Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

OK, I'm not convinced, but let's leave that aside, just for now. Perhaps we'll return to it later. At the moment, I'd like to ask you for clarification:

Do you have links that might support the highlighted statements? I'd like very much to examine them myself...?

I can't post links! I refer you to books about the subject matter, such as the books I mentioned. Another book which goes into these questions is Talvitie, et al.: Psychoanalysis and Philosophy of Mind - Unconscious Mentality in the Twenty-first Century (2015). Talvitie has a downloadable article on academia..edu: 'Biting the Bullet: The Nature of Unconscious Fantasy'. Nick Chater appears in several videos on YouTube.

This idea about the "mental unconscious" has given rise to a Gnostic cult that leads people astray. That's why we need to get back to the concept of transcendence, Plato's hyperuranion. The Forms aren't immanent; they are transcendent.

OK, you have read some stuff, and found it convincing. But there is other stuff too, perhaps equally convincing?

The problem with 'mind' is that it does not exist, scientifically-speaking. I.e. it cannot be measured, or even detected, by any scientific means. This leaves the field open for any and all theories as to whether we have minds, and if we do, what a detailed understanding of our minds might look like.

The idea of non-conscious parts of the human mind has been with us for some time. Of course, that doesn't mean the idea has merit. But the notion of an 'unconscious' mind has useful explanatory power, and perhaps that confers upon it some degree of merit?

If we assume and accept our general, everyday, notion of 'mind', we are aware that there are many aspects of our minds that are not open to conscious introspection or inspection. There are 'autonomic' functions, like breathing, and our hearts beating. There is pre-conscious perceptual 'processing', that necessarily takes place before sensory input reaches the conscious mind. There are other examples too, but these seem sufficient to suggest that the idea of an 'unconscious' mind has some merit, and could even be an accurate model of how some parts of our minds function.

And, having said all that, it is also quite possible that alternate explanations might prove more useful than our historic ideas about the 'unconscious' mind... Is there anything about Chater's theories that offers useful understanding that older theories do not?

[Pattern-chaser]

• An implication of that point of view is that without the goal of final truth there is no stimulus to advance understanding, for relative knowledge is scarcely better than opinion, and one perspective is as good or bad as any other since there is no absolute criterion of validity.

That may be so, but in the circumstance where there is no evidence, knowledge or understanding excepting relative knowledge, that's all we have to go on. So either we stop our trains of thought, and simply abandon the subject, or we go with all that we have — metaphysical speculation.

Today we know that there are no Absolutes in the form of mental archetypes, unlike what Carl Jung thought.

No, we do not. There are those who disagree with Jung's ideas, but we do not "know" that Jung was wrong, or that he was right, either. You seem very keen to represent what has convinced you as the One and Only Truth, when there are many possibilities that cannot be justifiably dismissed.

We have no other choice than to abandon the metaphysic of the unconscious.

We have many choices, all of them still open to us. Your proposed alternative to "the metaphysic of the unconscious" is no more proven than any other theory. Please do not misrepresent (as yet) unsubstantiated theories as proven facts. It obscures our mutual communications, and wastes time while we discard over-emphasised 'truths'.

[Piyachaudhry]

Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher, is a fascinating figure to discuss. He was born around 428 or 427 BCE and was a student of Socrates, another famous philosopher. Plato founded the Academy in Athens, which is often considered the first institution of higher learning in the Western world.

[Mlw]

[...]

Yes, we know that there is no activity of archetypal archetypal complexes in our brain, because all activity is related to the conscious activity, whereas systems that aren't required for the moment are put on hold. We cannot have parallel unconscious activity in the brain, because it would disturb consciousness. In that case our species would be seriously weakened in the struggle for survival.

The point is, of course, that science can prove that no mental unconscious exists, but it cannot prove the non-existence of the hyperuranion, because the latter is transcendental. It is beyond science. We cannot let science govern our lives. We cannot allow that AI formulates what is true and false. To be human is to stand apart from natural reality in order to avoid identification. A human being must be unnatural, or else he isn't really human. As Mircea Eliade has shown, this truth about human nature is taught among indigenous peoples.

Faith must have as object that which transcends the worldly and the rational, or else believers cannot achieve emancipation from worldliness, which is what serves to make them truly human. We shall be "fools for Christ", says Paul. Accordingly, in their initiation rituals, indigenous peoples are taught unnatural spiritual secrets. Among North American Indians, the initiand was expected to behave like a fool, sitting backwards on the horse, saying 'Good bye' when coming home, etc.

If the Platonic teaching about transcendental Forms is foolishness, then it is precisely the spiritual medicine that we require. Science cannot refute it, because it is transcendental.

[Mlw]

[...] And, having said all that, it is also quite possible that alternate explanations might prove more useful than our historic ideas about the 'unconscious' mind... Is there anything about Chater's theories that offers useful understanding that older theories do not?

As I say in my article, "both Talvitie and Chater explain that humanity cannot fare without metaphors. Especially in the consulting room it is necessary to work with symbols and metaphors. After all, 'a psychotherapist is paid neither for true explanations nor scientifically correct use of terminology, but for promoting the well-being of his or her patients' (Talvitie, 2009, p. 170)". It has to do with the fact that scientific terminology of neurosciences and philosophy of mind is mainly useless in the praxis of psychotherapy. So this is not about repudiating metaphors and symbols. That's why the Platonic universe is so appealing. Like I said, Plato is "the spokesman for the theologian, the mystic, the poet, and the artist".

[Hereandnow]

Mlw wrote
Yes, we know that there is no activity of archetypal archetypal complexes in our brain, because all activity is related to the conscious activity

And just a quick reminder, Mlw, that what we call conscious activity cannot be delivered from what is not conscious, that is, in any conscious event, the event itself is not exhaustibly analyzed in term of what is conscious. For one thing, it is an event, in time, and identifying the occurrence of X is going to be a temporal construct, which is past-present-future: I see the cat, but I know it is a cat PRIOR to seeing the cat, so the directness of the knowledge claim is shown to be an indirect repetition of something that doesn't show itself consciously, meaning, I don't explicitly recall my language acquisition in the affair of knowing that it is a cat. This "knowing" is mostly an unconscious recognition, unconscious because one is not conscious of the recalled affairs that are there, implicit in the conscious apprehension. In other words, consciousness IS unconsciousness.

So regarding Jung: He held that in order to explain what is the case, a commonality of observed phenomena and their symbols throughout disparate cultures and times, one had to make a move to what was underlying such things because empirical evidence was insufficient (also, of course, see his chapter on synchronicity that is sustained by the same kind of thinking) to give an accounting. One can argue whether this is true or not, but explaining the seen via the unseen can make for a justifiable metaphysics. Kant postulated pure form to account for the apodicticity of logic. Even the Big Bang has never been observed, nor will it ever. Does this stop cosmology?

[Mlw]

[...]

What occurs in the brain is entirely dark, totally unconscious, whereas consciousness is comparable to the 'read-out' of a pocket calculator. It means that the conscious event itself is exhaustively analyzed in terms of what is conscious. Of course, the brain has been habituated to seeing things in a certain way, because of our historical experiences, culture, and upbringing. We are conditioned by our history, and by our personal cultivation and training. This is "the unseen", i.e., the conditioning which we ought to become aware of. It means that our cultural symbols, etc., are very important. In this sense, Jung is correct. It means that we are much more likely to make the right decision if we have received a good upbringing, learnt the Christian virtues, and all that. We can program our brain to become more prone to produce the right impetus by deliberately cultivating ourselves.

Our brain are shaped by our personal and collective history. Different individuals have different brain structures, and the brain structure diversifies even more over the ethnic groups. Thus, individuals and peoples see things differently, value things differently, and they can do no other thing. The only way out is to go through a long period of reconditioning, similar to a reprogramming. It explains why psychoanalysis is so time-consuming, and it also explains why multiculturalism doesn't work.

It is correct that brain signalling occurs milliseconds before their 'read-out' appears in consciousness. But the "knowing" is not "mostly an unconscious recognition" because there is no one there to know. There is no such thing as an unconscious realm that can interact with consciousness. We can remember things from the past, but we cannot fish living content out of the unconscious, because it doesn't exist. There are only brain signals and consciousness. It means that the concept of the unconscious is today cut down to size. It is today merely a metaphor.

[Gertie]

If neural correlation holds, and the evidence points that way, then there are neural brain processes and there are correlated experiential states.

So to speak of the 'unconscious' or 'subconscious' is simply to speak of neural processes which aren't experienced.

That doesn't howerver mean that the unexperienced brain processes have no effect on the experiential ones, because brains are incredibly inter-connected. And patterns make and break all the time without us being conscious of them - otherwise our experience would manifest as a meaningless/useless chaotic cacophany. There are also patterns of connections which become strengthened (by repeated stimulation) in youth which contribute to ongoing features of our individual personalities.

The Freudian notion of Id, Ego and Superego is a super-simplified reference to the above. It can have some use as a metaphor, but when you consider the unimaginable inter-connective complexity of human brains it's a very broad metaphor. Like Forms. You can make all sorts of broad categorisations like that, depending on your interest, and 3 isn't a magic number. Just a conveniently low number which allows you to begin categorising in very broad ways. You can even go with two - conscious/unconscious, physical/mental, or left and right hemisphere distinctions, etc. But if you want to know know what's really going on, you can't ignore the unimaginable complexity, because it's that which makes us the amazing, complex, smart, dumb, kind, awful, loving, hateful, creative, mundane, and everything-in-between critters we are.

You don't even need to be a physicalist to recognise that neural complexity would still be a much closer metaphor to whatever our real ontological nature is.

[Pattern-chaser]

It is correct that brain signalling occurs milliseconds before their 'read-out' appears in consciousness. But the "knowing" is not "mostly an unconscious recognition" because there is no one there to know. There is no such thing as an unconscious realm that can interact with consciousness. We can remember things from the past, but we cannot fish living content out of the unconscious, because it doesn't exist. There are only brain signals and consciousness. It means that the concept of the unconscious is today cut down to size. It is today merely a metaphor.

There are many things you have said in this topic that are worthy of comment. But here, I offer you a single comment: you seem to see our minds as being divided, and the so-called "unconscious" 'mind' as something different and distinct from consciousness. Have you considered the possibility that our minds are one thing, not many, comprising different and complementary, er, attributes? I suggest that the so-called 'conscious mind' is one of these attributes, and the 'non-conscious mind' is the set of all the other attributes, collected together.


_____________________________

The point is, of course, that science can prove that no mental unconscious exists...

If science can do so, and I rather doubt this, it has not yet done so. You are once again exaggerating your own ideas, and presenting them as facts. This is unhelpful, as it helps to prevent serious and considered discussion.

[Hereandnow]

Mlw wrote
What occurs in the brain is entirely dark, totally unconscious, whereas consciousness is comparable to the 'read-out' of a pocket calculator. It means that the conscious event itself is exhaustively analyzed in terms of what is conscious. Of course, the brain has been habituated to seeing things in a certain way, because of our historical experiences, culture, and upbringing. We are conditioned by our history, and by our personal cultivation and training. This is "the unseen", i.e., the conditioning which we ought to become aware of. It means that our cultural symbols, etc., are very important. In this sense, Jung is correct. It means that we are much more likely to make the right decision if we have received a good upbringing, learnt the Christian virtues, and all that. We can program our brain to become more prone to produce the right impetus by deliberately cultivating ourselves.

Our brain are shaped by our personal and collective history. Different individuals have different brain structures, and the brain structure diversifies even more over the ethnic groups. Thus, individuals and peoples see things differently, value things differently, and they can do no other thing. The only way out is to go through a long period of reconditioning, similar to a reprogramming. It explains why psychoanalysis is so time-consuming, and it also explains why multiculturalism doesn't work.

It is correct that brain signalling occurs milliseconds before their 'read-out' appears in consciousness. But the "knowing" is not "mostly an unconscious recognition" because there is no one there to know. There is no such thing as an unconscious realm that can interact with consciousness. We can remember things from the past, but we cannot fish living content out of the unconscious, because it doesn't exist. There are only brain signals and consciousness. It means that the concept of the unconscious is today cut down to size. It is today merely a metaphor.

The brain and the calculator: To follow through, our historical "settings" of the brain are like the hardware of a computer and the software of programs that are reducible to their, in this case, not so "dark" events because we understand the technology. But we don't understand the brain's technology, and this is because this kind of talk takes us right to the door of metaphysics, for even if it could be shown a direct correspondence between phenomena and physical brain events, a reduction of former to the latter would be impossible to make because reductions like this require that both sides, that being reduced and that to which this is being reduced, make sense. One cannot make a reduction of our living affairs to brain affairs for the simple reason that conceiving of brains affairs IS a living affairs affair!

This is why I can take Jung seriously: when it comes to analyzing the world as a body of physical things, I look to science; but when if comes to analyzing the human self, I have to realize that this is not an object like a physical thing. Not even remotely, and so physical models are out the window. This is not to say there is no correspondence between a physical object like a brain at all. It simply means the one is not the other, and Jung is therefore not constrained by what constrains analytic thought about physicality. Nor does this break the rules of evidentially grounded justification. Archetypes are just theoretical entities postulated on collected dreams and culture, and these are manifestations of the a human agency of thought, affect, caring and concern, pragmatism, and so on.

You can argue that such things belong to metaphysics, and I think you did above, and I would tend to agree. But then the question goes to, what is metaphysics?

[Hereandnow]

Gertie wrote
You don't even need to be a physicalist to recognise that neural complexity would still be a much closer metaphor to whatever our real ontological nature is.

But then, neural complexity IS a physical concept. An idea, a feeling, an anticipation, and the rest are not. The ontology you are talking about cannot go this way, substituting a qualitative actuality with a quantitative accounting.

[Gertie]

HAN

One cannot make a reduction of our living affairs to brain affairs for the simple reason that conceiving of brains affairs IS a living affairs affair!

Your claim here is that conscious experience can't be ontologically reducible to physical brain states, because brain states can only be known experientially.

I don't see why that follows? Not if we make a distinction between what ontologically exists and what we can know of what exists. We only need to accept that experiential knowledge is different to ontological reality, then there's no in principle reason of the type you imply which means conscious experience can't arise from physical brain processes, which we can then experientially know about.

So I don't see the prob?

[Gertie]

Gertie wrote
You don't even need to be a physicalist to recognise that neural complexity would still be a much closer metaphor to whatever our real ontological nature is.

But then, neural complexity IS a physical concept. An idea, a feeling, an anticipation, and the rest are not. The ontology you are talking about cannot go this way, substituting a qualitative actuality with a quantitative accounting.

Yes, if say all that ontologically exists is conscious experience, then physical neurons interacting in complex ways would simply be a metaphor.

But it would a metaphor with huge explanatory scope which mirrors the huge range of what it is like to be an ontologically experiential gertie or HAN. From having an over-whelming urge to scratch an itchy left toe one moment to thinking about philosophy the next - and every mundane/profound experience which changes from moment to moment. Sensory, memories, sensations, moods, desires... everything which passes in and out of being what is like to be gertie or HAN from moment to moment.

Something like Forms, Id/Ego/Superego or Archetypes are cherry picked generalities which have certain types of significance which have stuck in mimetic ways, and that's worth exploring in itself if we want to understand ourselves better. But to understand the underlying reality we should delve into the complexitity, or we're prone to being led by our biases. That's the framing the attempt at 'objective' reason and evidence led empiricism offers. Ultimately it too has limitations, but it contextualises the bits we choose to give special weight to, how we choose to categorise, and allows us to question why in the face of the incredibly variety and complexity of being a gertie or HAN from moment to moment.