Mechanism (how and why)

[k9b4]

I can't find myself believing in an idea or theory until I understand how and why it occurs based on my current understanding of how the universe works.

Take the MBTI theory for example; I have difficulty accepting it as true because I cannot relate the theory to reality using my understanding of how the universe works.

Does anybody else feel this way?

 

[crippli]

Hegel, the philosopher, an INTP, may have thought about this at depth. I hope to look into the work one day, but as of yet I am not quite gotten to this-

"the demonstration that reality is shaped through and through by mind and, when properly understood, is mind. Thus ultimately the structures of thought and reality, subject and object, are identical." -The Science of Logic

As for now I try to remember that theory may at best attempt to describe reality. It's quite clear that a picture of a stone and a stone are not the same. Isn't it?

 

[k9b4]

"the demonstration that reality is shaped through and through by mind and, when properly understood, is mind. Thus ultimately the structures of thought and reality, subject and object, are identical." -The Science of Logic

I don't understand this. How is reality the same as mind? Reality exists regardless of perception. When you understand some part of reality you create a concept in your mind of that section of reality, but that doesn't mean the concept is reality. It is a concept of reality. An idea of reality.

 

[crippli]

I don't understand this.

Me neither. I hope to understand it properly one day.

Reality exists regardless of perception.

Does it? Or is it the perception that exist. How do you know that reality exist?

"Reality" is also a theory. If it can be described with words or numbers or even thought, that will be a theory, yes?

The more accurate question may be why you accept some theories, while not others?

 

[k9b4]

Does it? Or is it the perception that exist. How do you know that reality exist?

You're right. I do not know for sure that reality exists when I stop perceiving it. But by what mechanism would reality suddenly stop existing when I stop perceiving it, and then suddenly exist again as soon as I perceive it? That doesn't make any sense based on my understanding of how the universe works. Much more likely that reality continues to exist when no one is perceiving it.

Me neither. I hope to understand it properly one day.

It is entirely possible that the person who wrote that quote was incorrect.

 

[Black Rose]

our personal model of reality should include others models
Ti is i think about refining the model though known rules
Ni is connecting the model to reality itself by its essence of how gnosis is possible

 

[Kuu]

Psychology is akin to alchemy, in the sense that it is a scientific* discipline still in its infancy, replete with vast unknowns, wild conjectures and countless untested and contradictory ideas.

One accepts or rejects psychological theories such as MBTI out of convenience, not out of scientific precision; it is better to have a flawed heuristic model than to have no model at all.

Do you have problems accepting things as half-truths?

*So much in its infancy that many of the "hard sciences" persuasion don't classify it as science at all, and rather hold much contempt towards it, nevermind that just a couple hundred years ago their own predecessors were still fielding crazy arguments under the banner of natural philosophy.

 

[k9b4]

Psychology is akin to alchemy, in the sense that it is a scientific* discipline still in its infancy, replete with vast unknowns, wild conjectures and countless untested and contradictory ideas.

One accepts or rejects psychological theories such as MBTI out of convenience, not out of scientific precision; it is better to have a flawed heuristic model than to have no model at all.

Do you have problems accepting things as half-truths?

*So much in its infancy that many of the "hard sciences" persuasion don't classify it as science at all, and rather hold much contempt towards it, nevermind that just a couple hundred years ago their own predecessors were still fielding crazy arguments under the banner of natural philosophy.

Interesting. So then would neuroscience be the hard science of psychology? Does that mean that psychology will soon no longer be a subject because we have neuroscience?

 

[Mithrandir]

I can't find myself believing in an idea or theory until I understand how and why it occurs based on my current understanding of how the universe works.

Take the MBTI theory for example; I have difficulty accepting it as true because I cannot relate the theory to reality using my understanding of how the universe works.

Does anybody else feel this way?

You really only have four options:

1. Accept the new theory without reconciling it with your own model.
2. Alter your own model to accommodate the new theory.
3. Alter the new theory to fit into your own model.
4. Reject the new theory without reconciling it with your own model.

Sounds like you've pre-ruled out #1 already and I'd say #4 should be a last resort. So that leaves fiddling around with #2 and #3, which could take a really long time. I think most people who are in a hurry or impatient choose #1 or #4 without giving #2 and #3 a fair shot (though sometimes #1 because the new theory already fits within their current model). I also think anyone who is honest with themselves realizes that they are prone to #3 because it's a lot easier than #2. Personally, I'd say that a compromise of #2 and #3 would represent the healthiest growth in the individual, because it means they're open to new ideas (changing their own model) without being pushovers.

 

[k9b4]

You really only have four options:

1. Accept the new theory without reconciling it with your own model.
2. Alter your own model to accommodate the new theory.
3. Alter the new theory to fit into your own model.
4. Reject the new theory without reconciling it with your own model.

Sounds like you've pre-ruled out #1 already and I'd say #4 should be a last resort. So that leaves fiddling around with #2 and #3, which could take a really long time. I think most people who are in a hurry or impatient choose #1 or #4 without giving #2 and #3 a fair shot (though sometimes #1 because the new theory already fits within their current model). I also think anyone who is honest with themselves realizes that they are prone to #3 because it's a lot easier than #2. Personally, I'd say that a compromise of #2 and #3 would represent the healthiest growth in the individual, because it means they're open to new ideas (changing their own model) without being pushovers.

I've been doing mostly #3 with MBTI. I think a lot of MBTI is inaccurate. Such as T/F S/N dichotomies and also function orientations.

 

[Mithrandir]

I've been doing mostly #3 with MBTI. I think a lot of MBTI is inaccurate. Such as T/F S/N dichotomies and also function orientations.

If there's a discrepancy, then either MBTI is inaccurate, your model is inaccurate, or both. Your task would be ferreting out the inaccuracies of both the theory and your model until they align. Or resorting to #4 if you are uneasy with them being in limbo.

EDIT: Also, I would add, make sure you thoroughly understand a theory before you decide to alter it. That way you'll clear up whether or not the discrepancies are only due to a flawed perception of the existing theory.

 

[Cognisant]

Take the MBTI theory for example; I have difficulty accepting it as true because I cannot relate the theory to reality using my understanding of how the universe works.

Because it's pesudoscientific nonsense
It's a personality test, like every other personality test on the internet except this one is just older, it baffles me why people take it so seriously.

"the demonstration that reality is shaped through and through by mind and, when properly understood, is mind. Thus ultimately the structures of thought and reality, subject and object, are identical." -The Science of Logic

What solipsistic nonsense is this?

How is anything in this thread at all related to Mechanism?

 

[crippli]

What solipsistic nonsense is this?

Have you read it?

How is anything in this thread at all related to Mechanism?

When consciousness escapes explanation. How can we trust the explanations it produces towards Mechanism?

It's related as a path towards Mechanism. I don't think it will get there.

Why is Solipsism nonsense?

 

[Cognisant]

When consciousness escapes explanation. How can we trust the explanations it produces towards Mechanism?

It's totally explicable, just hard to replicate.

I'll be back when I've got the time to explain.

 

[Cognisant]

Okay I'm back, now where to start...

I can go into the why & how of associative learning but I assume you already know the brain is mechanistic (it can be affected by drugs/electrodes/alcohol, there's no arguing that the mind is embodied) and what you're specifically referring to is self awareness and the notion of Qualia.

Self awareness is easy its a self regulatory feedback loop, your internal dialogue is the speech part of your brain sending its output directly to the auditory recognition part so instead of saying something stupid only to immediately wish you didn't instead you hear yourself internally and can assess what you're going to say before you say it.

The principle is simple enough but replicating it in a digital AI is a real challenge, a feedback loop is an inherently temperamental thing and having one embedded in a highly adaptable associative learning system is a recipe for disaster. To prevent the feedback loop from going out of control you either end up crippling the associative learning part or you reduce the effect of the feedback loop to practical irrelevance, but somehow the brain has made it word we just don't know what the exact mechanism is yet.

As for qualia well it's like asking about the meaning of life, question itself is wrong, an inherent meaning of life is impossible because meaning itself is subjective, likewise it doesn't matter if the red I see is the same as the red you see because if there is absolutely no way of knowing then it's entirely subjective, your neural net has mapped out the concept of red in a different way to mine but so what? It's still red no matter what it looks like to you.

I dunno does this help?
The idea that the mind is not mechanistic is so alien to me I don't really know where to begin explaining it to you.

 

[scorpiomover]

I can't find myself believing in an idea or theory until I understand how and why it occurs based on my current understanding of how the universe works.

Take the MBTI theory for example; I have difficulty accepting it as true because I cannot relate the theory to reality using my understanding of how the universe works.

Does anybody else feel this way?

Being an INTP, it's normal. It's how Ti likes to work.

However, when you start developing your Ne, and looking at patterns that you can see in all walks of life, you'll notice that there are lots of things that are clearly true and yet still we don't understand them.

You can learn to separate your lack of understanding from the fact that there's a pattern, and work with both sides of the situation individually. It sounds crazy at first. But once you get used to the idea, it's incredibly useful. The world just opens up 1,000 times bigger than it did before.