of the body. That's hardly materialism as we know it. But this is just the kind of "quantum leap" we may have to have in materialism if we wish to get closer to understanding our own being, I reckon. So if that's right, then frankly I will not fight about labels.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Materialist and scientism are, in general use, often no more than a derisive interjection at the same level as God-botherer, bible thumper or theidiocy. And this is what prompted my post.
Derision where derision is due. The mere fact that someone bases their ignorant pontificating on different principles does not make them any better. (Not saying anything about your posts there.)
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I read every word of IngoB's post at 6:59 and it caused my tinnitus to flare up. He has post 10,000 coming along any minute now. I think we should do something special.
Thanks for noticing. I hadn't.
In appreciation then, this be my post number 10,000! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Life. Such pleasure to waste it on trivialities.
Posted by DOEPUBLIC (# 13042) on
:
As the physicians have recently been told by the Health minister 'a person sits in front of them, not a set of body parts.'
In addition, a person is more than binary logic, machine code and virtual programming.
The paradox of our existence in a material world.
Words themselves are limited in capturing our experience.It is intriguing to witness the demarcation professionals struggle with. However, the boundaries become surmountable when they respond as a team.
I have found this useful
perspective on the journey
Posted by DOEPUBLIC (# 13042) on
:
Maybe of interest mind mapping
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
We know that most of us are essentially seeing the same colours by the fact that traffic lights work.
Try randomly switching the top-to-bottom positions of the colours on different traffic lights and see if that holds true. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Also, traffic lights don't have to work for 'most' of us. They have to work for ALL of us. Including the red-green colourblind folk.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DOEPUBLIC:
Maybe of interest mind mapping
That's a dead link, sweetie. It's basically asking me if I'd like to buy a website.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Wow, are you an idiot. There's no question mark, because that isn't a question. It's a statement.
I'm gutted you should think so.
I actually don't. My apologies. I reacted too strongly to your post. I'm trying to be nicer. But failing miserably.
I should have started by saving such insults for those who actually deserve them.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That's a dead link, sweetie. It's basically asking me if I'd like to buy a website.
Would you buy a used website from this man?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Well. That escalated quickly.
Go onshore for three days and all hell breaks loose on the poverty of materialistic philosophy and the mind-body connection.
I love this ship!
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
How can action (mind and personality?) be a consequence of free will if its nothing but chemicals making you act (or defining your mind and personality)?
My mind and personality most certainly are not just chemistry.
You know this how?
Unless reality is totally illusory (Matrix style - no objective reality) I can deduce it through a combination of reason, revelation and intuition.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
How can action (mind and personality?) be a consequence of free will if its nothing but chemicals making you act (or defining your mind and personality)?
I don't think the chemicals cause us to act. They enable us to act.
That is why depression can be so very debilitating - because the brain chemicals are often out of kilter.
I am sure most of this discussion can be filed under 'nobody knows' but Martin has a point.
It's hard to imagine our 'selves' free of the bodies which make us us.
Quite so. We are body, mind, and soul. All intertwined and all connected. The tricky bit is figuring whether the chicken or egg or society or God or genetics or behavior or what-the-effe-ever causes or effects things or feedback loops on themselves continuously.
[ 13. February 2014, 12:26: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
How can action (mind and personality?) be a consequence of free will if its nothing but chemicals making you act (or defining your mind and personality)?
My mind and personality most certainly are not just chemistry.
You know this how?
Unless reality is totally illusory (Matrix style - no objective reality) I can deduce it through a combination of reason, revelation and intuition.
But presumably your mind and personality are made of something. And whatever that something is - call it X - you could dismiss it with a weaselly "nothing but X". That's not reasoning, its just, well, I'm not sure what it is.
And its anti-materialist Gnosticism. Fails the fundamental test of Christian teaching set out in 1 John 4 1-6
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
How can action (mind and personality?) be a consequence of free will if its nothing but chemicals making you act (or defining your mind and personality)?
My mind and personality most certainly are not just chemistry.
You know this how?
Unless reality is totally illusory (Matrix style - no objective reality) I can deduce it through a combination of reason, revelation and intuition.
I see this as a confusion of levels. We relate to each other as persons, so it would be inappropriate for me to address you as a bag of chemicals.
However, in some contexts, e.g. if you are undergoing major surgery, and you are out cold, it might be appropriate to treat you as a bag of chemicals.
When you wake up, however, hopefully the surgeon addresses you as a person.
I'm not sure how many levels there are really.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Damn and blast, I forgot to say that the above analysis (into levels) is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. I think there is a lot of confusion in these areas, because science and philosophy get muddled up; however, this is another rabbit-hole, down which we might fall on another thread.
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure how many levels there are really.
"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's tortoises all the way down!"
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure how many levels there are really.
"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's tortoises all the way down!"
That's an interesting comment, and it suggests that 'level' is the wrong word, since there is no hierarchy - there is no 'all the way down'. There are different ways of approaching someone, and they don't depend on each other. And maybe there are lots of ways of looking at someone, as a person, as a bag of chemicals, as an economic unit, as a centre of consciousness, as a blob of matter, and so on. Again, it's not a scientific description.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Well. That escalated quickly.
Go onshore for three days and all hell breaks loose on the poverty of materialistic philosophy and the mind-body connection.
I love this ship!
It is, indeed, amazing what we can get up to when you're not here to make it all about your crummy jokes.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
How can action (mind and personality?) be a consequence of free will if its nothing but chemicals making you act (or defining your mind and personality)?
My mind and personality most certainly are not just chemistry.
You know this how?
Unless reality is totally illusory (Matrix style - no objective reality) I can deduce it through a combination of reason, revelation and intuition.
But presumably your mind and personality are made of something. And whatever that something is - call it X - you could dismiss it with a weaselly "nothing but X". That's not reasoning, its just, well, I'm not sure what it is.
And its anti-materialist Gnosticism. Fails the fundamental test of Christian teaching set out in 1 John 4 1-6
Saying my mind and personality are not just chemicals is gnostic? Da fuq?
Some things are material ( a rock ), some are not (Spirit). Some are a combination of both (humans).
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Well. That escalated quickly.
Go onshore for three days and all hell breaks loose on the poverty of materialistic philosophy and the mind-body connection.
I love this ship!
It is, indeed, amazing what we can get up to when you're not here to make it all about your crummy jokes.
Missed you too sweetlips. ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Saying my mind and personality are not just chemicals is gnostic? Da fuq?
I don't get why the word "just" is in that sentence. Are chemical elements not special enough for you or something? Do you think you're too much of a precious little snowflake to be made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is, indeed, amazing what we can get up to when you're not here to make it all about your crummy jokes.
Evensong: how a sense of humour writes a suicide note.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Saying my mind and personality are not just chemicals is gnostic? Da fuq?
I don't get why the word "just" is in that sentence. Are chemical elements not special enough for you or something? Do you think you're too much of a precious little snowflake to be made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe?
It's a Christian thing. Some can't write a simple declarative sentence without putting "just" in there. Is there a need to limit or minimise everything in contrast to an infinite and eternal God?
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
It's all got too deep for me.......
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Saying my mind and personality are not just chemicals is gnostic? Da fuq?
I don't get why the word "just" is in that sentence. Are chemical elements not special enough for you or something? Do you think you're too much of a precious little snowflake to be made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe?
What makes you think everything in the universe (and beyond the universe) is made of matter?
That's a very small and restrictive world view.
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Saying my mind and personality are not just chemicals is gnostic? Da fuq?
I don't get why the word "just" is in that sentence. Are chemical elements not special enough for you or something? Do you think you're too much of a precious little snowflake to be made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe?
It's a Christian thing. Some can't write a simple declarative sentence without putting "just" in there. Is there a need to limit or minimise everything in contrast to an infinite and eternal God?
Limit and minimise? No. Those are very negative words and matter (and our lives) are not negative things.
Include the infinite and eternal? Most definitely. Because we have them too.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
What makes you think everything in the universe (and beyond the universe) is made of matter?
Everything's made of something.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Saying my mind and personality are not just chemicals is gnostic? Da fuq?
I don't get why the word "just" is in that sentence. Are chemical elements not special enough for you or something? Do you think you're too much of a precious little snowflake to be made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe?
It's a Christian thing. Some can't write a simple declarative sentence without putting "just" in there. Is there a need to limit or minimise everything in contrast to an infinite and eternal God?
No, it isn't. It really gets tiresome when you use that particular straw man to avoid engaging with the idea.
A person's being is not equal to the matter from which said person is made. A person's being is greater than that. Hence, a person is not "just" their brain.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
A person's being is not equal to the matter from which said person is made. A person's being is greater than that. Hence, a person is not "just" their brain.
Sure, we're more than the sum of our parts. But that doesn't mean there's something oother than our parts that's a part of us.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Dark Knight, I was exagerrating. "just" and "really" must be the most overused and unnecessary words in casual Christian writing and especially prayer. They sap power from prose and kill lyrics and poetry.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Saying my mind and personality are not just chemicals is gnostic? Da fuq?
I don't get why the word "just" is in that sentence. Are chemical elements not special enough for you or something? Do you think you're too much of a precious little snowflake to be made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe?
It's a Christian thing. Some can't write a simple declarative sentence without putting "just" in there. Is there a need to limit or minimise everything in contrast to an infinite and eternal God?
No, it isn't. It really gets tiresome when you use that particular straw man to avoid engaging with the idea.
A person's being is not equal to the matter from which said person is made. A person's being is greater than that. Hence, a person is not "just" their brain.
It seems more complicated to me - I agree with your first point, a person is not equal to a clump of matter; but I'm not sure about 'greater'. It just seems different to me, or if you like, not commensurate. The terms are from different forms of discourse, which don't really mesh together, although people do try to conflate them.
It's like saying that truth and justice are made up of chemicals - a bizarre mixing of categories.
Posted by DOEPUBLIC (# 13042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by DOEPUBLIC:
Maybe of interest mind mapping
That's a dead link, sweetie. It's basically asking me if I'd like to buy a website.
Oops Sorry I will try again
mind mapping
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
We are not "just" the matter that makes us up, any more than a Shakespeare manuscript is "just" ink on foolscap. It's ink in a very particular pattern. But physically all that's there is ink on foolscap. It is "made of" pigment and cotton.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Some things are material ( a rock ), some are not (Spirit). Some are a combination of both (humans).
And they interact through the pituitary, right? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
What makes you think everything in the universe (and beyond the universe) is made of matter?
Let's separate these:
1. What makes you think everything in the universe is made of matter?
Because that's what "universe" means: the sum total of matter (and energy, you left out energy).
2. What makes you think everything beyond the universe is made of matter?
I don't. Indeed, by definition, if there is anything beyond the universe, it is NOT made of matter.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
My uncle thought he had left the universe when my cousin tripped over his catheter.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Who we are as individuals is measured by our abilities, personality and character. We know we can change this by physically altering our brains.
By physically altering our brains, we can change that which makes us who we are by any reasonable measurement or observation.
The question of personal identity is frankly a lot more complicated than that. In what sense are you you, given the rather obvious changes of you that have occurred since your birth (or your conception, if you will)?
We, as adults, are who we are because of the changes in ourselves as we grew. In one sense, it is reasonable to say I am the same entity; in another sense, I am a different person than I was as a child. That child had more potential outcomes than the one which resulted in me.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is true of course that you can alter my mental performance by changing my brain.
I am not speaking about performance, exactly. These is a case of a man developing paedophilia tendencies where none appeared before. An examination revealed a tumor which, when removed, also removed those tendencies. Any neurosurgeon can give you stories regarding physical trauma changing personality and behaviour. Changes which result in a different person, for all practical purpose.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sure, we're more than the sum of our parts. But that doesn't mean there's something oother than our parts that's a part of us.
Better put than I managed.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
I actually don't. My apologies. I reacted too strongly to your post. I'm trying to be nicer. But failing miserably.
I should have started by saving such insults for those who actually deserve them.
No worries.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
We, as adults, are who we are because of the changes in ourselves as we grew. In one sense, it is reasonable to say I am the same entity; in another sense, I am a different person than I was as a child. That child had more potential outcomes than the one which resulted in me.
If you see no particular problem with this, then I do not see why the purported case you mention (a man becoming pedophile due to a tumour and turning normal again upon its removal) would present any difficulty, even if it were true. The man with a tumour in his brain had less potential outcomes as far as his sexual behaviour was concerned, but that as such does not mean that we cannot consider him to be the same person as the same man without a tumour.
Nobody is denying that the brain is instrumental for enacting mind in this world. The question is whether (a certain part of) brain function is identical with the mind.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
One of the old arguments about that concerns the truth of propositions (or sentences, if you prefer). If you accept that a proposition can be true or false, and that a proposition is a mental entity, how about the truth (or falsity) of the neuronal activity which underlies the proposition? Can neurons be true?
Well, it just sounds bizarre really, although I suppose you can argue that 'truth' is itself neuronal activity. But again, it's mixing categories, isn't it?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
What makes you think everything in the universe (and beyond the universe) is made of matter?
Everything's made of something.
What is the soul made of? What is Spirit made of? What is God made of?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We are not "just" the matter that makes us up, any more than a Shakespeare manuscript is "just" ink on foolscap. It's ink in a very particular pattern. But physically all that's there is ink on foolscap. It is "made of" pigment and cotton.
Quite. So what is the leap between ink and foolscap and Shakespeare's great work?
Consciousness? Soul? Mind?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Some things are material ( a rock ), some are not (Spirit). Some are a combination of both (humans).
And they interact through the pituitary, right?
No idea. Aristotle believed it was the soul that was the formal cause of a human being.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Evensong:
[qb]What makes you think everything in the universe (and beyond the universe) is made of matter?
Let's separate these:
1. What makes you think everything in the universe is made of matter?
Because that's what "universe" means: the sum total of matter (and energy, you left out energy).
2. What makes you think everything beyond the universe is made of matter?
I don't. Indeed, by definition, if there is anything beyond the universe, it is NOT made of matter.
So where do soul and Spirit, God and consciousness fit in? They exist in this universe.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Quite. So what is the leap between ink and foolscap and Shakespeare's great work?
Consciousness? Soul? Mind?
Pattern. As stated.
quote:
So where do soul and Spirit, God and consciousness fit in? They exist in this universe.
I've dealt with consciousness. It's a pattern imprinted in matter. As for the rest, how would you go about demonstrating their existence in this universe?
And God is in this universe? That's not terribly kosher theologically. God is not a thing.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I thought that classical theism explicitly states that God is not an item in the universe. I suppose that some anthropomorphic views almost seem to suggest that (theistic personalism).
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
I do rather worry about people who want to make God fit.
Jengie
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I do rather worry about people who want to make God fit.
Jengie
You could drop a big hint.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Quite. So what is the leap between ink and foolscap and Shakespeare's great work?
Consciousness? Soul? Mind?
Pattern. As stated.
No. It is pattern but it's not just pattern. It's pattern that effects symbol that effects subjective experience.
Art is not just matter. Matter is the material medium.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
So where do soul and Spirit, God and consciousness fit in? They exist in this universe.
I've dealt with consciousness. It's a pattern imprinted in matter. As for the rest, how would you go about demonstrating their existence in this universe?
Demonstrating their existence can be done metaphysically but that's a different question to what we're dealing with here. I'm assuming Christians believe God exists and working from there.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And God is in this universe? That's not terribly kosher theologically. God is not a thing.
According to your definition of what constitutes the universe it's not terribly kosher no. But your definition is too small.
As Christians, we believe God exists in the universe so there must be an immaterial reality to the universe.
If you don't believe God exists in the universe then you end up with a watchmaker God. And that is very bad theology.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I thought that classical theism explicitly states that God is not an item in the universe.
What do you mean by classical?
If you're referring to Aquinas (who built on Aristotle) then classical theism states God (pure being, pure potential) is how we live and move and have our being at every moment of our lives. Take God away from the equation and we would cease to exist.
It's only the later philosophers in Descartes that introduces a mind/body, matter/spirit dualism that removed God from the world to an extent.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
You guys keep it up with the theological mutual masturbation. I never expected to feel so much smarter reading a Hell thread.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I've dealt with consciousness. It's a pattern imprinted in matter.
FWIW, hylomorphic dualism (Aristotle, Aquinas et al.) would agree with this statement. It is quite a different beast to Cartesian dualism (not that Cartesian dualism has been shown wrong by actual philosophical argument, it has merely been rhetorically mocked into oblivion).
The key question is however if this pattern - this form - imprinted on matter subsists only in the matter, or whether it also has an incorporeal activity per se. The classical teaching is that the form of animals - including incidentally their animal consciousness, which is not classically a mark distinguishing humans - has no activity per se. It really is just that pattern in matter. Whereas the human pattern has an activity per se and hence subsists incorporeally. And that activity happens to be intellectual in a strict sense, the ability to understand, to extract universals. The arguments for that are not a mile away from quetzalcoatl's "Can neurons be true?" (Though obviously in the middle ages they did not make the point in terms of advanced biology.)
Perhaps an analogy helps: in hylomorphic dualism the activity of the body (brain in particular) would be like the front of a horse, and the incorporeal activity would be like the back of the same horse. They are really a unit and work together, as the horse runs, jumps etc.. But imagine that for some reason we can only observe the front of the horse, and the back is invisible to us. If we are not very careful in our observations, we may well conclude that the horse happens to be a two-legged creature. However, we may see subtle hints in the overall motions that the balancing isn't right unless there is a back to this animal which we cannot see. And if we are very lucky, we may see the horse rear on its hind legs. Or more accurately, we may see the front of the horse rise into the air, in a prolonged manner that really seems at odds with any kind of jumping that the two legs which we see could possibly do.
So this kind of theory is in principle testable, even in an empirical-physical sense. However, I doubt very much that we will in practice get there in my lifetime, if ever. The brain really, really is horribly complicated, and to hunt for subtle imbalances or rare but telling events appears like a losing proposition for the foreseeable future...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
As Christians, we believe God exists in the universe
No we most certainly do not. We believe the universe exists in God.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Same thing.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Same thing.
It's like the whole structure of sentences in English has completely passed you by.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Hardly. Think panentheism. Think circles that are not mutually exclusive. The one infuses the other and exists within it but is not defined by it or limited to it.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
But isn't the whole point of panentheism that it's a form of heresy denying God's transcendent nature and positing a God that changes, rather than unchanging?
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
I think you are confusing both being true, with both being the same thing. Reality existing in God is usually taken to mean that God is continually upholding everything in existence i.e. reality's contingent existence exists in God's necessary existence. God being present in us, I take to mean that God dwells in humans in a more specific, personal way, and more in some than in others. More in Jesus than in me for example, and not necessarily in the same way. Again, in a different way in Jesus than in me.
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But isn't the whole point of panentheism that it's a form of heresy denying God's transcendent nature and positing a God that changes, rather than unchanging?
There are different varieties of panentheism, but I think all seek to preserve God's transcendence as against pantheism. In pantheism, no universe, no God. Some Christian writers e.g. N.T. Wright and I think John Macquarie prefer the term Dialectical Theism to avoid confusion, but others e.g. the late Anglican Bishop of Birmingham Hugh Montifiore and Bishop John Robinson used the term.
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
Sorry, double post. Rev Marcus Borg also defines himself as a panentheist in the book "The God we never knew".
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's very confusing, since some varieties of theism such as process theism embrace panentheism, and also move away from the idea of an unchanging God.
But that doesn't mean that panentheism itself always has a changeable God.
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
Agreed. Also, some writers e.g. the philosopher and Anglican priest Keith Ward would argue that God is both necessary and contingent - necessary in that he exists, and contingent in the way he acts and interacts within a contingent creation.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
That makes sense. Covers both a personal and an impersonal God.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But isn't the whole point of panentheism that it's a form of heresy denying God's transcendent nature and positing a God that changes, rather than unchanging?
No. That's process theology.
Spawn of the devil!
(Also very Jungian)
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
Also (at risk of sounding like a utter pedant, or 'theological masturbater' thank you Kelly), God must be unchanging in some sense as a total change of something means it no longer exists. There needs to be continuity of existence as well as change. Also, if God is initiating the change in himself, then he must in some way transcend the change, so even Open Theism or Process Theology require God to be changeless in some aspects of his being. The difference between this and some examples of classical theism e.g. Aquinas is that for Aquinas, God doesn't even have the logical potentiality for change, everything is necessarily in an 'eternal now'.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I think, Yonatan, you prove too much. If something needs an unchanging core (to use a possibly inappropriate term, advisedly) to stay itself through change (Aristotle would approve), then so do we, and there is no distinguishing us from God.
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
I would argue that there is plenty of things which distinguish us from God, (or perhaps distinguish God from us would perhaps be a better way of putting it). In this particular instance, the point that we must have an 'unchanging core' if change isn't to mean that we change to the extent that we no longer exist is simply a logical argument or statement. There is nothing which is intrinsic to our nature which means that this could never happen to us. If God is necessary as opposed to contingent being, then his changing to the point of non-existence is an ontological impossibility. In the case of a human, we are simply saying that a human can't change in his or her entirety and still be thought of as the same human being. With regard to God, he can't change in his entirety period.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
With regard to God, he can't change in his entirety period.
From your wording I was thinking you were saying God can change, but must have an unchanging inner core. Sorry about that.
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
Don't apologise, that's what I was saying! At least applied to Open Theism and Process Theology. But I wasn't (for the record) saying I agree with the stance.
I think one of the main differences is not only how OT and PT define God's Being against other schools such as Thomism, but also how they define God eternity. For OT and PT, God's eternity is seen as an unending duration of time, both forwards and backward. For Thomism, God exists beyond time in an 'eternal now' - which is another reason why God can't change. Apologies - I strongly suspect I'm teaching my Grandmother to suck eggs. I just find typing the stuff out helps me think things through.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
I think you are confusing both being true, with both being the same thing.
Bingo. I wasn't commenting on the correctness of Evensong's theology, I was commenting on her inability to grasp that subject-in-object isn't the same thing as object-in-subject.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I don't know what heresy I might have been spouting, but I once burbled in my high school confirmation class that I thought God was never-changing and ever-changing-and I used the ocean as a metaphor. The ocean is always the ocean, but it is also always moving, striking the shore, changing the beach, pulling stuff back into itself,claiming life, generating it--always changing. The Pastor just looked at me like, maybe Cromwell had the right idea about heretics, and went on as if I had said nothing.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
That is just so LUTHERAN of you. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I don't know what heresy I might have been spouting, but I once burbled in my high school confirmation class that I thought God was never-changing and ever-changing-and I used the ocean as a metaphor. The ocean is always the ocean, but it is also always moving, striking the shore, changing the beach, pulling stuff back into itself,claiming life, generating it--always changing. The Pastor just looked at me like, maybe Cromwell had the right idea about heretics, and went on as if I had said nothing.
I love that Kelly. If it is heresy I may have to start a cult.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
There's gotta be a name for it. Every time I think I have evolved some great new idea, it turns out some joker scribbled it down on some scroll sometime in the year 294 or something.
[ 18. February 2014, 09:06: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
It must be Alvesism.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I don't know what heresy I might have been spouting, but I once burbled in my high school confirmation class that I thought God was never-changing and ever-changing-and I used the ocean as a metaphor. The ocean is always the ocean, but it is also always moving, striking the shore, changing the beach, pulling stuff back into itself,claiming life, generating it--always changing. The Pastor just looked at me like, maybe Cromwell had the right idea about heretics, and went on as if I had said nothing.
That's very nice, Kelly. I remember a long time ago coming up with the idea that the ocean is there because of me, and I am here because of the ocean, and I was told in quite a friendly way (this is the C of E!), that that wasn't particularly Christian. OK, fair enough.
Anyway, I came back to it years later, and still believed it, and realized, that I wasn't particularly Christian! So everything turns out OK in the end.
Posted by JFH (# 14794) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
There's gotta be a name for it. Every time I think I have evolved some great new idea, it turns out some joker scribbled it down on some scroll sometime in the year 294 or something.
Even this.
"The ancients stole all my best thoughts."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
There's gotta be a name for it. Every time I think I have evolved some great new idea, it turns out some joker scribbled it down on some scroll sometime in the year 294 or something.
Sounds like Palamism to me (unchanging ocean - essence, waves of activity - energies), hence medieval and not necessarily a heresy for RCs, whereas strict orthodoxy for the Orthodox.
But perhaps you would enjoy some Sufi poetry along those lines: here. (IMHO, Sufism is the best Islam has to offer, in particular concerning literary output.)
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
There's gotta be a name for it. Every time I think I have evolved some great new idea, it turns out some joker scribbled it down on some scroll sometime in the year 294 or something.
You aren't the only one to complain about such things. All my best lines...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
In the immortal words of one of my favourite bands:
"You're not the first to think that everything's been thought before."
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Very Ecclesiastes.
Got a mate doing a PhD on originality in art and how it is still possible. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
I think you are confusing both being true, with both being the same thing.
Bingo. I wasn't commenting on the correctness of Evensong's theology, I was commenting on her inability to grasp that subject-in-object isn't the same thing as object-in-subject.
The distinction was irrelevant to my point that God exists in the universe . Obviously you failed to grasp the point and went on a random pedantic tangent instead.
I hope you feel better now you got that off your chest.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The distinction was irrelevant to my point that God exists in the universe .
You probably shouldn't say things you know aren't true just to make some other, tangentially related point. Word to the wise, and all.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
I think you are confusing both being true, with both being the same thing.
Bingo. I wasn't commenting on the correctness of Evensong's theology, I was commenting on her inability to grasp that subject-in-object isn't the same thing as object-in-subject.
The distinction was irrelevant to my point that God exists in the universe . Obviously you failed to grasp the point and went on a random pedantic tangent instead.
I hope you feel better now you got that off your chest.
So the distinction EXISTS then. Even though it might have been irrelevant to the voices in your head. You know, the ones you were talking to instead of having a conversation with actual Shipmates.
Glad we cleared that up.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
That is just so LUTHERAN of you.
just wanna clarify--what's the Lutheran bit, me laughing at the stake burning or being a PITA in general?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Laughing at the stake burning.
And FUCK Emerson. Just FUCK him.
[ 18. February 2014, 18:12: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Sorry, no can do. I'm just not that in to him.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Sorry, no can do. I'm just not that in to him.
LC doesn't go for guys that bony.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Insert boner joke here...
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
I hunted for some Emerson quotes on the sea/ocean but he doesn't seem to have been ahead of Kelly on that. He did say:
The universal does not attract us until housed in an individual. Who heeds the waste abyss of possibility? The ocean is everywhere the same, but it has no character until seen with the shore or the ship. Who would value any number of miles of Atlantic brine bounded by lines of latitude and longitude? Confine it by granite rocks, let it wash a shore where wise men dwell, and it is filled with expression; and the point of greatest interest is where the land and water meet.
The Method of Nature, 1841
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
That.. that is actually pretty close to what I meant.
Seriously, FUCK him! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
If you want to stand on the shoulders of giants, then you first have to climb them. If you stand on their ground and compare heights, then you will come up short.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I'm 5'3'', I'm gonna come up short no matter what. Let me sulk in peace.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The distinction was irrelevant to my point that God exists in the universe .
You probably shouldn't say things you know aren't true
I didn't.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So the distinction EXISTS then.
Not in this case, no. Mousetheif presented it as some kind of distinction and I explained it was a false one.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Even though it might have been irrelevant to the voices in your head. You know, the ones you were talking to instead of having a conversation with actual Shipmates.
I'm sorry you didn't notice mousetheif's distinction was superfluous. I could have explained it but I thought it was obvious.
But hey, I guess it isn't if you go for the watchmaker God.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
So make up your mind: superfluous, or wrong?
And no, if I say the universe subsists IN God, that's hardly the watchmaker. Do you read what other people write in order to understand, or only in order to attack?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So make up your mind: superfluous, or wrong?
Irrelevant would be a better word.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And no, if I say the universe subsists IN God, that's hardly the watchmaker.
Quite. Which is why I don't understand why you raised the point in the first place.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So make up your mind: superfluous, or wrong?
Irrelevant would be a better word.
Yes. Because irrelevant and superfluous are completely different things.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Quite. Which is why I don't understand why you raised the point in the first place.
Yes. But rather than admit you didn't understand and ask for clarification, you went on the attack, and made YOUR lack of understanding out to be my fault.
You'll make a great priest.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Quite. Which is why I don't understand why you raised the point in the first place.
Yes. But rather than admit you didn't understand and ask for clarification, you went on the attack, and made YOUR lack of understanding out to be my fault.
Funny that. I thought the same thing about you.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So make up your mind: superfluous, or wrong?
Irrelevant would be a better word.
Yes. Because irrelevant and superfluous are completely different things.
And it's another pedant moment! They are totally not completely different things.
Both denote something being unnecessary to the point at hand!
FFS
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So make up your mind: superfluous, or wrong?
Irrelevant would be a better word.
Yes. Because irrelevant and superfluous are completely different things.
And it's another pedant moment! They are totally not completely different things.
Both denote something being unnecessary to the point at hand!
FFS
But it was you who suggested "irrelevant" might be a better word than "superfluous and wrong"!! (Which I think may have been the point orfeo was making, using that hitherto-unknown concept of "sarcasm").
If they're not different, why is "irrelevant" better than "superfluous"? Why change it? Why... but... don't understa... cannot compute...
Sits in a corner gibbering happily to himself
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Don't worry. The conversation has lost any value it once had...
Most definitely TIME TO DIE!
[ 21. February 2014, 12:30: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
She didn't pick up the sarcastic criticism of her not picking one of the 2 words offered and saying instead that a synonym would be a 'better' word.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
She didn't pick up the sarcastic criticism of her not picking one of the 2 words offered and saying instead that a synonym would be a 'better' word.
Please tell me you did not find this surprising.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
She didn't pick up the sarcastic criticism of her not picking one of the 2 words offered and saying instead that a synonym would be a 'better' word.
Oh he's so very clever!
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
She didn't pick up the sarcastic criticism of her not picking one of the 2 words offered and saying instead that a synonym would be a 'better' word.
Please tell me you did not find this surprising.
A little. But the really great part was her attempt to answer back.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Thanks. I thought it was good too. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Thanks. I thought it was good too.
Evensong, are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect?
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
-- right. Since you've clearly moved on to many a tangent from the OP, and even found a new victim unto whose head you shall now crap, could I please ask you to move out of my thread and establish your own corner of hell?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
You went away too long. Evensong is the ultimate Hell Thread Squatter.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You went away too long. Evensong is the ultimate Hell Thread Squatter.
That's quite cute.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
-- right. Since you've clearly moved on to many a tangent from the OP, and even found a new victim unto whose head you shall now crap, could I please ask you to move out of my thread and establish your own corner of hell?
Now we've dispensed with the shortcomings of scientisms's materialistic reductionism, the floor is all yours sweetheart.
Go for it ....
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You went away too long. Evensong is the ultimate Hell Thread Squatter.
I don't think I have heard a good arguments for a criminal trespass law before.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0