Understanding Psychology and Cognition

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

Just as a general comment, I notice that a lot of your arguments have this intellectual edge to them, but lack a realistic worldview. You think like a philosopher/physicist/mathematician, but when it comes to applying that knowledge to the real world, you make claims that an engineer would laugh at you for. It's like when Michio Kaku says that fusion is 20 years away. I recognize him as a brilliant physicist, but no matter how smart he is, engineers all over the world find this statement of his completely ridiculous. (And I'm willing to bet everything short of my life that we won't see fusion in 20 years.)

Little peeved at being analyzed as an example of what you're talking about simply for posting in this thread...Also I'm not sure what claims I've made for you to say that. Suffice it to say I don't feel that I'm missing out for not being particularly interested in engineering.

Originally Posted by stargroup100

Ideally, we wish that the world is logical, structured, etc. However, the fact that there are subjective experiences tied directly to our detection of the world around us and the evaluation of logical propositions, as well as other particular properties of reality itself, we need to consider other aspects of the human condition. There are far too many things in this world that simply cannot be explained logically, no matter how much we try. We can make very general statements, or analyze particular examples in certain ways, but to think that science and logic can potentially figure out everything in the entire world is simply not realistic nor true.

Ummm, ok? Was this addressed at me specifically for some reason? Is this some sort of call-back to that religion debate from ages ago? Of course science and logic, as people know it, cannot figure out the entire world because we're entities that are trapped, ourselves a manifestation of what we're trying to understand. But you're not exactly giving any particular reason why rationalism can be superseded by something else without having a 'something else' to fall back on. That my ability to have subjective experience is not explained satisfactorily can only be otherwise be explained via mysticism, which is, pardon the expression, basically masturbating...enjoyment of my own existence which circularly explains itself.

Originally Posted by stargroup100

As for an example, I once tried to teach a student the fundamentals of calculus, specifically the difference between position and derivative (velocity). After exhausting numerous ways of trying to explain the concept, what finally clicked for him was comparing the graph in question with taking pictures and putting the frames together to make an animation. To me, it barely made any sense, with only a very vague connection to the problem, but for him it totally worked.

So because the student was able to generalize something they didn't understand at all to something that they understood quite well, that is illogical? That's how people think and what makes them different from computers to-date, they generalize and then can attach a separate idea onto multiple different things that aren't connected in the real world. I suppose if you define generalization as illogical then I suppose, yes, people are illogical.

[Reach]

Ideally, we wish that the world is logical, structured, etc. However, the fact that there are subjective experiences tied directly to our detection of the world around us and the evaluation of logical propositions, as well as other particular properties of reality itself, we need to consider other aspects of the human condition. There are far too many things in this world that simply cannot be explained logically, no matter how much we try. We can make very general statements, or analyze particular examples in certain ways, but to think that science and logic can potentially figure out everything in the entire world is simply not realistic nor true.

You should expand on this, because what you're saying is vague and hard to interpret on top of being...loaded. lol

I'm not going to type a long response to this since I have an injury right now that makes typing slow and tedious, but:

There's an explanation for everything, it just happens to be that when it comes to humans the explanations are probabilistic and not definitive. On a philosophical level I guess I'd argue every explanation in the universe is probabilistic, but for our purposes in day to day living, many things we perceive are consistent and predictable enough to be considered definitive and easily explained.

Human cognition on the other hand, not so definitive. Extremely probabilistic and chaotic and difficult to predict. Ever evolving as well.

There's so much to discuss here but I feel like it's difficult without a more focused question. I feel like it's really hard to answer your second question in any definitive way because of how it is structured. I'll write more when there's more to write about, or when my hand is better XD


With respect to the first question, without stating the obvious, I find it interesting that there's no real difference between a therapeutic effect from a placebo and one from actual medicine in many situations, e.g. pain relief. That is, the brain is actively capable of changing it's condition on its own, often based on nothing more than feedback from itself.

My only beef with placebo treatments are when they're a substitute for real treatment in situations where placebo effect is insufficient and potentially endangers the person in question. This isn't necessarily an issue in many cases (e.g. acupuncture), though with Homeopathy I guess it can be =/

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by Reach

You should expand on this, because what you're saying is vague and hard to interpret on top of being...loaded. lol

There's an explanation for everything, it just happens to be that when it comes to humans the explanations are probabilistic and not definitive. On a philosophical level I guess I'd argue every explanation in the universe is probabilistic, but for our purposes in day to day living, many things we perceive are consistent and predictable enough to be considered definitive and easily explained.

Human cognition on the other hand, not so definitive. Extremely probabilistic and chaotic and difficult to predict. Ever evolving as well.

I basically agree with you for the most part. But when I say that some things cannot be explained logically I'm referring to things such as art, certain areas of social sciences, etc. It's generally relatively easy to come up with probabilistic explanations for physical things, but I don't think this is true of immaterial things. Human cognition is one of these things, and like you said, it is extremely probabilistic and chaotic. Trying to come up with logical explanations for every piece of brain functioning is probably a futile effort.

There are various methods we can use in terms of problem solving and critical thinking, but sometimes the only way to attack certain problems is just intuition, or using the emotions, etc.

Originally Posted by Reach

My only beef with placebo treatments are when they're a substitute for real treatment in situations where placebo effect is insufficient and potentially endangers the person in question. This isn't necessarily an issue in many cases (e.g. acupuncture), though with Homeopathy I guess it can be =/

Exactly. I think the homeopathy industry needs to be set up/monitored in such a way that prevents abuse cases like this.

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

some things cannot be explained logically

this is vague

there are different kinds of proof for different kinds of claims. you would prove a claim in computation theory logically; you would demonstrate an effect on behavior empirically.

Originally Posted by stargoup

I don't think this is true of immaterial things

cognition is not immaterial

if you think otherwise, take any psychopharmaceutical for immediate disproof of your claim

Originally Posted by stargroup

trying to come up with [strike]logical[/strike] explanations for every piece of brain functioning is probably a futile effort

and yet cognitive scientists have been remarkably successful in this regard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thought_processes

sometimes the only way to attack certain problems is just intuition, or using the emotions, etc

intuition is a form of pre-explicit reasoning, so you're back to the empirical/logical distinction

what kind of knowledge (you used the noun 'problem', but every previous claim referred to knowledge-seeking, so I'm presuming you're treating them as synonymous) do you think are only knowable via emotion

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

this is vague

there are different kinds of proof for different kinds of claims. you would prove a claim in computation theory logically; you would demonstrate an effect on behavior empirically.

Of course it's vague, I didn't want to necessarily describe it in detail, but if someone wanted me to elaborate on particular things, I could do so.

Take game theory for example. The strategies of a particular player depend on the strategies of the other players. You can make educated guesses to a certain extent, but there are so many "levels" of thinking (iterative strategies) and approaches to these levels, and so on so forth, that it is not realistic to fully explain a complete decision-making process sometimes. There are too many variables to consider, and when you're in the position of making those decisions under limited time-constraints, sometimes gut feeling of certain individuals is substantially and empirically more effective. Obviously, this does not mean there is nothing logical you can say about this, but the point is that there are indeed limitations.

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

cognition is not immaterial

if you think otherwise, take any psychopharmaceutical for immediate disproof of your claim

Please elaborate on what you mean, because I think we may have a different definition of "material" and "immaterial". I think of cognition as abstract concepts such as mind and intelligence, and while there is certainly a physical correlation, I think this still qualifies cognition as being immaterial.

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

and yet cognitive scientists have been remarkably successful in this regard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thought_processes

I do not believe this list is in any way a complete understanding of human thinking in any way, shape, or form.

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

intuition is a form of pre-explicit reasoning, so you're back to the empirical/logical distinction

what kind of knowledge (you used the noun 'problem', but every previous claim referred to knowledge-seeking, so I'm presuming you're treating them as synonymous) do you think are only knowable via emotion

I guess what I mean by "logical" versus not is whether or not they can in fact be explicitly explained and reasoned. Is this not what that means? I believe that if something is effective but cannot be explained, then it is empirical but not logical.

In general, any sort of skill that has not yet been reasoned and explained but is proven to be effective would be an example of something that is not logical but can easily be justified to be knowledge. Of course, if one were to later on find a way to explain it, then it would become logical, but until then I don't define it that way.

I don't think I really need to pull out many examples of things that fall into this category. A lot of people understand certain things or are good at particular activities through muscle memory or something, and though few people, if any, are able to explain it, the results of their particular skills and knowledge can be shown to be effective empirically.

Of course, that is still distinct from something that cannot be logical. Differentiating something between "not logical" and "cannot be logical" could possibly be a difficult or even impossible task, but I do think the existence of knowledge that cannot be logical in this sense most certainly exists.

[Reach]

He's just saying there is no mind-body duality and mind and body are one and the same.

Saying that there is a physical correlation isn't correct, the mind is a direct manifestation of what is happening in the brain. No thoughts or mental processes can exist that are entirely immaterial in nature, they are all derived from physical interactions on a neural level. To argue otherwise would be to argue about disproven philosophical ideas.

Which is why I don't like talking about mental ideas as things we can't fully understand. We can't...with current technology. Is it impossible? I see no reason why it would be, though whether or not we would actually *want* to understand the mind of some people is another matter entirely.

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by Reach

He's just saying there is no mind-body duality and mind and body are one and the same.

Saying that there is a physical correlation isn't correct, the mind is a direct manifestation of what is happening in the brain. No thoughts or mental processes can exist that are entirely immaterial in nature, they are all derived from physical interactions on a neural level. To argue otherwise would be to argue about disproven philosophical ideas.

I can see the argument that mind and body are separate entities being justified. This does not imply that there is no correlation or relationship between the two. I don't think anyone can make the argument that they know absolutely that the mind is purely physical in this way.

So from that point, the mind could be non-physical, and regardless, I don't think this counters my original point either. When we listen to music, the sound waves that create the music is indeed physical, but the interpretation of what we hear is not. We can describe what kinds of sound waves sound like what, but there are other kinds of descriptions that cannot be explained in such a way. I compare this to what goes on in our heads; we can discern and identify physical processes that happen in our brain, but I don't think this can necessarily determine what we are thinking and how we think, at least not yet.

Originally Posted by Reach

Which is why I don't like talking about mental ideas as things we can't fully understand. We can't...with current technology. Is it impossible? I see no reason why it would be, though whether or not we would actually *want* to understand the mind of some people is another matter entirely.

I'm not asserting that it is in fact impossible. Clearly I wouldn't be able to give adequate justification. What I'm saying is that I can see many possible ways in which there are limitations to what we can understand about someone else's mind, and that these limitations seem likely.

I'll give one or two examples of what I mean. In physics, there are limitations to information we can obtain, such as in the case of the uncertainty principle. I believe that the nuances of the mechanics of what goes on in our brains is closely related to, if not directly involves, quantum mechanics. In this way, I think it would be easy to see a possible way in which limitations exist. In addition, I think perception/observation and learning faculties are closely connected, such that by simply observing and trying to figure out what is going on in the mind, we change what the mind is doing, making (at least) pinpoint accuracy of the understanding of the mind impossible (assuming I'm right).

[Syhto]

No. No tho, no tho.

I don't know tho.

Carry on. Tho, tho tho tho?

#sippinontay