How separating mind from matter ruined mental health

[Philip Thrift]

https://aeon.co/ideas/how-the-dualism-of-descartes-ruined-our-mental-health

...

Nature was thereby drained of her inner life, rendered a deaf and blind apparatus of indifferent and value-free law, and humankind was faced with a world of inanimate, meaningless matter, upon which it projected its psyche – its aliveness, meaning and purpose – only in fantasy.

...

The bifurcation of mind and nature was at the root of immeasurable secular progress –  medical and technological advance, the rise of individual rights and social justice, to name just a few. It also protected us all from being bound up in the inherent uncertainty and flux of nature. It gave us a certain omnipotence – just as it gave science empirical control over nature – and most of us readily accept, and willingly spend, the inheritance bequeathed by it, and rightly so.

In the face of an indifferent and unresponsive world that neglects to render our experience meaningful outside of our own minds  –  for nature-as-mechanism is powerless to do this  –  our minds have been left fixated on empty representations of a world that was once its source and being. All we have, if we are lucky to have them, are therapists and parents who try to take on what is, in reality, and given the magnitude of the loss, an impossible task.

...

"How did we ever get the notion of the mind as something distinct from the body? Why did this bad idea enter our culture?"

-- Richard Rorty

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/april13/rorty-041305.html

@philipthrift

[John Clark]

Separating mind from matter is no more ruinous than separating "fast" from "racing car". Mind is what a brain does.

 John K Clark

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 5:52:29 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

Separating mind from matter is no more ruinous than separating "fast" from "racing car". Mind is what a brain does.

 John K Clark

"Mind" is one of those words that should be deprecated: 

The brain "does" (or processes) experiences, knowledge, intentions, ideas, ... all that "mental" stuff.

In psychology, the psyche /ˈsaɪki/ is the totality of [what the brain "does"], conscious and unconscious.

[Wikipedia].

At least  "psyche" is not literally the word "mind". That's a start to get away from the Cartesian delusion.

@philipthrift

[John Clark]

On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 7:21 AM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's a start to get away from the Cartesian delusion.

I agree it's silly to say mind has nothing to do with matter, but it's not silly to say nouns are not the same as adjectives. Brain and mind do not mean the same thing.

John K Clark

[Philip Thrift]

"Brain", "mind", "psyche" are nouns. [ Wiktionary ]

What word are you referring to as an adjective?

"Mental" and even "brainial" (uncommon) are adjectives.

We talk about the sun and solar activities (like fusion, magnetic propagation, etc.) but we don't talk about solar activities distinct from the sun in any weird way, like people do with brain and mental activities (of the mind).

@philipthrift

[John Clark]

On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 10:10 AM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

> "Brain", "mind", "psyche" are nouns. [ Wiktionary ]

And my third grade English teacher said "I" was a pronoun, she was entirely wrong. "I" is an adjective describing how atoms behave when they are organized in a johnkclarkian way,  

> What word are you referring to as an adjective?

My iMac dictionary says an adjective is a word or phrase naming an attribute related to a noun that modifies or describes it. This time the dictionary is correct. Mind, an adjective, describes what a brain, a noun, does.

 John K Clark

 

"Mental" and even "brainial" (uncommon) are adjectives.

We talk about the sun and solar activities (like fusion, magnetic propagation, etc.) but we don't talk about solar activities distinct from the sun in any weird way, like people do with brain and mental activities (of the mind).

@philipthrift

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/31648c7d-8e49-4e44-9f3e-774cb9e193b1%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 10:20:46 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 10:10 AM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

> "Brain", "mind", "psyche" are nouns. [ Wiktionary ]

And my third grade English teacher said "I" was a pronoun, she was entirely wrong. "I" is an adjective describing how atoms behave when they are organized in a johnkclarkian way,  

> What word are you referring to as an adjective?

My iMac dictionary says an adjective is a word or phrase naming an attribute related to a noun that modifies or describes it. This time the dictionary is correct. Mind, an adjective, describes what a brain, a noun, does.

 John K Clark

 

"Mental" and even "brainial" (uncommon) are adjectives.

We talk about the sun and solar activities (like fusion, magnetic propagation, etc.) but we don't talk about solar activities distinct from the sun in any weird way, like people do with brain and mental activities (of the mind).

@philipthrift

 

If "I" is an adjective, so is "you".

You matter speaks strangely. 

@philipthrift 

[John Clark]

On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 2:34 PM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We talk about the sun and solar activities (like fusion, magnetic propagation, etc.) but we don't talk about solar activities distinct from the sun in any weird way,

You can't have solar activity without the sun, and there is nothing weird about that. 

 

> like people do with brain and mental activities (of the mind).

You can't have brain activity without a brain, and there is nothing weird about that either. 

 

> If "I" is an adjective, so is "you".

Yes.

> You matter speaks strangely. 

My and probably your third grade English teacher is the one that spoke strangely 

John K Clark  

[Philip Thrift]

At least now you are saying "brain activity" instead of "mind". That's progress.

Although to make a direct linguistic comparison to "solar activity" (not "sun activity") it would be "brainial activity". 

@philipthrift

[John Clark]

On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 7:21 PM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

> At least now you are saying "brain activity" instead of "mind". That's progress.

I think you're talking about the "difference" between 6 and half a dozen. Mind is what the brain does and you can't *do* anything without the activity of some thing.

John K Clark

John K Clark

 

[Philip Thrift]

One should always mind their language. :)

@philipthrift

[Bruno Marchal]

On 11 May 2019, at 12:51, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

Separating mind from matter is no more ruinous than separating "fast" from "racing car". Mind is what a brain does.

We can be OK with this.

But then with *digital* Mechanism, mind is what universal number does.

A brain is then an implementation of a universal number with respect to some subset of the physical laws, which have to emerges from all computations below my substitution level. That reduce physics to a (first person) statistic defined on arithmetic (and partially in arithmetic).

Bruno

 John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0LUNNJB_GYnGLonUUnjFNhR-yTfkcKBRVBpjUUHYymvQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 11 May 2019, at 08:13, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://aeon.co/ideas/how-the-dualism-of-descartes-ruined-our-mental-health

...

Nature was thereby drained of her inner life, rendered a deaf and blind apparatus of indifferent and value-free law, and humankind was faced with a world of inanimate, meaningless matter, upon which it projected its psyche – its aliveness, meaning and purpose – only in fantasy.

...

The bifurcation of mind and nature was at the root of immeasurable secular progress –  medical and technological advance, the rise of individual rights and social justice, to name just a few. It also protected us all from being bound up in the inherent uncertainty and flux of nature. It gave us a certain omnipotence – just as it gave science empirical control over nature – and most of us readily accept, and willingly spend, the inheritance bequeathed by it, and rightly so.

In the face of an indifferent and unresponsive world that neglects to render our experience meaningful outside of our own minds  –  for nature-as-mechanism is powerless to do this  –

Yes, nature does not even exist as mechanism, so the notion of “nature-as-mechanism” is globally non sensical, yet locally, it works for person supported by highly probable computations, but nature becomes a projection, like in a dream.

 our minds have been left fixated on empty representations of a world that was once its source and being.

That is due to the reductionist conception of machine and number. Today, we can defeat it, mathematically.

All we have, if we are lucky to have them, are therapists and parents who try to take on what is, in reality, and given the magnitude of the loss, an impossible task.

The loss is due to the separation of theology from science, and the impeaching of the fundamental questioning for a long period. 

That has led to the separation of human sciences and exact science, making them both into pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-religion. Then we see only the “superficial” technologies, without understanding of what they implies. To separate science and theologies is a con artist trick to steal your money, and in passing, your soul.

When “equated” with the machine, the negative pessimist will say, “oh damned I am only a machine”, but the positive optimistic will say, “nice, so machine can be as nice as I am”.

The interesting thing is only that this can be tested. Mechanism has observable consequences.

Bruno

...

"How did we ever get the notion of the mind as something distinct from the body? Why did this bad idea enter our culture?”

-- Richard Rorty

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/april13/rorty-041305.html

@philipthrift

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/66ebf031-d9ed-4855-9151-7c5a214b0bd4%40googlegroups.com.

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 1:23:22 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 11 May 2019, at 08:13, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://aeon.co/ideas/how-the-dualism-of-descartes-ruined-our-mental-health

...

Nature was thereby drained of her inner life, rendered a deaf and blind apparatus of indifferent and value-free law, and humankind was faced with a world of inanimate, meaningless matter, upon which it projected its psyche – its aliveness, meaning and purpose – only in fantasy.

...

The bifurcation of mind and nature was at the root of immeasurable secular progress –  medical and technological advance, the rise of individual rights and social justice, to name just a few. It also protected us all from being bound up in the inherent uncertainty and flux of nature. It gave us a certain omnipotence – just as it gave science empirical control over nature – and most of us readily accept, and willingly spend, the inheritance bequeathed by it, and rightly so.

In the face of an indifferent and unresponsive world that neglects to render our experience meaningful outside of our own minds  –  for nature-as-mechanism is powerless to do this  –

Yes, nature does not even exist as mechanism, so the notion of “nature-as-mechanism” is globally non sensical, yet locally, it works for person supported by highly probable computations, but nature becomes a projection, like in a dream.

 our minds have been left fixated on empty representations of a world that was once its source and being.

That is due to the reductionist conception of machine and number. Today, we can defeat it, mathematically.

All we have, if we are lucky to have them, are therapists and parents who try to take on what is, in reality, and given the magnitude of the loss, an impossible task.

The loss is due to the separation of theology from science, and the impeaching of the fundamental questioning for a long period. 

That has led to the separation of human sciences and exact science, making them both into pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-religion. Then we see only the “superficial” technologies, without understanding of what they implies. To separate science and theologies is a con artist trick to steal your money, and in passing, your soul.

When “equated” with the machine, the negative pessimist will say, “oh damned I am only a machine”, but the positive optimistic will say, “nice, so machine can be as nice as I am”.

The interesting thing is only that this can be tested. Mechanism has observable consequences.

Bruno

...

"How did we ever get the notion of the mind as something distinct from the body? Why did this bad idea enter our culture?”

-- Richard Rorty

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/april13/rorty-041305.html

The problem (aligning with the above article by psychotherapist James Barnes [ https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-barnes-msc-ma-90766b159/ ]) is that there is no (A) mind and the body (or matter), there are (B) experiences of the body (matter).

Speaking in the terminology of (A) has harmed mental health.

(Now one can be an experience-monist psychotherapist - everything is experience - but then the therapist has to explain to the patient why they need a particular drug prescription.)

@philipthrift

 

[Bruno Marchal]

But that is still a local description. In the “big picture”, the notion of “matter” (primitive matter, ontological matter, needed-to-be-assumed matter) makes no sense (assuming mechanism). 

Yes, we can criticise the terming “mind & body”, which is dualistic.

But to say that there are experience of the body, is as much criticisable. How could a body have experience? Only a mind, a person, can have experiences. And matter is one of those experience. 

Speaking in the terminology of (A) has harmed mental health.

Any inadequate belief is the source of some suffering, soon or late.

(Now one can be an experience-monist psychotherapist - everything is experience - but then the therapist has to explain to the patient why they need a particular drug prescription.)

Yes, but the patient does not need the detailed explanation. A medication and a brain does not need to have a material ontology for the medication doing its work. Like a chef does not need to know the biology and fundamental physics to prepare a Pizza.

Bruno 

@philipthrift

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a5995d0a-e1f2-4e6f-9af6-20865333abee%40googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

I agree. 

Now, a *digital activity*, like the execution of a program by a universal machine, is equivalent with (special) number relations, a bit like the dynamical life of a person becomes a static 4 dimensional cone in space time. 

Bruno

John K Clark

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1jJfh_qThUaHYVAwJhxgBMA9GgJ%2BdUqQHMOkUyv_Nf9g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Brent Meeker]

By processing information.

Only a mind, a person, can have experiences. And matter is one of those experience.

That's looking at it backwards.  It's assuming that a person is something separable from the experiences; an error foisted on us by the grammar of Indo-european language.  In the Navajo language one would just say "There is experiencing" without implicitly postulating a subject.  Sure, matter is an inference from experience.  Physics is an empirical science.  Empirical observation is that only bodies report and behave as if they are having experiences and only if their brains have a certain level of electrochemical activity.

Speaking in the terminology of (A) has harmed mental health.

Any inadequate belief is the source of some suffering, soon or late.

(Now one can be an experience-monist psychotherapist - everything is experience - but then the therapist has to explain to the patient why they need a particular drug prescription.)

Yes, but the patient does not need the detailed explanation. A medication and a brain does not need to have a material ontology

Metaphysicians have theories which have ontologies.  A brain might instantiate a metaphysician, but a medication can't.

Brent

for the medication doing its work. Like a chef does not need to know the biology and fundamental physics to prepare a Pizza.

Bruno 

@philipthrift

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a5995d0a-e1f2-4e6f-9af6-20865333abee%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DA678E58-80E7-46A2-9801-177BB19179CA%40ulb.ac.be.

[Bruno Marchal]

That use the digital mechanist theory. Then the question is, how that body, if it is an ontological object, select the computation supported by that body among all computations supporting that information processing in arithmetic?

Only a mind, a person, can have experiences. And matter is one of those experience.

That's looking at it backwards.  It's assuming that a person is something separable from the experiences;

But with mechanism, the person is the owner of the first person experience, and the of the memories of them. It is not separable from the experience, only from its many bodies or codes, emulate at the right substitution level, and below, in infinitely many computations. The material bodies have to results from the statistics on all computations, structured by the material modes of the self (the material hypostases).

an error foisted on us by the grammar of Indo-european language.  In the Navajo language one would just say "There is experiencing" without implicitly postulating a subject.  Sure, matter is an inference from experience.  Physics is an empirical science.  Empirical observation is that only bodies report and behave as if they are having experiences and only if their brains have a certain level of electrochemical activity.

Matter is even experienced, but not necessarily as a primary things. We can dream eating, drinking and having aproprio-perception and tactical experiences. Having a brain with electrochemical activity does not prevent the “electrochemical histoires” to emerge from the many-arithmetical-histories. 

Bruno

Speaking in the terminology of (A) has harmed mental health.

Any inadequate belief is the source of some suffering, soon or late.

(Now one can be an experience-monist psychotherapist - everything is experience - but then the therapist has to explain to the patient why they need a particular drug prescription.)

Yes, but the patient does not need the detailed explanation. A medication and a brain does not need to have a material ontology

Metaphysicians have theories which have ontologies.  A brain might instantiate a metaphysician, but a medication can't.

Brent

for the medication doing its work. Like a chef does not need to know the biology and fundamental physics to prepare a Pizza.

Bruno 

@philipthrift

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a5995d0a-e1f2-4e6f-9af6-20865333abee%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DA678E58-80E7-46A2-9801-177BB19179CA%40ulb.ac.be.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9edf0292-8167-31e4-0b63-f5e649836723%40verizon.net.