5 ms·

It's kind of weird how this comes from a "scientist" instead of a philosopher. I read the article and it's basically saying this scientist guy came up with the

It's kind of weird how this comes from a "scientist" instead of a philosopher. I read the article and it's basically saying this scientist guy came up with the definitive "definition" of the mind so other scientists can have a common ground to build upon. While I understand where this is coming from, I still don't understand why a "scientist" is advertising this concept as something novel. Also I can't believe a scientist--who should know better--is trying to define this. This debate has existed throughout human history and you could even arguably say the entire history of philosophy is to figure out the answer to this problem. I also visited the author's book page on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Journey-Heart-Being-Human/dp/039371053X?tag=quartz07-20 https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Journey-Heart-Being-Human/dp/039... (of which this article is an advertorial), and just look at that cover art. This is not a "scientist" material. Really reminds me of some Eckhart Tolle stuff.

fiatjaf 10y ago
You're probably right on all the other comments, but to say that "the entire history of philosophy is to figure out the answer to this problem" is bad. Real philosophers, like those who lived from Socrates until Descartes, care too little to this question to even mention it, as the answer is given from the start.
- cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  Are you saying everyone who called themselves philosophers after Decartes is fake? And I wouldn't just call someone "wrong" when it's obvious that you're making an opinion. As for the "real philosophers" thinking about this, learn more here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_self https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_self
  - fiatjaf 10y ago
    When I say "like those who..." I mean that all these were real philosophers, after Descartes that is not a rule anymore. I would say that the real rule today is: everyone who publishes in philosophy magazines or has a chair in some philosophy department on some university is NOT a philosopher, all the others are. As you can see from that Wikipedia article, the theme is totally ignored by philosophers. Wikipedia makes a huge effort to make a full article for it, but only achieves a small text full of sparse references to unrelated topics (self-knowledge, which is clearly not the same thing as we are talking about here; and various superficial silly comments from post-Descartes people).
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
infpetal 10y ago
Hi cocktailpeanuts, Can I share with you some of the things I learned through reading his books? You say he did this for scientists to share a common ground, but there is a more practical reason too. He's a practicing psychiatrist who has written books to help the general population with their mental health and relationships. That is how I found him - through exploring attachment theory, of which he discusses a great deal. What does this have to do with the idea of the mind as a self-emerging process, or a healthy mind as integrated? It's this idea that is leveraged in his books to help teach people how to develop their mental health. It gives them a clear and concrete path to follow. The idea of integration is not just for intellectual beauty - it is a teaching tool. He used an analogy of a choir to teach attachment theory. Anxious attachment: multiple people singing the same, prolonged, single note - connected, not differentiated. Avoidant attachment: everyone singing a different song - differentiated, not connected. A choir of people singing the same song, connected, and in harmony with a variety of pitches, differentiated, represents secure attachment and integration. There is a visceral experience of something wonderful emerging when you hear the secure choir vs insecure, and likewise the well-being and health that comes from a secure attachment relationship (or an integrated mind) is viscerally wonderful too. If you are happy to look at his ideas for their teaching applications, I encourage further investigation of his books and talks. They have been an anchor for my healing from trauma and I am deeply thankful.
- mcguire 10y ago
  If you have read his books, is this a suitable description of his definition of mind: "After much discussion, they decided that a key component of the mind is: “the emergent self-organizing process, both embodied and relational, that regulates energy and information flow within and among us.”" Just between you and me, I don't think that is very spectacular. But it's been years since I kept up with readings in the theory of mind.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
Cybiote 10y ago
I'm skeptical he made up any definitions since it hews quite close to existing ideas. With developments in AI, neuroscience and even physics, this stuff is starting to enter into science proper. The errors of the piece are no worse than your average pop piece (mostly in placing too much emphasis on chaos given how theoretical, compared to even the rest, that viewpoint is).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
WhitneyLand 10y ago
Yes, it's a mess. Its a poor mixture of: - Scientific hypothesis of consciousness - Self help / therapeutic framework - Biology - Metaphysics The author should pick one of these perspectives and make a stronger case for one rather a weak case for all.
naasking 10y ago
> Also I can't believe a scientist--who should know better--is trying to define this. We're all philosophers, some are just better than others. The legitimacy of his argument is not dependent on his formal training, and so using this as a reason to dismiss his argument isn't valid.
- cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  where did i dismiss his argument? I said he shouldn't sell "science" to tell this story. This is not science.
  - naasking 10y ago
    Interpretation is part of every scientific theory. Many scientific theories that start exploring a new domain posit working definitions that and change and get refined over time.

fiatjaf 10y ago

You're probably right on all the other comments, but to say that "the entire history of philosophy is to figure out the answer to this problem" is bad. Real philosophers, like those who lived from Socrates until Descartes, care too little to this question to even mention it, as the answer is given from the start.

cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
Are you saying everyone who called themselves philosophers after Decartes is fake? And I wouldn't just call someone "wrong" when it's obvious that you're making an opinion. As for the "real philosophers" thinking about this, learn more here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_self https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_self
- fiatjaf 10y ago
  When I say "like those who..." I mean that all these were real philosophers, after Descartes that is not a rule anymore. I would say that the real rule today is: everyone who publishes in philosophy magazines or has a chair in some philosophy department on some university is NOT a philosopher, all the others are. As you can see from that Wikipedia article, the theme is totally ignored by philosophers. Wikipedia makes a huge effort to make a full article for it, but only achieves a small text full of sparse references to unrelated topics (self-knowledge, which is clearly not the same thing as we are talking about here; and various superficial silly comments from post-Descartes people).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

infpetal 10y ago

Hi cocktailpeanuts, Can I share with you some of the things I learned through reading his books? You say he did this for scientists to share a common ground, but there is a more practical reason too. He's a practicing psychiatrist who has written books to help the general population with their mental health and relationships. That is how I found him - through exploring attachment theory, of which he discusses a great deal. What does this have to do with the idea of the mind as a self-emerging process, or a healthy mind as integrated? It's this idea that is leveraged in his books to help teach people how to develop their mental health. It gives them a clear and concrete path to follow. The idea of integration is not just for intellectual beauty - it is a teaching tool. He used an analogy of a choir to teach attachment theory. Anxious attachment: multiple people singing the same, prolonged, single note - connected, not differentiated. Avoidant attachment: everyone singing a different song - differentiated, not connected. A choir of people singing the same song, connected, and in harmony with a variety of pitches, differentiated, represents secure attachment and integration. There is a visceral experience of something wonderful emerging when you hear the secure choir vs insecure, and likewise the well-being and health that comes from a secure attachment relationship (or an integrated mind) is viscerally wonderful too. If you are happy to look at his ideas for their teaching applications, I encourage further investigation of his books and talks. They have been an anchor for my healing from trauma and I am deeply thankful.

mcguire 10y ago
If you have read his books, is this a suitable description of his definition of mind: "After much discussion, they decided that a key component of the mind is: “the emergent self-organizing process, both embodied and relational, that regulates energy and information flow within and among us.”" Just between you and me, I don't think that is very spectacular. But it's been years since I kept up with readings in the theory of mind.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

Cybiote 10y ago

I'm skeptical he made up any definitions since it hews quite close to existing ideas. With developments in AI, neuroscience and even physics, this stuff is starting to enter into science proper. The errors of the piece are no worse than your average pop piece (mostly in placing too much emphasis on chaos given how theoretical, compared to even the rest, that viewpoint is).

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

WhitneyLand 10y ago

Yes, it's a mess. Its a poor mixture of: - Scientific hypothesis of consciousness - Self help / therapeutic framework - Biology - Metaphysics The author should pick one of these perspectives and make a stronger case for one rather a weak case for all.

naasking 10y ago

> Also I can't believe a scientist--who should know better--is trying to define this. We're all philosophers, some are just better than others. The legitimacy of his argument is not dependent on his formal training, and so using this as a reason to dismiss his argument isn't valid.

cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
where did i dismiss his argument? I said he shouldn't sell "science" to tell this story. This is not science.
- naasking 10y ago
  Interpretation is part of every scientific theory. Many scientific theories that start exploring a new domain posit working definitions that and change and get refined over time.