You create your own reality? A proof

[otiosedodge]

P.S. Trixie, about your other topic, I still think morality is important too.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

If free will is so far beyond even magic, then why does it even exist as a concept? If it's so untenable, and there's absolutely no way to conceive of it actually working, then why did it show up in our mindspace? If it's really just an instrument of a purportedly nihilist ruling class to enforce certain norms of behavior in peasants, then how did the idea come into existence? You get my point. I think it's just as easy to conceive of a universe where we have free will as it is to conceive of one where we think there isn't any. And I don't agree that the notion that the universe has no beginning makes no difference here; I think the lack of a Big Bang calls into question the idea of an original causative agent, and without that, how could we hope to map out a deterministic universe?

Strawman argument. I actually said peasants made it up to defend from tyranny, not the other way around. Either way, doesn't make it legit. Humans make up lots of stuff. As for determinstic vs. spontaneous, I already covered those points in detail. Like I said earlier, spontaneous events doesnt make free will.

I don't pretend to be able to explain the mechanism of free will. As I said, I'm not sure it exists. But there's another thing I don't toss away out of hand: the feeling that I'm making a choice when I act. You can say that the emotion is a heterophenomenon, just foam on the dumb wave of energy that moves regardless of what you so, but I don't think that emotions are always out of proportion to the reality of a situation. They can be useful markers.

Of course you're not sure. That's because it doesn't exist. When I'm in a good movie and invested in the characters, sometimes I feel like made a choice inside that movie. But's it's not like I actually made a choice. It's only a feeling of choice.

I'm not asking you to believe entirely in free will. I'm just trying to get you to admit that you can't absolutely discount anything, just like you can't absolutely rely on anything. At least not on this dimension of existence.

As for the post you referred to me to: Why? Simple. Because it's fun!

Fun is an illusion, like free will. And the idea of free will is the closest thing I can think of to a complete and total violation of all universal, local, nonlocal, relative, non-relative, finite, and infinite, truths. Let me put this way, the concept of God, even the Bible God, has more logical and scientific credibility than the concept of freewill.

[Seizing]

Many myths surrounding our history, like Atlantis, could be Stories people throughout the many esoteric circles of life may be in the process of opening to further effect the course of metaphysical-expansions, themes existing throughout the curtains of Ideals, or membranes that get harnessed and fully Redirected.

[HexHammer]

HexHammer:

How many people do you know that are absolutely convinced of a viewpoint during virtually all of their waking moments? I ask because I want to counter your examples. All of the people you described besides the cat lady probably oscillate somewhere on a spectrum of thought about the situations you describe; they're not fully convinced of it at all times. Moreover, the abused women think men should die, not that they're dead, so they're not really willing the death of the men into existence. However, I do believe that they're more likely to will more abusers into existence by their thought patterns. As for the crazy cat lady, she's willing what she believes to be her cats' happiness into existence; that is, for her, if lying around in their own poo is happiness, then she's willing that into existence, since her definition of happiness is precisely that. And while I'm at it, the neurotic parents are more an example of direct physical causality instead of thought influencing reality. Parents physically shut their kids in the closet because of their perception that the world is evil; they don't will them into the closet.

I've read deeply into psychology, and became bored with mainstream psychological thought a long time ago.

If you really know so much about psychology, then do tell me about the dangerous aspect of it.

Maybe not 100% of my examples will say it, but the prevelance is high.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

HexHammer:

How many people do you know that are absolutely convinced of a viewpoint during virtually all of their waking moments? I ask because I want to counter your examples. All of the people you described besides the cat lady probably oscillate somewhere on a spectrum of thought about the situations you describe; they're not fully convinced of it at all times. Moreover, the abused women think men should die, not that they're dead, so they're not really willing the death of the men into existence. However, I do believe that they're more likely to will more abusers into existence by their thought patterns. As for the crazy cat lady, she's willing what she believes to be her cats' happiness into existence; that is, for her, if lying around in their own poo is happiness, then she's willing that into existence, since her definition of happiness is precisely that. And while I'm at it, the neurotic parents are more an example of direct physical causality instead of thought influencing reality. Parents physically shut their kids in the closet because of their perception that the world is evil; they don't will them into the closet.

I've read deeply into psychology, and became bored with mainstream psychological thought a long time ago.

If you really know so much about psychology, then do tell me about the dangerous aspect of it.

Maybe not 100% of my examples will say it, but the prevelance is high.

I'd say psychology is the lesser of two evils. Psychiatry seems the label crazy anything goes kind of deal. 20 years ago they said homosexuality was a disease. The psychiatric industry seems like a community of clowns to make up funny sounding words and jump at every new word that pops in their head to put it in the manual, and beta test various drugs on an unsuspecting populace as part of their "social experiments". Rather than function in a scientific manner, the psychiatric industry tends to examine the actual functions of the brain and mechanisms of psychology only as a last resort, usually creating theories from personal experiences and whims they develop over time.

You will not find any CAT scan equipment at a mental hospital, because psychiatric practice tends to operate outside the realm of practical sense and medical science. It only uses science every now and then to divert suspicion from this realization, like a child who "cleans up his act" right before his parents enter the room.

[tbieter]

Do certain aspects of philosophy appeal to mentally ill people?

I recall reading about research on the relationship between mentally ill students and the study of psychology in college. The mentally ill high school grad would start college and discover the discipline of psychology. He or she would start taking courses, hoping to find help for her personal mental conflicts. Her quest would become a major in the subject and she would graduate with a degree in the field. She would enter the practice of psychology. However, in due course her untreated mental illness would manifest its existence in dysfuctional behavior such as substance abuse, divorce, child abuse, crime, etc. The research concluded that there was a high correlation between the practice of psychology and mental illness.

Does the same relation exist between the philosopher and mental illness?

I searched for "mental illness" in my digital subscription to Philosophy Now:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Doe ... _Normality
https://philosophynow.org/issues/29/A_P ... A_Delusion
https://philosophynow.org/issues/26/Ber ... mmentaries
https://philosophynow.org/issues/20/Prozac_cogitation
https://philosophynow.org/issues/91/Melancholia

https://philosophynow.org/issues/66/Me_ ... o_told_you
"Paranoia is the delusion that other people are watching you and are out to get you. Of course, if people really are watching you and really are out to get you, then it isn’t paranoia. Paranoia is a form of self-deception. Sometimes it arises as a symptom of a mental illness, in which case its treatment is a matter for psychiatry, not philosophy. Sometimes it arises because of a mistaken view of the world; and in this form it afflicts both individuals and societies. This latter kind of paranoia is one that philosophy can perhaps help with, as philosophers have argued so much over relevant questions such as ‘What can we know?’ and also undertakes the clarification of confusing concepts such as ‘privacy’. John Goff does exactly this in his article. In this issue we’ll also examine some other kinds of self-deception (or so you’d like to believe). For example, Gordon Marino discusses Kierkegaard’s insights into self-deception and applies them to his own life."

https://philosophynow.org/issues/90/Add ... ilosophers

[tbieter]

Do certain aspects of philosophy appeal to mentally ill people?

I recall reading about research on the relationship between mentally ill students and the study of psychology in college. The mentally ill high school grad would start college and discover the discipline of psychology. He or she would start taking courses, hoping to find help for her personal mental conflicts. Her quest would become a major in the subject and she would graduate with a degree in the field. She would enter the practice of psychology. However, in due course her untreated mental illness would manifest its existence in dysfuctional behavior such as substance abuse, divorce, child abuse, crime, etc. The research concluded that there was a high correlation between the practice of psychology and mental illness.

Does the same relation exist between the philosopher and mental illness?

I searched for "mental illness" in my digital subscription to Philosophy Now:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Doe ... _Normality
https://philosophynow.org/issues/29/A_P ... A_Delusion
https://philosophynow.org/issues/26/Ber ... mmentaries
https://philosophynow.org/issues/20/Prozac_cogitation
https://philosophynow.org/issues/91/Melancholia

https://philosophynow.org/issues/66/Me_ ... o_told_you
"Paranoia is the delusion that other people are watching you and are out to get you. Of course, if people really are watching you and really are out to get you, then it isn’t paranoia. Paranoia is a form of self-deception. Sometimes it arises as a symptom of a mental illness, in which case its treatment is a matter for psychiatry, not philosophy. Sometimes it arises because of a mistaken view of the world; and in this form it afflicts both individuals and societies. This latter kind of paranoia is one that philosophy can perhaps help with, as philosophers have argued so much over relevant questions such as ‘What can we know?’ and also undertakes the clarification of confusing concepts such as ‘privacy’. John Goff does exactly this in his article. In this issue we’ll also examine some other kinds of self-deception (or so you’d like to believe). For example, Gordon Marino discusses Kierkegaard’s insights into self-deception and applies them to his own life."

https://philosophynow.org/issues/90/Add ... ilosophers

I read this book years ago. It is outstanding.
http://www.amazon.com/Thoughts-Without- ... erspective

[tbieter]

Do certain aspects of philosophy appeal to mentally ill people?

I recall reading about research on the relationship between mentally ill students and the study of psychology in college. The mentally ill high school grad would start college and discover the discipline of psychology. He or she would start taking courses, hoping to find help for her personal mental conflicts. Her quest would become a major in the subject and she would graduate with a degree in the field. She would enter the practice of psychology. However, in due course her untreated mental illness would manifest its existence in dysfuctional behavior such as substance abuse, divorce, child abuse, crime, etc. The research concluded that there was a high correlation between the practice of psychology and mental illness.

Does the same relation exist between the philosopher and mental illness?

I searched for "mental illness" in my digital subscription to Philosophy Now:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Doe ... _Normality
https://philosophynow.org/issues/29/A_P ... A_Delusion
https://philosophynow.org/issues/26/Ber ... mmentaries
https://philosophynow.org/issues/20/Prozac_cogitation
https://philosophynow.org/issues/91/Melancholia

https://philosophynow.org/issues/66/Me_ ... o_told_you
"Paranoia is the delusion that other people are watching you and are out to get you. Of course, if people really are watching you and really are out to get you, then it isn’t paranoia. Paranoia is a form of self-deception. Sometimes it arises as a symptom of a mental illness, in which case its treatment is a matter for psychiatry, not philosophy. Sometimes it arises because of a mistaken view of the world; and in this form it afflicts both individuals and societies. This latter kind of paranoia is one that philosophy can perhaps help with, as philosophers have argued so much over relevant questions such as ‘What can we know?’ and also undertakes the clarification of confusing concepts such as ‘privacy’. John Goff does exactly this in his article. In this issue we’ll also examine some other kinds of self-deception (or so you’d like to believe). For example, Gordon Marino discusses Kierkegaard’s insights into self-deception and applies them to his own life."

https://philosophynow.org/issues/90/Add ... ilosophers

I read this book years ago. It is outstanding.
http://www.amazon.com/Thoughts-Without- ... erspective

This also looks relevant:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/98/Phi ... Counseling
https://philosophynow.org/issues/36/Wha ... phy_Anyway

[tbieter]

Do certain aspects of philosophy appeal to mentally ill people?

I recall reading about research on the relationship between mentally ill students and the study of psychology in college. The mentally ill high school grad would start college and discover the discipline of psychology. He or she would start taking courses, hoping to find help for her personal mental conflicts. Her quest would become a major in the subject and she would graduate with a degree in the field. She would enter the practice of psychology. However, in due course her untreated mental illness would manifest its existence in dysfuctional behavior such as substance abuse, divorce, child abuse, crime, etc. The research concluded that there was a high correlation between the practice of psychology and mental illness.

Does the same relation exist between the philosopher and mental illness?

I searched for "mental illness" in my digital subscription to Philosophy Now:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Doe ... _Normality
https://philosophynow.org/issues/29/A_P ... A_Delusion
https://philosophynow.org/issues/26/Ber ... mmentaries
https://philosophynow.org/issues/20/Prozac_cogitation
https://philosophynow.org/issues/91/Melancholia

https://philosophynow.org/issues/66/Me_ ... o_told_you
"Paranoia is the delusion that other people are watching you and are out to get you. Of course, if people really are watching you and really are out to get you, then it isn’t paranoia. Paranoia is a form of self-deception. Sometimes it arises as a symptom of a mental illness, in which case its treatment is a matter for psychiatry, not philosophy. Sometimes it arises because of a mistaken view of the world; and in this form it afflicts both individuals and societies. This latter kind of paranoia is one that philosophy can perhaps help with, as philosophers have argued so much over relevant questions such as ‘What can we know?’ and also undertakes the clarification of confusing concepts such as ‘privacy’. John Goff does exactly this in his article. In this issue we’ll also examine some other kinds of self-deception (or so you’d like to believe). For example, Gordon Marino discusses Kierkegaard’s insights into self-deception and applies them to his own life."

https://philosophynow.org/issues/90/Add ... ilosophers

I read this book years ago. It is outstanding.
http://www.amazon.com/Thoughts-Without- ... erspective

This also looks relevant:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/98/Phi ... Counseling
https://philosophynow.org/issues/36/Wha ... phy_Anyway

Years ago I read a book that had won an award. A father, a university professor, had developed schizophrenia and his career and family life fell apart, and he ended up on the street. The book was about his son's search for the life his father led on the streets. Two things I remember about the book: First, the father came from a devout Christian Science family. It was believed that the religion was productive of the schizophrenia. Second, the author (the son) urged readers that when they saw a bum on the street talking to himself they should do two things: address him (he needs human contacts to produce contact with reality) and give him money (he needs it) I don't remember the name of the author or the title; my ex-wife (a pswychiatric nurse may)

This book looks interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/Fellowship-Suffer ... izophrenia

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

I recall reading about research on the relationship between mentally ill students and the study of psychology in college. The mentally ill high school grad would start college and discover the discipline of psychology. He or she would start taking courses, hoping to find help for her personal mental conflicts. Her quest would become a major in the subject and she would graduate with a degree in the field. She would enter the practice of psychology. However, in due course her untreated mental illness would manifest its existence in dysfuctional behavior such as substance abuse, divorce, child abuse, crime, etc. The research concluded that there was a high correlation between the practice of psychology and mental illness.

No need to prove yourself with all those links, what you are saying is very true. I knew this for a while, and it explains why some therapists and doctors are so good at diagnosing mental illness (because they have it themselves.) Also I've had my fair share of dealing with them. Usually the scrubs who don't know what they are doing (aren't good at diagnosing) are fairly sane and stable, albeit bad at their practice. It's always the psychopathic therapists, career obsessed busybodies and the crazy OCD "dont touch me" types that actually get their diagnoses right. Just watch the movie "what about Bob".

"Paranoia is the delusion that other people are watching you and are out to get you. Of course, if people really are watching you and really are out to get you, then it isn’t paranoia. Paranoia is a form of self-deception. Sometimes it arises as a symptom of a mental illness, in which case its treatment is a matter for psychiatry, not philosophy. Sometimes it arises because of a mistaken view of the world; and in this form it afflicts both individuals and societies. This latter kind of paranoia is one that philosophy can perhaps help with, as philosophers have argued so much over relevant questions such as ‘What can we know?’ and also undertakes the clarification of confusing concepts such as ‘privacy’. John Goff does exactly this in his article. In this issue we’ll also examine some other kinds of self-deception (or so you’d like to believe). For example, Gordon Marino discusses Kierkegaard’s insights into self-deception and applies them to his own life."

Poor definition of paranoia. Paranoia is a survival mechanism to survive in the wild. Many people are unsure who is out to get them, but someone always is. Many medicated individuals lose their paranoia, and end up the victims of crimes. Take away the paranoia, and you leave a person who is too trusting of strangers. Extremely paranoid persons get very tiresome to deal with, since they like to hide their head in the sand and refuse communication with anyone trying to talk with them, which is ignorant childish behavoir.

Years ago I read a book that had won an award. A father, a university professor, had developed schizophrenia and his career and family life fell apart, and he ended up on the street. The book was about his son's search for the life his father led on the streets. Two things I remember about the book: First, the father came from a devout Christian Science family. It was believed that the religion was productive of the schizophrenia. Second, the author (the son) urged readers that when they saw a bum on the street talking to himself they should do two things: address him (he needs human contacts to produce contact with reality) and give him money (he needs it) I don't remember the name of the author or the title; my ex-wife (a pswychiatric nurse may)

Thought that was common sense but I guess humans don't know basic instincts of how to be kind to other persons. "A homeless person needs money and could benefit from someone to talk to"...I guess blatantly obvious facts are not so obvious to the so called "human" race.

[otiosedodge]

Trixie:

Since you're clearly a heterophenomenalist (which, in my view, is just another incarnation of nihilism), I don't think we have any real room for dialog. But just one more thing: I think that most people that find themselves espousing your viewpoint generally do it as a result of trauma or something deeper, maybe a karmic thing from a past life (and there's solidly documented evidence which suggests that reincarnation exists). So you may want to consider that your viewpoint is rooted in your own background.

HexHammer:

I agree with Trixie that conventional psychology is relatively innocuous compared with psychiatry. I think it can be a good watershed at the beginning of a journey into one's self, but then it leaves any number of deeper questions unanswered. For instance, why people who have been in the most empirically efficacious forms of psychotherapy (ie, variants of cognitive-behavioral therapy) for years can't pull out of their problems. One could argue that these variants simply aren't a good fit for them, but in short, the model is fairly well-delineated now in modern psychology: destructive patterns of behavior arise from destructive relationships in early life, and these, along with genetic inheritance, determine the overall pattern of development until a therapeutic intervention takes place. Of course the genetic inheritance, according to modern conventional psychology, is largely unalterable, even though this dogma is also coming apart as scientists are realizing that environment also has an influence on the expression of genes. In any case, I think this approach is narrow after a certain point because it often elides the spiritual aspect of life. And I'm not talking about religious feelings here; I'm talking about care of the soul, as opposed to just caring for mental, emotional, and physical health. I suppose that there's some dovetailing when psychologists talk about whether people have enough love in their life, but mainstream psychology studiously avoids deeper questions like examining the nature of reality and people's experiences with deeper dimensions of existence through meditation and the like. The closest it arrives to this is through the interpretation of dreams. But when it comes to people's subjective experience of visions through meditation and spontaneous spiritual experiences, psychology is content to smugly sit back and label these as hallucinations, and refer the poor sucker to the real idiots: psychiatrists.

Which brings me to a general comment about people's posts regarding psychiatry and such. Fundamentally, psychiatry is in a deep state of existential crisis today, and thank god for that. Granted, more and more people are medicated every year, but when I say that it's in a deep state of crisis, I mean that the evidence base and its fundamental philosophical assumptions have now been exposed as being extremely problematic. While there are plenty of people who are willing to take emotional painkillers that numb them to true life and potentially produce a series of horrendous side effects, this doesn't mean that the profession isn't morally bankrupt. The evidence base has been exposed as a lie. If you want scientific evidence of this, read 'Anatomy of an Epidemic' by Robert Whitaker. The notion that depression and other "mental illnesses" are caused by chemical imbalances in the brain was abandoned by leading psychiatrists in the 80s. What we see today is a field that has been largely corrupted by large-scale pharmaceutical interests that run deeply flawed clinical trials that are rubber-stamped by the FDA, which is largely toothless as a result of Big Pharma lobbying. As for the deeper philosophical roots of the field (though the word "deep" is really a misnomer when applied to psychiatry), you have the same fundamental problem as in all of the rest of modern medicine. Medicine, by its own admission, treats symptoms, not the root cause of problems. Same goes for psychiatry. And while the conventional wisdom is that medication is best accompanied by some sort of talk therapy, since many patients are informed that their conditions are lifelong (and this isn't supported by scientific evidence either), the talk therapy often devolves into a dialog about how to manage their side effects, such as the emotional numbing that comes from taking the drugs. Never mind addressing the roots of emotional problems.

Don't get me wrong; I support the use of drugs when people are a danger to themselves or others. Sometimes we need to be calmed down. However, beyond that, there is essentially no scientific evidence that the drugs work. Moreover, there's evidence that the drugs actually exacerbate the cycle of relapses, as well as evidence that the drugs actually produce the condition that they claim to treat. I think people should go to doctors when they break their leg or have a blood clot or some other urgency. Doctors are good at that kind of thing. And the same goes for psychiatrists. But when you want to address your health in a holistic way, you go to someone who treats the whole person: mind, feelings, body, and spirit. Like a naturopathic doctor, for instance. But a psychiatrist for non-emergency situations? Ha.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

I am not a "heterophenominologist" I believe the mind is separate from consciousness. However heterophenominology is a useful tool for most intents and purposes, as consciousness receives direct input from the mind.

Other than that, the rest of what you said is true.

To me, reincarnation doesn't seem like it needs evidence, it seems like an obvious fact. Life is horrible, reincarnating into another life would be horrible. Horrible=horrible. A=a. Life exists. Life = a. Thererfore reincarnation exists.

[HexHammer]

I'd say psychology is the lesser of two evils. Psychiatry seems the label crazy anything goes kind of deal. 20 years ago they said homosexuality was a disease. The psychiatric industry seems like a community of clowns to make up funny sounding words and jump at every new word that pops in their head to put it in the manual, and beta test various drugs on an unsuspecting populace as part of their "social experiments". Rather than function in a scientific manner, the psychiatric industry tends to examine the actual functions of the brain and mechanisms of psychology only as a last resort, usually creating theories from personal experiences and whims they develop over time.

You will not find any CAT scan equipment at a mental hospital, because psychiatric practice tends to operate outside the realm of practical sense and medical science. It only uses science every now and then to divert suspicion from this realization, like a child who "cleans up his act" right before his parents enter the room.

It's kinda pathetic to dismiss the WHOLE psychology aspect just because 1 tiny bit is wrong, and that point is made mostly by fanatical religous people while in the rest of the sane world, it's either learned, or genetics.

Scientific studies has existed over 30 years that clearly concludes it's NOT a disease, get over youself.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

It's kinda pathetic to dismiss the WHOLE psychology aspect just because 1 tiny bit is wrong, and that point is made mostly by fanatical religous people while in the rest of the sane world, it's either learned, or genetics.

Scientific studies has existed over 30 years that clearly concludes it's NOT a disease, get over youself.

I never did. I said psychology was the lesser of two evils.

And duh of course it's not a disease. The trend of psychiatry is this -

Psychiatry makes absurd claims. Psychiatry makes diagnosis on absurd claims. Then science has to prove psychiatry wrong. Then psychiatry will change views about the old claims and make a new version with more absurd claims that science has to prove wrong, yet again.

[HexHammer]

It's kinda pathetic to dismiss the WHOLE psychology aspect just because 1 tiny bit is wrong, and that point is made mostly by fanatical religous people while in the rest of the sane world, it's either learned, or genetics.

Scientific studies has existed over 30 years that clearly concludes it's NOT a disease, get over youself.

I never did. I said psychology was the lesser of two evils.

And duh of course it's not a disease. The trend of psychiatry is this -

Psychiatry makes absurd claims. Psychiatry makes diagnosis on absurd claims. Then science has to prove psychiatry wrong. Then psychiatry will change views about the old claims and make a new version with more absurd claims that science has to prove wrong, yet again.

Weather or not it's the less of the 2 evils, you still made the absurd claim that homosexuallity is a disease, end of story!

No, it's not psychiatry as much in itself, as it's more incompetent people making bad diagnosis.