Yay - an essay from Dr McLaren on my bday! Life is good. :)
Niall, I could write an even longer essay in reply, although frankly these topics are best discussed over a bottle of wine and a smoke. ;)
"Thinking machines" - was that a Dune reference? <3
Can I ask if you have read Robert Pirsig's 2 fantastic little books - 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance', and 'Lila'? You seem to be VERY close to his positions - but you never mentioned "Quality" so it's not clear.
Well, in Lila he blows Materialist Determinism out of the water with maximum prejudice - and much more importantly, gives rock solid alternatives... without being preachy.
If you HAVE read them, what I'm about to say will be a memory jog, if not I hope to make them attractive to pick up to see what he's/I'm on about.
So ZAMM is pretty much a dualist position, albeit one of the greatest books EVER written. Purest Quality.
But in LILA, the later book, he explores a few other ideals. For one, he switches from the dualist model of ZAMM, and changes gears to the 4(+1) of the ancient pagan model. But he plays with that, and never mentions the theological aspect - because he's not promoting Paganism, but a 4 LAYER REALITY using the same principles.
So there is not just "Mind, and Matter" but other equally important elements too, and by removing those other elements, the model works just as well as a car would without an engine or fuel just the shell and the driver.
I stuck to my dualist guns even through college and degree, and yeah, I've taken the thrown brikbats by overtrained and career-conscious semi-simpletons with their 'simple' claims.
But there are more models of Reality than either egotistical Monotheism, or Zoroastrian-based Dualism, as 'religion' was usually the tool for exploring such fields in history. There is the earth, air, fire, water + spirit of Paganism.
And there is also the 10-fold structure of reality of the Western Qabbalah too, which incorporates to my knowledge everything of all of the above.
Spend a few years with all that rattling around in your head, and then sit down to argue with a Materialist who proclaims only Matter exists, and you'll soon notice they are exactly as wise as a Christian theologist proclaiming "there is only one god, God"... except in reverse.
It is heartbreaking to meet fantastically clever people, who use the most mindbogglingly moronic arguments *Because they have been educated very badly*.
It's actually quite deliberate brainwashing, imo.
Reading back the above, I've realised its a bit choppy, and relies heavily on those two books to make much sense, because sadly I simply don't have the TIME right now to write a proper essay, and find the links/notes to explain it all.
TL;DR no, "It's" not just matter. But nor is "It" probably a dualism either (Apart from the ancient Taoist wisdoms). As Macluhen said, - or was it Leary? - "The Map is not the Territory", rather typically humans are fighting over a map of territory, rather than simply exploring that territory with an open mind.
OH! Before making your eyes bleed with a wall of text, I'll quickly add that Determinism AND Free Will are able to co-exist in the same philosophical framework without clashing.
But this requires a bit of creative thinking.
Consider the meaning of "Infinity" for a few seconds, until you reach the level of insanity required to encompass it.
OK. Now posit that the Universe is actually a Polyverse - there are multiple near-identical Polyverses.
Now posit that EVERY choice that EVERY creature across the Universe makes a separate entire Universe branch. Each time. Now you can see why it's important to be considering what "Infinity" means.
That's the background model, taken to its ultimate extent. (Irl many of the choices could be 'hacked' into a considerably reduced range of universes, but lets leave it at max to keep it simple).
NOW, posit a consciousness that sits astride ALL of these universes, and Time/Space itself - use whatever name for that you want, VALIS, Gawdess, Ego... whatever floats the boat.
That Universal Consciousness is aware of EVERY SINGLE CHOICE YOU COULD POSSIBLY MAKE during this lifetime. Every single choice is played out - including every possible choice of interacting with others.
Still with me on the thought-experiment Doctor?
Now I'm going to do what Einstein/Hawkins did with gravity [wells], reverse the perspective of the common model.
You DO get to choose in this model, whichever your individual path through the maze of choices in your particular experience. Obviously, there is a near-infinite number of Dr Niall McLaren's who chose slightly differently and they went off in their own path in their own Universe within the Polyverse.
But it is ALSO Deterministic, in that every possible choice has been predetermined.
Coming from the DiceMan (Another glorious book!), you give the dice the 6 choices. You can't choose to roll a 7 on one die. The choice is made by the die, but you have determined all possible outcomes.
Anyway, that is one way that free will and determinism can be unified, philosophically.
If anyone should so want to do.
Most people aren't interested in exploring new ideas, they just want to have the ego boost of having the "RIGHT" idea (Or even just argument) which they can smash others down with.
Oh look at that! Ends on the biocognitive model. :D
In that case, you might prefer to start with the second book first, 'LILA'. It is considerably more technical than ZAMM, which is more philosophical. I did it that way around (Due to finding the second first in a charity shop).
I 100% know what you mean about "popular" books, generally that which is promoted more tends to be lower quality. But sometimes its the sheer quality of the books/media itself that creates the popularity.
I hope you can find the time to explore these two short books - I used to read voraciously myself, but finding it much harder to devote the time to books now - the day is just FILLED with reading, albeit online text.
Of his two books, ZAMM is the better - one of possibly two or three 'perfect' books I've ever read, another being Siddhartha by Hesse.
Hey, you did write an essay. Will have a look on weekend, assuming Herr Drumpf hasn't blown us all to buggery by then. And have a peaceful birthday, let's hope he doesn't make it your last.
Thanks Niall, just got home from the pub out with friends. Funnily enough, today I used "Drumpf" for the first time myself, after seeing it used so many times by people naive enough to think this none of this would have happened under the demonrat wing of the US Uniparty over the past decade.
But now it seems to be a natural fit.
I suspect, if the nukes come, it will be by Israhelli hands.
ALTHOUGH, perhaps the US will launch before them, in a "pre-emptive defensive move" because there would be retal...
Bush Jr really moved the needle on manipulative language, and it seems it is reaching the logical conclusion now.
Got 5mins left, and then its just another normal day. ;)
Another day where the West just shows it is not fit to rule itself, let alone the rest of the entire World.
Good article. A few questions though, two derived from the table comparing your model with psychiatry's.
(1) If your model uses psychological treatment, why should traditional psychiatry exist at all? There should be only psychology, no psychiatry, right?
(2) You're a psychiatrist, I guess. So, following your own model, you don't, ever, prescribe medication (to address psychological problems). Am I right?
(3) Thomas S. Szasz. Was he also critical on psychiatry? Ultimately, did he have his own model?
Yes, I'm a retired psychiatrist. Compared with the national averages, my prescription of drugs was about on the 3rd percentile. I saw large numbers of patients, far more than average, in working class areas, so a lot of unemployed people, pensioners, immigrants etc who were suspicious of psychiatric drugs so they rarely needed any encouragement to avoid them.
Is there a role for medical people in mental trouble? Yes, most definitely, the sticky borderland of physical trouble and mental, chronic pain, chronic illness etc. However, I definitely believe psychiatrists have too much power and have managed to dominate the narrative with their "mental disorder is brain disorder" trope.
Szasz did not have a theory of mind or mental disorder. I've discussed him in several chapters in McLaren N (2012). The Mind-Body Problem Explained:
Psychology doesn't need to exist and doesn't actually, like psychiatry, exist as a legitimate scientific field either.
Psychology is the study of what? We don't need another word for thinking (which Dr McLaren's model actually provides a solution for). Psychology gives the impression it is some kind of speciality but it is not as it cannot define its subject matter. All it does is clack and scan peoples' brains supporting the idea that mental disorder is brain disorder.
I'm quoting from a book of Alfred Binet. "UPON THE NECESSITY OF ESTABLISHING A SCIENTIFIC DIAGNOSIS OF INFERIOR STATES OF INTELLIGENCE" (1905) in France. How to spot an idiot? What types of idiocy? What amount of idiocy, ultimately. Those were the questions at stake.
Psychologists were good at it. Thus, they devised an IQ test.
He did say that-I'm paraphrasing slightly, it was an in interview when as usual, he was criticizing everyone.
I "studied" psychology but of course there is nothing to specialize in unless you want to clack brains, put people in giant magnets or talk shit, so I mainly write occasional critical papers (obviously influenced by Szasz, Niall etc) and like most people, want to know how experience occurs.
Questions always arise on this topic and whilst your model provides a solution, playing devil’s advocate somewhat, todays’ proponents of not having free will (regardless of whether physicalism is true or not) would likely counter:
Another popular argument I see commonly pop up is that of split-brain patient experiments (corpus callosum split). Due to contralateral control, an item presented to their left visual field in the right hemisphere could not be recalled verbally but the correct object was picked with their left hand. The patient then verbally confabulates why they picked/drew the thing they did not see or something like that suggesting this is similar of all choices we "make."
On animals (non-human animals) they clearly don’t have a level of consciousness we have (a room full of sick dogs can never reason to or look inside themselves). Not to say their consciousness is any less important, but it is different from ours which presumably relates to brain differences.
I've always thought the infinite regress argument is a red herring, esp. re "willing" actions. I don't think about an action, I simply do it. I cannot catch myself in the act of deciding to lift my arm, I can only lift it. The idea of something called "will" being inserted in the causative chain rightly falls victim to Occam's razor.
From dealing with them, I'm sure octopus have a different form of consciousness but mammals, no, I think they're like children, a bundle of impulses, likes and dislikes with no need for self-reflection.
Continuing to play devil's advocate, the modern argument (kind of a theory) if you're a neuroscientist etc. although some philosophers agree, is that even without will, thoughts just arise and since we don't control what they are, there is no free will to think what we want. An example would be if I ask what is someone's favorite food, the answers just come to mind, and there is no freedom in that. How would your model circumvent that?
The freedom of thought arises in choosing which stream to follow and which to ignore. I'm in an exam and somebody walks by the open window humming a song; it triggers a memory but I quickly suppress it in favour of the exam. There is a constant mental ferment but I choose which ideas to follow. As for will, I feel a sense of thirst, I see a glass of water on the bench so I reach for it. I cannot recall making the decision as it is instantaneous, just two items of information coming together and resolving as one outcome. No room or need for something called "will" in that process. But I could have interposed another item, something like: "That's not my glass so I can't touch it." It is a question of action, not of some mystical element called "will." How does this action come about? That's easy, just nominate all the precursor elements and let the outcome compute itself.
As for octopus, we used to catch them by snorkelling but I realised they were aware and stopped. Was that projection? I don't think so.
This is where the confusion is for me to say with 100% confidence your model proves free will. Even with an informational space unaffected by thermodynamics, to say the outcome computes itself sounds like an automatic process I have no control over-i.e. how did I choose that computation? Or how did I choose to supress something-if I can’t suppress it is that also a choice- determinists would argue that both are automatic choices we have no control over but are simply appraised of the outcome. To use a more prosaic example, if I can’t remember someone’s name, it seems all I can do is wait until I do (wait until it just pops into my thoughts).
I think it is too difficult to prove as of course the counterfactual can never be tested (i.e. could I have done differently at that time).
Yay - an essay from Dr McLaren on my bday! Life is good. :)
Niall, I could write an even longer essay in reply, although frankly these topics are best discussed over a bottle of wine and a smoke. ;)
"Thinking machines" - was that a Dune reference? <3
Can I ask if you have read Robert Pirsig's 2 fantastic little books - 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance', and 'Lila'? You seem to be VERY close to his positions - but you never mentioned "Quality" so it's not clear.
Well, in Lila he blows Materialist Determinism out of the water with maximum prejudice - and much more importantly, gives rock solid alternatives... without being preachy.
If you HAVE read them, what I'm about to say will be a memory jog, if not I hope to make them attractive to pick up to see what he's/I'm on about.
So ZAMM is pretty much a dualist position, albeit one of the greatest books EVER written. Purest Quality.
But in LILA, the later book, he explores a few other ideals. For one, he switches from the dualist model of ZAMM, and changes gears to the 4(+1) of the ancient pagan model. But he plays with that, and never mentions the theological aspect - because he's not promoting Paganism, but a 4 LAYER REALITY using the same principles.
So there is not just "Mind, and Matter" but other equally important elements too, and by removing those other elements, the model works just as well as a car would without an engine or fuel just the shell and the driver.
I stuck to my dualist guns even through college and degree, and yeah, I've taken the thrown brikbats by overtrained and career-conscious semi-simpletons with their 'simple' claims.
But there are more models of Reality than either egotistical Monotheism, or Zoroastrian-based Dualism, as 'religion' was usually the tool for exploring such fields in history. There is the earth, air, fire, water + spirit of Paganism.
And there is also the 10-fold structure of reality of the Western Qabbalah too, which incorporates to my knowledge everything of all of the above.
Spend a few years with all that rattling around in your head, and then sit down to argue with a Materialist who proclaims only Matter exists, and you'll soon notice they are exactly as wise as a Christian theologist proclaiming "there is only one god, God"... except in reverse.
It is heartbreaking to meet fantastically clever people, who use the most mindbogglingly moronic arguments *Because they have been educated very badly*.
It's actually quite deliberate brainwashing, imo.
Reading back the above, I've realised its a bit choppy, and relies heavily on those two books to make much sense, because sadly I simply don't have the TIME right now to write a proper essay, and find the links/notes to explain it all.
TL;DR no, "It's" not just matter. But nor is "It" probably a dualism either (Apart from the ancient Taoist wisdoms). As Macluhen said, - or was it Leary? - "The Map is not the Territory", rather typically humans are fighting over a map of territory, rather than simply exploring that territory with an open mind.
OH! Before making your eyes bleed with a wall of text, I'll quickly add that Determinism AND Free Will are able to co-exist in the same philosophical framework without clashing.
But this requires a bit of creative thinking.
Consider the meaning of "Infinity" for a few seconds, until you reach the level of insanity required to encompass it.
OK. Now posit that the Universe is actually a Polyverse - there are multiple near-identical Polyverses.
Now posit that EVERY choice that EVERY creature across the Universe makes a separate entire Universe branch. Each time. Now you can see why it's important to be considering what "Infinity" means.
That's the background model, taken to its ultimate extent. (Irl many of the choices could be 'hacked' into a considerably reduced range of universes, but lets leave it at max to keep it simple).
NOW, posit a consciousness that sits astride ALL of these universes, and Time/Space itself - use whatever name for that you want, VALIS, Gawdess, Ego... whatever floats the boat.
That Universal Consciousness is aware of EVERY SINGLE CHOICE YOU COULD POSSIBLY MAKE during this lifetime. Every single choice is played out - including every possible choice of interacting with others.
Still with me on the thought-experiment Doctor?
Now I'm going to do what Einstein/Hawkins did with gravity [wells], reverse the perspective of the common model.
You DO get to choose in this model, whichever your individual path through the maze of choices in your particular experience. Obviously, there is a near-infinite number of Dr Niall McLaren's who chose slightly differently and they went off in their own path in their own Universe within the Polyverse.
But it is ALSO Deterministic, in that every possible choice has been predetermined.
Coming from the DiceMan (Another glorious book!), you give the dice the 6 choices. You can't choose to roll a 7 on one die. The choice is made by the die, but you have determined all possible outcomes.
Anyway, that is one way that free will and determinism can be unified, philosophically.
If anyone should so want to do.
Most people aren't interested in exploring new ideas, they just want to have the ego boost of having the "RIGHT" idea (Or even just argument) which they can smash others down with.
Oh look at that! Ends on the biocognitive model. :D
Will try to make time to look at them, I was never strong on reading popular books.
In that case, you might prefer to start with the second book first, 'LILA'. It is considerably more technical than ZAMM, which is more philosophical. I did it that way around (Due to finding the second first in a charity shop).
I 100% know what you mean about "popular" books, generally that which is promoted more tends to be lower quality. But sometimes its the sheer quality of the books/media itself that creates the popularity.
I hope you can find the time to explore these two short books - I used to read voraciously myself, but finding it much harder to devote the time to books now - the day is just FILLED with reading, albeit online text.
Of his two books, ZAMM is the better - one of possibly two or three 'perfect' books I've ever read, another being Siddhartha by Hesse.
Hey, you did write an essay. Will have a look on weekend, assuming Herr Drumpf hasn't blown us all to buggery by then. And have a peaceful birthday, let's hope he doesn't make it your last.
Thanks Niall, just got home from the pub out with friends. Funnily enough, today I used "Drumpf" for the first time myself, after seeing it used so many times by people naive enough to think this none of this would have happened under the demonrat wing of the US Uniparty over the past decade.
But now it seems to be a natural fit.
I suspect, if the nukes come, it will be by Israhelli hands.
ALTHOUGH, perhaps the US will launch before them, in a "pre-emptive defensive move" because there would be retal...
Bush Jr really moved the needle on manipulative language, and it seems it is reaching the logical conclusion now.
Got 5mins left, and then its just another normal day. ;)
Another day where the West just shows it is not fit to rule itself, let alone the rest of the entire World.
Good article. A few questions though, two derived from the table comparing your model with psychiatry's.
(1) If your model uses psychological treatment, why should traditional psychiatry exist at all? There should be only psychology, no psychiatry, right?
(2) You're a psychiatrist, I guess. So, following your own model, you don't, ever, prescribe medication (to address psychological problems). Am I right?
(3) Thomas S. Szasz. Was he also critical on psychiatry? Ultimately, did he have his own model?
Thanks
Yes, I'm a retired psychiatrist. Compared with the national averages, my prescription of drugs was about on the 3rd percentile. I saw large numbers of patients, far more than average, in working class areas, so a lot of unemployed people, pensioners, immigrants etc who were suspicious of psychiatric drugs so they rarely needed any encouragement to avoid them.
Is there a role for medical people in mental trouble? Yes, most definitely, the sticky borderland of physical trouble and mental, chronic pain, chronic illness etc. However, I definitely believe psychiatrists have too much power and have managed to dominate the narrative with their "mental disorder is brain disorder" trope.
Szasz did not have a theory of mind or mental disorder. I've discussed him in several chapters in McLaren N (2012). The Mind-Body Problem Explained:
Psychology doesn't need to exist and doesn't actually, like psychiatry, exist as a legitimate scientific field either.
Psychology is the study of what? We don't need another word for thinking (which Dr McLaren's model actually provides a solution for). Psychology gives the impression it is some kind of speciality but it is not as it cannot define its subject matter. All it does is clack and scan peoples' brains supporting the idea that mental disorder is brain disorder.
I'm quoting from a book of Alfred Binet. "UPON THE NECESSITY OF ESTABLISHING A SCIENTIFIC DIAGNOSIS OF INFERIOR STATES OF INTELLIGENCE" (1905) in France. How to spot an idiot? What types of idiocy? What amount of idiocy, ultimately. Those were the questions at stake.
Psychologists were good at it. Thus, they devised an IQ test.
Psychology was just starting.
I kid you not, these are three projects available with "doctors" in the psychology dept at my university:
Mapping brain fingerprints of psychosis across the lifespan
Emotion Recognition in the Brain: Neural and Behavioural Mechanisms across Neurotypical and Neurodiverse Populations
Exploring the mechanistic role of dopamine in emotion processing
As Szasz said-oh my god, they (psychologists) are even worse than psychiatrists.
I don't believe Szasz said that about psychologists. You tell me where/ when he said so, ok?
Szasz critique was mainly focused on Psychiatrists.
By the way, are you a psychiatrist or a psychologist..or what?
He did say that-I'm paraphrasing slightly, it was an in interview when as usual, he was criticizing everyone.
I "studied" psychology but of course there is nothing to specialize in unless you want to clack brains, put people in giant magnets or talk shit, so I mainly write occasional critical papers (obviously influenced by Szasz, Niall etc) and like most people, want to know how experience occurs.
I knew you couldn't prove it. And now I know you've just "studied" psychology.
Fine.
Questions always arise on this topic and whilst your model provides a solution, playing devil’s advocate somewhat, todays’ proponents of not having free will (regardless of whether physicalism is true or not) would likely counter:
You cannot choose what you choose to choose. I.e. in what sense did I choose to write the word choose just now. Schopenhauer quoted in the article which Einstein agreed with ostensibly (Man can do what he will but he cannot will what he wills https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/1273777-you-do-not-choose-what-you-choose).
Another popular argument I see commonly pop up is that of split-brain patient experiments (corpus callosum split). Due to contralateral control, an item presented to their left visual field in the right hemisphere could not be recalled verbally but the correct object was picked with their left hand. The patient then verbally confabulates why they picked/drew the thing they did not see or something like that suggesting this is similar of all choices we "make."
On animals (non-human animals) they clearly don’t have a level of consciousness we have (a room full of sick dogs can never reason to or look inside themselves). Not to say their consciousness is any less important, but it is different from ours which presumably relates to brain differences.
I've always thought the infinite regress argument is a red herring, esp. re "willing" actions. I don't think about an action, I simply do it. I cannot catch myself in the act of deciding to lift my arm, I can only lift it. The idea of something called "will" being inserted in the causative chain rightly falls victim to Occam's razor.
From dealing with them, I'm sure octopus have a different form of consciousness but mammals, no, I think they're like children, a bundle of impulses, likes and dislikes with no need for self-reflection.
Continuing to play devil's advocate, the modern argument (kind of a theory) if you're a neuroscientist etc. although some philosophers agree, is that even without will, thoughts just arise and since we don't control what they are, there is no free will to think what we want. An example would be if I ask what is someone's favorite food, the answers just come to mind, and there is no freedom in that. How would your model circumvent that?
Out of interest, when did you deal with octopus?
The freedom of thought arises in choosing which stream to follow and which to ignore. I'm in an exam and somebody walks by the open window humming a song; it triggers a memory but I quickly suppress it in favour of the exam. There is a constant mental ferment but I choose which ideas to follow. As for will, I feel a sense of thirst, I see a glass of water on the bench so I reach for it. I cannot recall making the decision as it is instantaneous, just two items of information coming together and resolving as one outcome. No room or need for something called "will" in that process. But I could have interposed another item, something like: "That's not my glass so I can't touch it." It is a question of action, not of some mystical element called "will." How does this action come about? That's easy, just nominate all the precursor elements and let the outcome compute itself.
As for octopus, we used to catch them by snorkelling but I realised they were aware and stopped. Was that projection? I don't think so.
This is where the confusion is for me to say with 100% confidence your model proves free will. Even with an informational space unaffected by thermodynamics, to say the outcome computes itself sounds like an automatic process I have no control over-i.e. how did I choose that computation? Or how did I choose to supress something-if I can’t suppress it is that also a choice- determinists would argue that both are automatic choices we have no control over but are simply appraised of the outcome. To use a more prosaic example, if I can’t remember someone’s name, it seems all I can do is wait until I do (wait until it just pops into my thoughts).
I think it is too difficult to prove as of course the counterfactual can never be tested (i.e. could I have done differently at that time).
Will go into it further this week.