Angela Kennedy
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,026
- Location
- Essex, UK
Hey Esther, no problem. These discussions are useful. None of us can always fully source our discussions lol! We'd be here all day.
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
Thanks Angela - this is actually the heart of the problem, for me.Also- there's the problem with conflating 'mind' with 'brain'. They are different things. 'Mind' is actually a metaphysical concept, usually denoting the act of 'thinking'. Trying to locate a 'mind' or a Freudian 'unconscious mind' is pretty much like locating a 'soul' (I know, I've simplified things. Daniel Dennett and Kant are probably cursing me for my gaucheness. But try and substitute 'mind' for 'brain' in everyday language - or vice versa).
Thanks Angela - this is actually the heart of the problem, for me.
I was excited too by Dennett's "Consciousness Explained", when I read it all those years ago - I still think it's one of the most memorable and fascinating books I've read and I'm tending to assume that it's this largely this work (and the science it's based on) that lies behind the neuropsychologists' easy confidence that all the fundamental mysteries of mind and body are now explained, in mechanistic, materialist terms.
The problem for me is that, brilliant and fascinating though the book is, it doesn't explain what I understand as consciousness. It explains something very well, but not consciousness. However much the consciousness can be supposedly explained as the sum of the activities of 'millions of tiny robots', it still can't get to that 'metaphysical' stuff that Angela refers to - it still doesn't answer what that is. This point seems so obvious to me that I've always struggled to understand when people fail to see that distinction: however much the experiences I feel may correlate with physical processes in the brain in an understandable way, I still don't see how that explains the consciousness itself - the actual "feeling of being" itself. I remember thinking when I read it that it might be more accurately titled "Consciousness Explained Away" (unsuccessfully).
The other thing I find odd about that sort of deterministic and mechanistic perspective is its strange implications. I don't quite understand what room this philosophy leaves for what we call "free will". Perhaps I misunderstand the philosophy, but it seems to imply that we don't actually, really, have free will at all. Does the materialist psychologist ultimately feel that whatever their patient is doing and saying is fully determined by physical processes and their responses are thus inevitable and in theory completely predictable? Is the psychologist himself, who acts to correct the patient as if they were some kind of machine obeying inevitable physical laws, is that psychologist also obeying those deterministic laws whilst counselling them? And does that perhaps absolve the psychologist of any kind of moral responsibility for their behaviour, since they too are walking an inevitable, pre-determined path?
Another peculiar implication seems to me to be that if the thing that we call consciousness - and 'soul', 'spirit', 'mind' - all of that 'metaphysical' stuff - is simply inherent in any sufficiently complex system, then all of physical reality also participates in the same 'stuff'...and then, surely, things that we wouldn't normally think of as conscious - like computers, rock formations (over a vastly different timescale), the sun, the earth - also have a claim to participate in that same 'consciousness-stuff'...not as the same nature of experience as human consciousness, sure, but surely both the sun and the earth are more complex systems than my own brain, so what then might their equivalent of 'consciousness' be like?! I rather doubt that these materialists who have evolved beyone the old 'naive' dualism would be as comfortable contemplating these sort of ideas as I am...but I'm not sure how they evade them as implications of their theory.
Admittedly I don't understand their philosophy in depth, and they may have had some intelligent thoughts on those subjects in the last 15 years - sadly I've been somewhat indisposed and unable to keep up with their arguments - but unless I missed it I somehow, I still haven't been referred to the book, or research, that answers these fundamental age-old philosophical mysteries in the definitive way they claim when they talk about the 'naive dualism of the past'. The philosophy seems to boil down to saying: There was this age-old dualism of the mind and the body, which we have now solved when we learned a few things about how the brain works, and were thus able to conclude that 'the mind' doesn't really exist at all: mystery dissolved, game over: there is no mind. I can't help but take offence: that's me they're talking about, and despite what they claim, I still feel reasonably confident that I do, in fact, exist...and I'm still waiting to see the proof that I don't.
The problem for me is that, brilliant and fascinating though the book is, it doesn't explain what I understand as consciousness. It explains something very well, but not consciousness. However much the consciousness can be supposedly explained as the sum of the activities of 'millions of tiny robots', it still can't get to that 'metaphysical' stuff that Angela refers to - it still doesn't answer what that is.
The other thing I find odd about that sort of deterministic and mechanistic perspective is its strange implications. I don't quite understand what room this philosophy leaves for what we call "free will". Perhaps I misunderstand the philosophy, but it seems to imply that we don't actually, really, have free will at all.
"Another peculiar implication seems to me to be that if the thing that we call consciousness - and 'soul', 'spirit', 'mind' - all of that 'metaphysical' stuff - is simply inherent in any sufficiently complex system, then all of physical reality also participates in the same 'stuff'"
Angela Kennedy said: Does the 0.21 refer to relative risk? And if so, are they talking 0.21 relative risk overall of ANY 'psychological' variable included together as a category? The reason I say that is because they seem to be saying in the abstract that there were correlations with only some variables?
biophile said: My critique style of "stress and disease" so far has mostly been limited to arguing that relatively weak associations don't justify the hyped psychobabble and have also been reported in dozens of diseases that are not usually thought of as "stress-related illnesses". It will take a long time to look into deeper into this sort of research to determine whether even this approach has been unsafe due to methodological artifacts, the whole field may be in question.
Esther12's vs Angela Kennedy's interpretation of what I said]
oceanblue said: there is clearly still some doubt as to whether or not the associations are correct
Angela Kennedy said: [...] any 'evidence' used to support claims of 'stress' causing or perpetuating illnesses is highly unsafe, because of various methodological errors in the research, and theoretical errors around how to define 'stress'. The case for 'stress' causing or perpetuating all sorts of illness or health problems has been grossly overstated at best.
Esther12 said: I agree that measuring 'stress' etc is difficult, and this this sort of research could easily be distorted by the presumptions of those involved or the various other biases which can distort medical papers... but I don't think that means we should assume all the research linking stress/etc to health problems is likely to be wrong. Our brains are mighty resource hogs, and it's difficult to assume that prolonged and extreme psychological strain would have no impact upon the rest of our bodies, especially given the role our brains play in regulating so many of our our bodily functions.
[Angela Kennedy further on problems with stress]
WillowJ said: another thing that was pointed out by biophile is that the amount of risk attributed to stress seems to be small. in a complex system such as real life, we can't control all the variables. It isn't always the variable we thought we were testing in the experiment, that produced the effect. especially when the result is small, we should be careful about drawing conclusions. but that's not what has been done with the stress idea. stress is a well-accepted idea which is thought to be a major contributor (or even the main factor) in a number of diseases, but we really don't have compelling evidence for that.