Revolution in the Mind Sciences P3

Teen back then they thought “what’s Dick Hart, we thought you were a pretty smart guy”. Which is more idiotic? To say your dog has no feelings or you have no feelings? When I was studying at Stanford, when I was studying philosophy of mind we learn that the whole school of behavior is the dominated American psychology for fifty or sixty years can be refuted with a joke?

Its sough when a whole system id refuted by a joke e but it can be. A man and a woman make love e, the man rolls over, light up cigarette and says it was great for you, how was it for me?  We can ask how it is for brilliant minds, psychology at Brooklyn, Stanford Harvard, and Chicago how could they study for fifty or sixty years and on something bizarre and so anti imperial.

If asked my professor of piles of mind at standard this “you know the reputation was a piece of cake, it was a one page reputation. Any soft more with a hand middle could have writer it. How come they didn’t get this are smart people. Why didn’t they get it? “And the e professor smiled at me with a whimsical grin and said “after sell it ewes a matter of fashion.”  That’s a niche way of from thinking, this introspect followed by the way side. It was thrown out the back window and they didn’t look back.

This challenge of Williams James and <> bring introspection and make it scientific has been ignored and has been ignored to this day. I’m finding a parallel here, if we go back to Galileo and his telescope and the kind of trouble he got himself into  there was medieval  theological resistance to Galileo’s empiricism, to his using the telescope and discovering things that violated the principles of a literal reading of the bible and the meta  physical surgeons of Aristotle. Until Galileo, for the most part people   that were interested in he stars were astrologers. they would do a full astronomy when they look up in the starts  but what ethyl were really interested in was the terrestrial corsets of celestial phenomena , should if get married tomorrow or  next  month , when should  sew my crops when was my  birthday  and so working out your   horoscope. That’s what they were really interested in and that’s where the professionals were in making horoscope they left astronomy at pretty much a folk level. when Galileo said ” look I’ve got a telescope I’m making some fantastic discoveries here.” the most  conservative  <> of his time refuse too look  through  a telescope saying ” we don’t need to . If we discover something in your telescope that contradicts what we know to be true, from the bible and Aristotle what’s you’re seeing is false. It must be an arbitration, an artifact of your lenses and after all it’s merely an illusion why should we need to.” so they refuse to use it and they refuse to accept the discoveries. they grounded him, they put him under house arrest and said” go to your room and stay there of the rest of your life” like a mom and dad getting irritated at their teenage kid.

Now we have Galileo of the modern times, we have James saying we have a whole new kettle of fish where. We have a domain of the natural world. In other words this is not a supernatural infusion from God. these are natural phenomena, these mental phenomena  lets follow Galileo cue and observe  them carefully  but what do we have in response form  behaviorist , from the cognitive psychologist and the  cognitive neuron psychologist which are really prominent these days.

We have   a focus on the behavioral and Nero moralism mental phenomena. The introspections a sophisticated, refined observation by and lager a refuse, by and large inside departments, Nero science departments. if you introduce ” how about really some refined  intersection ” and they’ll say ” sorry we’re busy , we’re studying the brain., we’re studying  <>, aspects of psychology we don’t need it .” after all introspection give  rise  to only the appearances of the mind they’re losery after all  so why should we bother. Let’s get back and study the hardware and let’s start a neuron science lab.

there’s  a certain limitation in this  orientation of insisting that everything that is real must be physical, everything boils down to physics and let us just od a waltz thigh history here, think about Copernicus , think about <> magicians  who are crunching the numbers, coming up with  one epic cycle, one in centric after another. Great mathematical s, really not that great for observing celestial phenomena.

If you can imagine confining and understanding just mathematics. You’re sitting in your room and you’re a great mathematician there’s nothing in pure mathematics that defines natural energy. There’s nothing that defines the emergence of physical phenomena in the universe, there’s nothing in pure mathematics that predicts that there ever would be a universe. N pure mathematics there is nothing that explains the emergence of natural energy, when would it happen, whew as the big bang? When did you start getting particles?

You have to step outside of mathematics as Galileo did and combine the mathematics with imperial observation. Now we shift over into the realm of physics and imagine front he tine being but you don’t know anything about bloody or psychology, confine your understanding just to physics class in the <>, electro magnetism, <> dynamics, the whole renege of physics.  There is nothing in physics that say or defines life. If you don’t know anything about biology there’s nothing that defines life, life and death, heath and sickness. These words don’t mean anything in physics that’s where scientific training was.

These two words   don’t drop up, life and death, healthy and sick, flourishing and so on. They dot crop up. There’s nothing in physics that defines life, there’s nothing in the laws of physics<> that predicts that at some point in the universe life would emerge.  It happened but physics didn’t tell you it happen and once it has happened physics on its own does not explain life.

Let’s shift to biology, now we’ve got mathematics, physicians and biology, if you find your understanding to biology alone with its physics and mathematics n behind it there’s nothing in biology that defines consciousness. There’s nothing in biology that predicts the emergence of consciousness. At what point in the evolution of life or our planet where you know it take place, at what point did consciousness happen and why? There’s nothing in biology that predicts it, nothing in biology that defines it and once it’s there biology does not explain consciousness in living organism and now it’s finally moved to psychology.

finally we’re in the mind science and were setting a tension ,  volition , perception and memory and so on  butt in psychology they are people throughout the planet  in the united states and everywhere  else from  Millennia who has been having religious experiences. call it spiritual , call it religious  but a sense of the transcendent, something larger and so forth this has been  sheening and its happening a long time up until this day . there’s bathing in psychology that predicts that  this will ever happen  that defines religious experiences in its  own word to something very <> like hysterias, form  of neurosis , form of psychosis and so forth . In drawing its own to psychology you miss what was there that was distinctively spiritual and religious. Psychology by itself does now define, read it or explain the emergence of <> and yet there it is, it happens.

This will be an argument not against maths, physics, biology and psychology but saying its <> epistemic pluralism and that’s let’s get off of this rut. if  think everything can be explained in terms  of the more primitive  and recognize we need different modalities of inquiry  that  everything doesn’t boil down to physics  or biology .

In this physics less world view which in many ways have so much going for it. We know about what happens in the Nano seconds after the big bang that is spectacular. We know about the inner nucleus of an atom, quarks with charms and colors. We know about the constitution of galactic clusters ten billion lite years away but what about consciousness? That which make all of science possible. It’s the blind spot. If would call it metaphorically the retinal blind spot in the scientific vision where the optic never touches the back of the retina and you know what happens there. We walk around with two dark spots in our visual field. We should have that because there is no information coming in from these spots.

What does our cunning brain do? It cover s over the area you know nothing at all, if t covers it over with the environment. If you’re looking at a brown wall them you’re looking at it with brown. if’ you’re looking at a purple  wall that covers it with  purple , it covers that over  which you don’t know at all with that which is familiar and gives  you an illusion of knowledge.

What is there  in the retina blind spot of the scientific vision of consciousness? That’s a bad start. If consciousness is a natural phenomenon for heaven sake let’s have a definition. How can you study it if you don’t even define what you’re studying? That’s a problem but for any imperils it’s a crucial point which we have no objective means of detecting consciousness.

There’s a word for a type of technology that so doesn’t exist it’s called a <>. it would be like a gigercounter that you can point to rocks, plants, amoeba, baby during the first trimester and during the last trimester and to an old person who has Alzheimer’s an become vegetated `an d your bring out you <> and it would say the croute is not sinuous and then to the insect eating plants, the rat and the cock roach and you will get tot in a <>. It’s ten<> physiological units that’s how consulting it is.