• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • See https://www.intpforum.com/threads/upgrade-at-10-am-gmt.27631/

Psychology vs Philosophy

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today, 17:12
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
698
Location
Between concrete walls
The issue here is two fold I believe. In the first instance it is impossible to divorce our mind from psychological factors. There simply isnt something as pure philosophy. I mean everything we do daily to accomplish practical goals in life we have to learn using cognitive devices, but overall if we are to understand something we have to have a psychological underpinning to perform in optimal matter or else we wouldnt really be able to solve any real problem real time. There simply is not enough time to solve a problem in philosophical sense. Each time we think our mind is quick to use shortcuts.
These shortcuts arent bad or good. Although we probably must agree that without them most of our daily activities would not be finished. The issue is that we often encounter problems that arent intuitive so we cant use shortcuts. We use shortcuts only after we understand a problem and thus allow our subconscious mind to solve a problem by intuition.

Our reality is based on theory about the world. The assumption that there is a world out side and that we are interacting with it. That the world is predictable and not chaotic, that is there are rules and patterns and its possible to learn these rules and find these patterns and thus establish predictons and observations which lead to solutions.

In our theory of the world we must also assume that what we are doing has meaning. In other words some perception of meaning is inevitable. But we also know there things that cant be known. It doesnt matter how smart you are your awareness is only such that we are able to process a tiny miniscule fraction of our world. We know this, because everytime we can possibly expand our world, but it takes energy and effort. We also know this picture of the world we paint is always individual specific. We know that others can know what we know, thus accepting reality of other mind is also inevitable, but we also know that there are unknowable things about others. We simply cant know for sure everything about others.

My point being is everytime we observe the world the only way we form patterns that give us perception of meaning is if there is some inherent goal we have. The goal we have might not be meaningful in traditional sense in that we are trying to survive. But instead we are all playing a sort of game in which the game is to process something and achive a certain goal, by following a certain set of rules. In essence each individual can be split into two types of games. The games that are identical to everyone, and games that are different in everyone. OF course there maybe games that are same for some and different for some etc.

The problem is things dont have any meaning to us unless we give them meaning and we cant do that without psychological factors playing in this game. Lets consider philosophy.. its self evident that all things stem from psychology of humans first right? I mean psychology studies the human mind and philosophy is simply a simple subset of that human mind. Now of course we would have to define the line of psychology we are talking about. What I mean by psychology isnt the clinical type or the neurological thing or mind reading and fact checking, what I mean is the proper interpretation of the world. I mean if you dont have the drive to interpret the world you dont see the "game".

So in essence you are defined by the "game", but you cant play the "game" unless you want to, but we all play games, thus we all derive the "world" and the "game" we "play".
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 06:12
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,601
Philosophy is the development of heuristics that expedite decision making for example the classic trolley problem is a thought experiment designed to test your values. Specifically does the good of the many outweigh the good of the few and/or is there a moral obligation to make such a decision when lives are at stake?

Having determined whether you prefer efficiency (saving the most people) or strict standards (no life is worth sacrificing for another), and perhaps more importantly whether or not you're obligated to intervene, you now have a ready set of solutions (a heuristic) for any such situations you may encounter.

There's a hostage situation, the hostage taker has several hostages but hasn't seen you yet, if you sneak up on him there's a fairly good chance you can take him out or at least keep him occupied long enough for the hostages to escape, alternatively you could use this opportunity to escape yourself.
Efficiency, Obligated: You sneak up and attack the hostage taker with a knife.
Efficiency, Not Obligated: You leave and call the police, it's not your job to be a hero.
Standards, Obligated: You sneak up and try to disarm the hostage taker by hand.
Standards, Not Obligated: You leave and hope the situation sorts itself out.
 

Animekitty

I am all of my perception (666)
Local time
Today, 10:12
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
6,469
Location
subjective
Given that different minds organize information about the world differently.
It is a miracle society can agree on the knowledge it does in order to function. Because minds organize differently some knowledge would be off limits to certain minds.

People still disagree if a computer can be conscious and have a mind.
Some say levels of consciousness exist. Others say it is a threshold.

Some say consciousness is not real, a not even wrong question. They looked confused when you ask them what consciousness is because it is not even a thing to be asked of.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today, 17:12
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
698
Location
Between concrete walls
Philosophy is the development of heuristics that expedite decision making for example the classic trolley problem is a thought experiment designed to test your values. Specifically does the good of the many outweigh the good of the few and/or is there a moral obligation to make such a decision when lives are at stake?

Having determined whether you prefer efficiency (saving the most people) or strict standards (no life is worth sacrificing for another), and perhaps more importantly whether or not you're obligated to intervene, you now have a ready set of solutions (a heuristic) for any such situations you may encounter.

There's a hostage situation, the hostage taker has several hostages but hasn't seen you yet, if you sneak up on him there's a fairly good chance you can take him out or at least keep him occupied long enough for the hostages to escape, alternatively you could use this opportunity to escape yourself.
Efficiency, Obligated: You sneak up and attack the hostage taker with a knife.
Efficiency, Not Obligated: You leave and call the police, it's not your job to be a hero.
Standards, Obligated: You sneak up and try to disarm the hostage taker by hand.
Standards, Not Obligated: You leave and hope the situation sorts itself out.
I have to be honest I dont understand where you are going with this. Id have to say philosophy is many more things than just this. Nevertheless interesting post. Id say I failed to make my point if there was any.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today, 17:12
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
698
Location
Between concrete walls
Given that different minds organize information about the world differently.
It is a miracle society can agree on the knowledge it does in order to function. Because minds organize differently some knowledge would be off limits to certain minds.

People still disagree if a computer can be conscious and have a mind.
Some say levels of consciousness exist. Others say it is a threshold.

Some say consciousness is not real, a not even wrong question. They looked confused when you ask them what consciousness is because it is not even a thing to be asked of.
Partly what I implied or did I even imply it? Actually an afterthought I would say we are remarkably alike as people. In fact if we consider a matter of psychology and the similarity of way we interpret things and similarity in reactions and innate programming is not that remarkable we get alone. The issue you see it this way is that we are biased. We are extremely tuned in to see eachothers differences with accute sense of judgment and reservation. We are very defensive about differences and we weed out different people. In fact nature has to force us to be different and let some variation into society so we dont end up all too alike. Point being is that if we ever meet some intelligent creature from another planet Id bet we might be very very suprised how different a creature can be in terms of interpreting the world.

I mean we cant really know how would alternative to higher intellect look like. We evoleved from single group of hominids. The closesed intelligent creature are primates and they are basically our cousins.
 

The Grey Man

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 12:12
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
633
Location
Canada
The traditional conception of the relationship between psychology and philosophy is that philosophy is psychology plus, that whereas psychology endeavours to explain the mind (or the brain, if it is behaviourist by method—for the sake of this post, I will assume that psychology does not abandon the description of subjective experiences in favour of objective explanations of human behaviour), philosophy aspires to knowledge of the mind, the body, and the spirit by integration of the findings of empirical science, psychology, and metaphysics.

Lets consider philosophy.. its self evident that all things stem from psychology of humans first right?
To be quite certain, all knowledge of objective phenomena begins with subjective experience; however, as Kant said, "although all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises from experience." Though we acquire knowledge of the world by a mental synthesis of sense-data that doubles as the community of manifest physical objects and though, consequently, we are each of us, in a sense, identical with nature (much like the God of Spinoza) it is not thereby demonstrated that we are the divine Creator and Sustainer of all things. It is not contradictory to believe that there is a multiplicity of human minds corresponding to the multiplicity of human brains (using, as Schopenhauer did, knowledge of one's own body as an analogical cypher to decode a temporal order of moral characters from the spatial order of empirical characters that discloses itself to every naïve spectator of nature) and, furthermore, that, just as the multiplicity of brains, QWERTY keyboards, coffee cups, vandalized lavatories, and countless other objects find their unity in the synthesis of the subject, so does the subject find its unity in a still higher principle, a grand Tapestry of which space and time—nature and life; naturata and naturans—are the warp and the weft. Such, more or less, was the belief of Plotinus, that last great philosopher of Classical Antiquity, and such a belief is mine.
 
Top Bottom