The Most Depressing Discovery About the Brain, Ever

Post Reply New Topic

As we used to say: "Totally."

I learned recently (sorry no link) there is a direct correlation between the expression of intelligence and stress factors in children as they grow.

So a child of higher intelligence will not thrive in a culture of high stress.....as though you stripped away IQ points..

"A fallacy is but result of a psychological predilection which bends conclusions out of their orbit. towards beliefs cherished by emotional, including aesthetic, trends.
But Science is too precious a social inheritance to be toyed with, and certainly to be challenged by the psychological limitations of our rationality." - Joseph Jastrow

All logic is based on assumptions. Even if the logic is flawless, if one of the assumptions are false, the conclusion may also be false. Only if all assumptions are true and the logic is flawless can we know definitively that the conclusion is also true.
Unfortunately, everything is based on assumptions and even out language is built on fallacy.
If we roll back everything we have ever learned as a race back through the centuries of logical frameworks to find out all we really know, we realize how little we actually know for everything we have built is based on inherently unprovable assertions.

Yes. We assume the sun will perform it's duty every day, but it's just our best guess. So? It's called civilization. Do you have something more reliable in mind?

Yes. We assume the sun will perform it's duty every day, but it's just our best guess. So? It's called civilization. Do you have something more reliable in mind?

"Philosophy is the theory of order. The word "theory" means systematic knowledge; the meaning of the word "order" is indefinable. The word "systematic" implies order itself, we can call philosophy the ordered knowledge about order; thus we find order on the subjective and objective side." - Hans Driesch

Science is the best known method for understanding the objective order, but we cannot ever know the subjective objectively. All of the objective is based on the subjective. Therefore we naturally must assume the subjective or we lose the objective too. Because we live with the subjective, fallacy is inevitable. We don't know, we only perceive and make conclusions on the perception.

Yes. And if most agree to accept a reality we create a civilization. Where we have no common acceptance we can, and do, have conflict.

"Because we live with the subjective" means we make decisions based on what we have learned on our path through life.......which is something of a personal (subjective) choice. We're free to subjectivley choose the path we feel is objectivley best, and change our path as we gain more objective information; reprogramming if you will.

That isn't what is meant by subjective in this context. The purest level of subjectivity is all that is present in your immediate mind at any one moment. This leads to the doubt of whether the memories you have are of things that actually happened. Subjective is the assumption that others exist and therefore are capable of agreeing with you. The concepts of civilization and common acceptance are based on the assumption that everyone else isn't a figment of your imagination as well as many other prerequisite assumptions. As people, we use the objective to justify the subjective regardless of truth. Similarly, the objective is based on the subjective inherently. This is where fallacies come from, they are an inherent part of being sentient or at least human. This is the philosophical source of the fallacies. I find it ludicrous, you probably do to, that everyone else doesn't exist, but we don't have the subjective capacity for knowing it so we assume that they do exist because it is far far more easier to accept and maybe it should be accepted and maybe it is true, but it is still subjective and inherently unprovable and that same dilemma exists for all of objective reality. Once we assume it, we can make leaps and bounds at understand the objective, but the objective is always in question at it's roots. How does this apply to our lives? It doesn't, except maybe on some bizarre spiritual level. Is it insane? probably.

I am basing all I am saying off of the works of many prominent scientists from the early 20th century and late 19th century on the discussion of pseudoscience. A pseudoscience is any science that claims to be able to understand and gain access to the subjective. This label would include many forms of psychology.

Aghogday made a good point regarding brain damaged individuals who struggle to choose socks. All our decisions have an emotional component. This is not necessarily a bad thing but it needs to be balanced by comparing the decision to objective factand analysis,

What don't you understand about gaining access to the subjective? In the late'50s it was the rage (still?) for teens to play with self hypnosis which was interesting and got me thinking about this kind of thing and wondering.

I'm possibly wrong to think of your argument as the concept of never being able to cross the finish line but personal observation of efforts and effects leads me to more pleasing conclusions. More pleasing means we still prefer flowers to weeds.

And to make things worse we can now consider the "objective facts and analysis" as "subjective based.". Looks like we need to do a little more juggling to keep all the balls in the air. I guess it must require practice.

What don't you understand about gaining access to the subjective? In the late'50s it was the rage (still?) for teens to play with self hypnosis which was interesting and got me thinking about this kind of thing and wondering.

I'm possibly wrong to think of your argument as the concept of never being able to cross the finish line but personal observation of efforts and effects leads me to more pleasing conclusions. More pleasing means we still prefer flowers to weeds.[/quote]

Firstly, we have different definitions of subjective. I am using a very specific definition from philosophy of science. I quoted Driesch, the father of cloning, and Joseph Jastrow, the father of experimental psychology and design of experiments. Jastrow was the first person to study the evolution of language and it is on that subject on which I am talking. And yes, we teens still play with self-hypnosis... and sticking electrodes to our heads to zap direct currents of electricity at low rates to try to hack our minds (I haven't yet done this, but it's growing in popularity.) You are misreading my argument.

When I was much younger, I thought I was very logical, and always correct.

Then I discovered computer programming in the C language. I've written a rather large storm water hydraulic modeling program for use in Civil design.

It was here that I discovered that logic, no matter how good, can still be wrong.
Also, when the program is finaly bug free, you give it to a co-worker to try it out on a project. He quickly cashes the program and fouls things up every which way. (ie: my logic is not their logic).

Anybody claiming that logic proves correctness, is wrong in my book. Before I even look into the claim myself.

The first day of Philosophy 101 we leaned there is "good" logic and "bad" logic. A lot depends on your premise. Good luck with your programming.

Perhaps you're right and I'm misreading your argument, but I don't think so. Perhaps if you were to apply definitions you personally have learned and developed? Defining your argument too narrowly denies debate, as it takes away the premises for argument. If you wish only to debate what others have learned or surmised you'll find me an unwilling partner.

I'm happy you're "using a very specific definition from philosophy of science" if this is what makes you happy. I'm in the process of applying concepts that can (hopefully) be used by the average person to improve their life and the lives of others around them. Do you have a purpose?

You say: "How does this apply to our lives? It doesn't, except maybe on some bizarre spiritual level. Is it insane? probably."

Is this a useful statement? In my opinion Philosophy is nothing but a neat toy if there are no useful/practical results, and that's ok, but it's been over 50 years since philosophy intrigued me.

Is there no way your definition could be used for practical positive purposes (in everyday life) to improve other's lives?

A few interesting books related to this:

Predictably Irrational
Dan Ariely

Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior
Ori Brafman

How We Decide
by Jonah Lehrer

and pretty much anything by Malcolm Gladwell

No, because there are moral absolute truths! We know that murder is wrong. We know that its wrong to steal. We know that these are fundamentals which are true because of the laws of the Universe!