Originally posted by Regret
I agree, but I think the schools of thought I mentioned (Cognitive Psychology, Psychoanalysis, Humanistic Psychology, Positive Psychology, Gestalt Psychology) hold as much credibility as most religions. They just avoid spirit/god type explanations in favor of unobservable and unprovable "mind/thought/process" explanations. The data can be interpreted without resorting to the fiction that is often thought up. IMO the religion forum is a good place to discuss them. Religion can be used reliably in specific situations, and it can be beneficial in those situations, does not make it valid based on that 😉
What it all means, though, is open to interpretation; that I agree with. Is a reductionist/epiphenomenalist perspective all that's required to understand what's going on behind our eyes? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Ultimately, any scientific venture--regardless of field--is an "as if" affair.
(IMO, an "only empirical evidence counts" stance brings in the self-contradiction of Scientism: that is, there is no empirical evidence that only empirical evidence counts, or even for the meaning of the sentence, "Only empirical evidence counts."😉
Religion/spirit/soul/God is a whole other ballgame. Whereas the physical-sensory realm is explored with the "eye of flesh," and the mental-symbolic realm via the "eye of reason," this Level 3 would need to be explored via the "eye of contemplation." And certainly, if one is going to doubt the credibility of Level 2 (mental-symbolic sphere), then there is little hope for acceptance of Level 3, 😉 which, as a "pragmatic agnostic," I can at least appreciate.
Now, you mentioned an education in psychology, did you do undergrad and grad work in psychology?
psychology is as skeptical as religion.
Originally posted by Mindship
Without going into specific schools of thought: generally speaking, the mental-symbolic domain is very provable/observable (just not empirical) as evidenced--for example--by our being able to communicate (exchange of verbal symbols: meaning), or by how ideas have influenced the world. One can also just simply observe what is going on behind one's eyeballs to know that there is a whole reality in place, just as real/potent/credible as the physical-sensory world, only different. Indeed, one can ignore the outside world much more easily than one can ignore one's own consciousness.What it all means, though, is open to interpretation; that I agree with. Is a reductionist/epiphenomenalist perspective all that's required to understand what's going on behind our eyes? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Ultimately, any scientific venture--regardless of field--is an "as if" affair.
(IMO, an "only empirical evidence counts" stance brings in the self-contradiction of Scientism: that is, there is no empirical evidence that only empirical evidence counts, or even for the meaning of the sentence, "Only empirical evidence counts."😉
Religion/spirit/soul/God is a whole other ballgame. Whereas the physical-sensory realm is explored with the "eye of flesh," and the mental-symbolic realm via the "eye of reason," this Level 3 would need to be explored via the "eye of contemplation." And certainly, if one is going to doubt the credibility of Level 2 (mental-symbolic sphere), then there is little hope for acceptance of Level 3, 😉 which, as a "pragmatic agnostic," I can at least appreciate.
I agree to a point. I do not believe that we can claim that the person next to us has the same "internal experience" as ourselves. There is no means of supporting the idea, and it is often shown that much of it will not cross to various cultures. Much of it only works in the Western World and even then it will not work 100% of the time, and it is invalidated by this fact.
The mentalist schools in psychology rely on observable evidence which they then create an elaborate fictitious account to explain the "internal" workings that were at "really" at work. They then agree with one another and congratulate themselves on their brilliant work. They are unable to observe these internal workings, they just paint a pretty picture around the observable phenomena.
But if you've studied psychology you probably know my view. I am extremely Skinarian in my philosophy, and barely accept some of the more recent theories Staddon has put forth. He is bordering on a Bandura type of movement. I think he may leave Behavior for his Adaptive Dynamics, which is not as mentalist as Bandura was, but is still moving in the cognitive direction.
Originally posted by Mindship
Yes.
What school of psychology did you follow? What specialty did you pursue?
Originally posted by Mindship
No, religion is, I feel, is skepticaler cuz now we're dealing with not just a "transempirical" domain but a "transmental" one as well. At least, I can experience the power of my own thoughts (whatever their ultimate origin). "God," on the other hand, requires a whole new kind of effort which would need to be differentiated from, for example, the Level 2 quality of wish-fulfillment.
Agreed as far as God goes, but the "spiritual" experience is the exact same as mentalist views.
Originally posted by Regret
1. I agree to a point. I do not believe that we can claim that the person next to us has the same "internal experience" as ourselves. There is no means of supporting the idea, and it is often shown that much of it will not cross to various cultures. Much of it only works in the Western World and even then it will not work 100% of the time, and it is invalidated by this fact.2. What school of psychology did you follow? What specialty did you pursue?
3. Agreed as far as God goes, but the "spiritual" experience is the exact same as mentalist views.
1. Absolutely we can't know the internal experience of the person next to us, as far as content goes. But just as there are universal biological processes (eg, respiration), there are also universal psychological processes (eg, pre-operational cognition) which have been demonstrated through behavior and problem-solving, and been shown to exist cross-culturally. Commonalities in esoteric/mystical literature throughout the world--and across the centuries--and just the fact that all human beings use symbols: these also demonstrate certain universal qualities of mind (regardless of why they exist).
2. My training is in clinical (cognitive and behavioral); I work in education; my personal philosophy is transpersonal.
3. I'm not sure what you, personally, mean by "spiritual." I imagine your "discomfort" with the word is like how I feel about "psychic": there's just too much New-Age, mumbo-jumbo, pseudoscience connotation for my tastes. In fact, "spiritual" doesn't thrill me either, which is why I wonder if a neutral term (eg, "Level 3"😉 might be better, as long as one can supply an adequate operational definition.
Originally posted by Mindship
1. Absolutely we can't know the internal experience of the person next to us, as far as content goes. But just as there are universal biological processes (eg, respiration), there are also universal psychological processes (eg, pre-operational cognition) which have been demonstrated through behavior and problem-solving, and been shown to exist cross-culturally. Commonalities in esoteric/mystical literature throughout the world--and across the centuries--and just the fact that all human beings use symbols: these also demonstrate certain universal qualities of mind (regardless of why they exist).
I agree with the general statement here, but I believe that it is unnecessary to refer to the internal (e.g. mind and psychological processes.) "...there are also universal psychological processes (eg, pre-operational cognition) which have been demonstrated through behavior and problem-solving, and been shown to exist cross-culturally." What has been demonstrated is a common behavioral pattern, problem solving as tested shows the behaviors that lead to a solution. S-O-R : Where S=stimulus, O=internal processes in the organism, and R= response (sorry, had to spell it out for those reading that would be lost.) If presented stimulus A results in Response B, and this is reliable, there is no need for O in the equation. It isn't denial of its (i.e. mind, psychological process... the various internal variables) existence, it is the statement that it is irrelevant and unnecessary. And if the response is unreliable then manipulate the stimulus to find the aspects of it that produce the seemingly variant response. If you cannot predictably manipulate the response, then you have not found the aspect of the stimulus that is controlling it.
But, I am just pushing my view. I am strong behavior, and as such you probably wouldn't expect a different response. I don't think it would be worth our time to debate this here, we both know the strength of the opposition and there hasn't been agreement between behavior and the mentalist view as of yet. I think we should agree to disagree, and I'll attempt to not attack heavily your posts that promote mentalist views.
Originally posted by Mindship
2. My training is in clinical (cognitive and behavioral); I work in education; my personal philosophy is transpersonal.
I assume you are a school psychologist or counselor then?
Education is interesting. We do a lot of work in it, as you know. I have worked with a few school districts in consultation on behavior issues. I would assume that if you work in education you probably deal with behaviorally trained Spec. Ed. frequently. In my opinion it is too bad that they do not receive a stronger behavior education, in my experience there are often many problems that arise due to lack of behavioral understanding by novice, or poor, Spec. Ed. teachers.
I, like I have said, am behavioral in specialty. I focused in learning theory during my undergrad, and then split myself organizational behavior management and autism during grad school. I worked at an OBM firm for a while, and now freelance.
Originally posted by Mindship
3. I'm not sure what you, personally, mean by "spiritual." I imagine your "discomfort" with the word is like how I feel about "psychic": there's just too much New-Age, mumbo-jumbo, pseudoscience connotation for my tastes. In fact, "spiritual" doesn't thrill me either, which is why I wonder if a neutral term (eg, "Level 3"😉 might be better, as long as one can supply an adequate operational definition.
I am used to the term "spiritual" it is descriptive, and will keep other readers aware of the topic of discussion. But yes, internal reference is distasteful for me, it goes counter to my choice of training. I actually have difficulty cringing when it is necessary to refer to internal variables. There were many times I cringed while reading Staddon's "Adaptive Dynamics." I think he has some good ideas, but he does like to refer to the internal a bit.
In reference to "spiritual" I am referring to the instance where an individual claims to have felt something "spiritual" (e.g. Christians claim they feel the Holy Spirit.) This is in the realm of the mentalist.
We as behavior analysts typically instinctively jump to the conclusion that they have been reinforced for religious comment, and so the statement that they "feel the Spirit" is just a further approximation to the goal of their belief.
Personally, I do believe that it is possible that a person does "feel the Spirit", but I think that for the most part the spiritual talk people have is based more in the respondent and operant paradigms, than in them actually having "felt the Spirit".
Originally posted by Regret
1. I agree with the general statement here, but I believe that it is unnecessary to refer to the internal. ... What has been demonstrated is a common behavioral pattern, problem solving as tested shows the behaviors that lead to a solution. S-O-R ... It isn't denial of its...existence, it is the statement that it is irrelevant and unnecessary. ... If you cannot predictably manipulate the response, then you have not found the aspect of the stimulus that is controlling it.2. But, I am just pushing my view. I am strong behavior, and as such you probably wouldn't expect a different response. I don't think it would be worth our time to debate this here, we both know the strength of the opposition and there hasn't been agreement between behavior and the mentalist view as of yet. I think we should agree to disagree, and I'll attempt to not attack heavily your posts that promote mentalist views.
3. I assume you are a school psychologist or counselor then?
4. Education is interesting. We do a lot of work in it, as you know. I have worked with a few school districts in consultation on behavior issues. I would assume that if you work in education you probably deal with behaviorally trained Spec. Ed. frequently. In my opinion it is too bad that they do not receive a stronger behavior education, in my experience there are often many problems that arise due to lack of behavioral understanding by novice, or poor, Spec. Ed. teachers.
5. In reference to "spiritual" I am referring to the instance where an individual claims to have felt something "spiritual" (e.g. Christians claim they feel the Holy Spirit.) This is in the realm of the mentalist.
We as behavior analysts typically instinctively jump to the conclusion that they have been reinforced for religious comment, and so the statement that they "feel the Spirit" is just a further approximation to the goal of their belief.
Personally, I do believe that it is possible that a person does "feel the Spirit", but I think that for the most part the spiritual talk people have is based more in the respondent and operant paradigms, than in them actually having "felt the Spirit".
1. Understood, and to an extent I agree. However (and forgive me if I pontificate once more), the reason "mentalists" (I'm not crazy about that word either; sounds like a circus side-show or "Kreskinesque"😉 and what has been called at times "radical behaviorism" don't agree is because removing the "O" does--as you've implied--leave glitches in explaining how S ---> R. But as you mentioned, one may need to better understand the "S-R" connection. It would certainly make things simpler from a problem-analysis and applied-solution perspective.
This reminds me a bit of the conundrum theoretical physicists are facing when dealing with unification theories, especially quantum gravity. Long-story short, they don't work so well until you interject the "unseen" variable of extra dimensions (comparable to the "O" in S-O-R). Then everything falls into place quite sweetly...except for the "problem" of now having these extra, unseen variables.
Perhaps, at times, the Simplification Pendulum can swing too far in the other direction?
2. You are a gentleman and a scholar, and it is always a pleasure--as well as a learning experience--doing business with you. Agreeing to disagree works fine with me. 🙂
3. School shrink, yes.
4. High schools, mostly spec ed. Ugh, don't get me started on "what's wrong with this picture." Another long story short: if Education (preparing for the real world) was valued 1/10 as much as, say, Entertainment (escaping from the real world), many short-comings, I feel, would've been adequately addressed a long time ago. But as someone once put it: what can you expect from a society that puts real lemon juice in its dishwashing liquid, and artificial lemon flavor in its lemonade?
5. Understood and agreed. This is why I feel--even if only for personal purposes--one needs to carefully observe and study their own inner space, so as to be able to differentiate between Level 2 and Level 3 experiences. Otherwise, wish-fulfillment and self-deception (Level 2 stuff) enter as complicating/contaminating variables.
Originally posted by Mindship
1. Understood, and to an extent I agree. However (and forgive me if I pontificate once more), the reason "mentalists" (I'm not crazy about that word either; sounds like a circus side-show or "Kreskinesque"😉 and what has been called at times "radical behaviorism" don't agree is because removing the "O" does--as you've implied--leave glitches in explaining how S ---> R. But as you mentioned, one may need to better understand the "S-R" connection. It would certainly make things simpler from a problem-analysis and applied-solution perspective.This reminds me a bit of the conundrum theoretical physicists are facing when dealing with unification theories, especially quantum gravity. Long-story short, they don't work so well until you interject the "unseen" variable of extra dimensions (comparable to the "O" in S-O-R). Then everything falls into place quite sweetly...except for the "problem" of now having these extra, unseen variables.
Perhaps, at times, the Simplification Pendulum can swing too far in the other direction?
Agreed that there is something that occurs between S and R. I do not have issue with O if it is necessary. My issue comes from the automatic jump to O without considering if O is necessary.
Now, as far as O goes, I believe that as physiological psychology progresses it will find the physiological cause of psychological phenomena. Given this, we will be able to experiment on these phenomena with observable result. This will open up more cognitive language to true scientific support.
Originally posted by Mindship
2. You are a gentleman and a scholar, and it is always a pleasure--as well as a learning experience--doing business with you. Agreeing to disagree works fine with me. 🙂
We can discuss this topic in more detail if you would like, I think we should move into the philosophy forum, or discuss it via PMs instead of in the religion forum, unless, of course, we are discussing psychological aspects of religious behavior.
Originally posted by Mindship
3. School shrink, yes.
I have a friend that is doing grad work in school psychology at the moment. I don't remember which school it was, but that was his aim.
Originally posted by Mindship
4. High schools, mostly spec ed. Ugh, don't get me started on "what's wrong with this picture." Another long story short: if Education (preparing for the real world) was valued 1/10 as much as, say, Entertainment (escaping from the real world), many short-comings, I feel, would've been adequately addressed a long time ago. But as someone once put it: what can you expect from a society that puts real lemon juice in its dishwashing liquid, and artificial lemon flavor in its lemonade?
😆
Originally posted by Mindship
5. Understood and agreed. This is why I feel--even if only for personal purposes--one needs to carefully observe and study their own inner space, so as to be able to differentiate between Level 2 and Level 3 experiences. Otherwise, wish-fulfillment and self-deception (Level 2 stuff) enter as complicating/contaminating variables.
Agreed. Although I think that if a person has a valid religious experience that it will often, unless it is a blatantly overt experience, be indistinguishable event from their own personal internal dialogue.
Originally posted by Regret
...the physiological cause of psychological phenomena...
Agreed. Although I think that if a person has a valid religious experience that it will often, unless it is a blatantly overt experience, be indistinguishable event from their own personal internal dialogue.
My day is now
Originally posted by Mindship
Another word I'm not crazy about...in this context 😉
Yes, and it was an inappropriate term for me to use 😉 "Cause" is a word I typically avoid, I'm not sure why I used it 😕
Originally posted by Mindship
Yes. Thus, one of the tasks during meditation: looking past the inner dialogue (inner cinema?) and learning to differentiate what arises.
I am unsure if this is really possible. Given that all experience is interpretted by the brain. I believe that covert spiritual experience is something a person cannot be sure of.
Originally posted by Regret
I am unsure if this is really possible. Given that all experience is interpretted by the brain. I believe that covert spiritual experience is something a person cannot be sure of.
IMO, it is very difficult. I've been a meditator and lucid dreamer for many years, so I have (or at least, I like to think I have) some experience touring my own inner space. For what it's worth, I've had some "mildly eye-opening" experiences here/there, but nothing I would unequivocally label as Level 3. The various sources of mystical literature serve as some guide, but basically, I am very, Very, VERY conservative in interpreting what I experience.
This is why I would evangelize if I were you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Dh1W_pPnHk&search=evangelical
Originally posted by Nellinator
This is why I would evangelize if I were you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Dh1W_pPnHk&search=evangelical
That was slightly entertaining, I couldn't decide if it was comedic support or a sarcastic attack.
Originally posted by Nellinator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Dh1W_pPnHk&search=evangelical
😆
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lcpmBTyAZk&mode=related&search=evangelical
this is still my fav....