So, what the heck is Scientism?

Politics and Social Issues
21
@drhansenjr - Where on Earth did you get the idea that I was saying that? So, uh, yes and no. Saying that science is just “a creation of the mind” would be a gross oversimplification. It is much more than that. By “science” I assume you are only referring to that part of science as the thought processes it entails and not the collaboration, communication, experimentation and the many other very physical activities it encompasses.

Scientific thinking certainly occurs in the mind, and some scientific thought is certainly created there, but there is not just creation. It is also the processing of inputs (cogitation and analysis are not, for the most part, what I would call creation), production of outputs, and, as I said, collaboration and communication. Dr. Wazoo picking up the phone and communicating some bit of information to his colleague, Dr. Dingo is not “creation” I don’t recall at the moment what part of the brain is responsible for speech, but this conversation between our two doctors is a matter of that part of the brain receiving information from wherever it was stored and in turn causing the part of Dr. Wazoo’s brain responsible for expelling air from his lungs over his vibrating larynx and out though his mouth while another part of his brain produces a complex flapping of his gums resulting in intelligible speech. Many different operations within the brain, all part of science, but most of it I would be hard pressed to call “creation”. Nor would I regard lab tech Bernard stirring something in a beaker or anthropologist Dr. Bones working with a spade and brush to uncover the remains of some newly-discovered Hominid.

So, however you got it into your head that I was saying anything about the relationship between the brain and science, please, if you’re going to ask something like the question quoted above, at least be clear about what you mean, and if you are going to say something about science, a subject dear to my heart, at least be sure you understand what science is and is not before referring to it, ridiculously, as just “creation of the mind.”

Really.


 

Many different operations within the brain, all part of science, but most of it I would be hard pressed to call “creation”.
Hmmm. When cells divide are two cells created? When certain sodium channels and ion transmissions reach certain thresholds, are hormonal cascades created, followed by other cascading consequences?

Please don’t get distracted misdefining what my words stand for.

As for the rest of what you wrote, you’re just avoiding the fundamental reality.

The mind, our consciousness, love, emotions, that weird thing that happens coming out of cat naps when you slowly come back into your body, the things we make with our two hands and vocal cords too, all that ultimately springs from our minds. There is nothing analogue to the mind within physical reality. It is something distinct, totally, intimately connected to the physical realm, but something totally and absolutely different - on the other side of a boundary that’s worth recognizing and pondering.

 

For instance, there is much more possible within your mindscape, (which of course encompasses art and passions and all the rest) than is possible in our physical world. Think about it.

peace :slight_smile:

 

 

22
@timb “Mind” is just a convenient umbrella term for all of the covert mental activities aka cognitive behaviors that we have, that have been shown to each have a neurological correlate.

Beyond that, the description of each of the individual cognitive behaviors that comprise “the mind” are difficult to observe directly and objectively, but we all can describe, to some degree, (from subjective self-observation of our thoughts), certain cognitive behaviors that we have.

So what is left to describe about what the term “mind” refers to?


A more descriptive term, might I suggest Mindscape ?

23
A more descriptive term, might I suggest Mindscape ?
@timb is asking an objective question. Can you put your ego aside and give him a straight objective answer that Noam Chomsky understands?
24

Since you like definitions so much

ped·ant
/ˈpednt/
Learn to pronounce

noun
noun: pedant; plural noun: pedants
a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.
“the royal palace (some pedants would say the ex-royal palace)”

 

Lots of pedants on internet forums. They usually burn themselves out after a bit.

25
creation

Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Idioms, Encyclopedia.Related to creations: thesaurus
cre·a·tion
(krē-ā′shən)n.1.a. The act of creating.
b. The fact or state of having been created.
2. The act of investing with a new office or title.
3.a. The world and all things in it.
b. All creatures or a class of creatures.
4. Creation The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the worldwas brought into existence.
5. An original product of human invention or artistic imagination: the latest creation in the field of computerdesign.

cre·a′tion·al adj.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
creation
(kriːˈeɪʃən)n1. the act or process of creating
2. the fact of being created or produced
3. something that has been brought into existence or created, esp a product of human intelligence orimagination
4. the whole universe, including the world and all the things in it
5. (Clothing & Fashion) an unusual or striking garment or hat
creˈational adj

Creation
(kriːˈeɪʃən)n1. (Theology) the Creation God’s act of bringing the universe into being
2. (Theology) the universe as thus brought into being by God
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
cre•a•tion
(kriˈeɪ ʃən)

n.1. the act of creating or engendering.
2. the fact of being created.
3. something that is created.
4. the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God.
5. the world; universe.
6. creatures collectively.
[1350–1400; Middle English < Latin]
cre•a′tion•al, cre•a′tion•ar`y (-ʃəˌnɛr i) adj.
Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.


I was thinking deliberately obtuse, but Lausten has a point.

26

Dan, did you notice:

3. something that has been brought into existence or created, esp a product of human intelligence or imagination
 
Let me try it from the top:

There is Physical Reality, stuff and processes, our bodies and all they hold and so on. Apart and distinct from that is the product of our human minds, consciousness, for my more poetic purposes I like referring to it as our ‘Human Mindscape.’

Neither Science or Religion are part of the Physical Reality of ‘stuff’ - they are products of our mind, of whatever it is that happens at the other side of physical synapses and molecular cascades.

Nothing Woo about this. It’s all about perspective and appreciating physical reality’s boundaries.

 

Science seeks to objectively learn about our physical world, but we should still recognize all our understanding is embedded within and constrained by our brain’s mindscape.

Religion is all about the human mindscape itself, with its wonderful struggles, fears, spiritual undercurrents, needs and stories we create to give our live’s meaning and make it worth living, or at least bearable.

 

What’s the point? I think it’s about better appreciating our ‘frame of reference’ - and especially recognizing that we aren’t the center of creation, which I believe too many people including scholars fall into without even recognizing it.

This is important today because some others have convinced themselves that they actually have a personal Almighty God in their back pockets, when in fact our Gods are as transient as governments and the human species itself.

Religions, heaven, hell, science, political beliefs, economy, even God, they are all products of the human mindscape, generations of imaginings built upon previous generations of imaginings, all the way down.

That is not to say they are the same thing, they are not! Science is dedicated to honestly and objectively understanding physical reality while religion is concerned with the human imagination, our “soul” and spirit and our struggles through difficult short lives. They are different, but both are necessary human inventions we rely on.

 

Still, both are destined to be swept away by the hands of time, while Earth and life and evolution will continue its dance.

27
So what is left to describe about what the term “mind” refers to?

So much. We can’t put a thought in a bottle. We can barely identified areas in the brain that light up in response to certain stimuli. We can’t take an image in my head and transfer it in whole to yours. We don’t know how such things form other than “in the brain” or “by neuron activity”.


I don’t know whether I am being obtuse, or you are.

You can’t put time in a bottle. There are a lot of things that one cannot put in a bottle. How is that relevant? I suppose you are saying that since there is nothing observable to an objective observer, then… what?.. we must assume that it is mysteriously lacking in substance?

The fact remains that just about everyone can report when they have a certain thought, or when they visualize something that is not present. Do you just blow away all of that evidence because it is primarily from subjective reports? Of course not.

And as far as the neurological correlates, we already have the technology to make crude detection of a specific correlate, and to use that to say, think a thought that signals a piece of technology to react to that thought.

This is not ready for prime time, as currently, to get a good “thought signal”, one needs carefully implanted sensors, in to the brain.

Alternatively, the “thought signal” could be detected by a less intrusive, but for a much weaker signal, with EEG type detection.

https://www.ericsson.com/en/blog/2020/4/brain-controlled-technology-in-ten-years

The point being, that eventually we will have the technology for one person to picture a rose, and for an intervening piece of reception and expressive technological device to show another person a similar picture of a rose.

Now your point about not knowing all there is to know about how our thoughts form, we know a lot already, I think. Yes there is probably more that we don’t know about the neurological correlates. Are they more than just the neural activities that we are already familiar with? That may likely. (I think that we don’t know what a lot of stuff in our brains, actually does.)

But if we, accept the stance that our cognitions of all types, are “behaviors”, then we can apply the well established principles of behavior, in order to do functional analyses of these behaviors that comprise what we refer to as parts our “mind”.

 

 

28
When you refer to the “physical world” do you actually mean the tangible world?

When I hear “physical world”, that, to me, includes the tangible as well as the intangible, such as mental activity/perception of all sorts (which you would refer to by that horrid, made-up term “mindscape.”)


Obviously, but my contention is that muddling of two, that is the tangible with the intangible, does our efforts to understand the reality we are embedded within a disservice. It also invites the monstrous and minor demonstrations of hubris I see displayed all over the place.

Science is about our understanding of things, based on this, and this …

Science does not tell us what things are, Science tell us what we’ve learned about stuff, based on the available evidence - in the full appreciation that their understanding is provisional awaiting on more and better evidence. Facts gathering.

@drhansenjr “Physical world” = “natural world” = “real world” <> the supernatural or paranormal.
Why are you so insistent on bringing the supernatural and paranormal into this. I have never said anything about paranormal. I don't even consider it as part of the world I inhabit. It's a figment of fertile imaginations, it belongs totally within our "mindscapes" as real as Sherlock Holmes, but with no correlate in the real world of Earth's Evolution. The one that was here before us and will be here after we are gone.

 

You know the irony of all this is that your challenges have made me think about it all over again, but every thought reinforces the appropriateness of “Mindscape” as a term because I’m trying to encompass the entire breath of what goes on inside of our minds, consciousness, but wait there’s more, consider the countless unconsciousness connections between your mind and your body, some of it you’re are vaguely aware of, if you are the attentive sort, but so much beyond our ability to “consciously” sense, yet it impinges on our “consciousness” often enough.

 

Thinking about consciousness. In my forties and fifties I did a lot of framing carpentry. Eight hours and more of physical work and a half hour for lunch. We’d get together have lunch with a lot of chatter, but given my aging and beginning decline, I learned that I’d do much better with a “power nap”. I took 10-15 minutes to eat and then I’d lay down, yeah I could nap on a slab of ply. It was a wild ride, eyes closed relaxing thinking about the conversations flying past me, sometimes chiming in, then descend into full on unconscious sleep, but the conversation continues around me and on some level it was being tracked, even forming the basis for dreams occasionally. Lunch over and the tone of conversation ended and I (my body, that is) knew it was time to come out of it, like out of a hypnotic trance (in the movies, I’ve never seen or experienced that bit of mental trickery.). The coming back into the body and the body getting moving again and getting reconnected with the command center and the mind getting reoriented to the task at hand and then kicking in with physical action - it was fascinating to observe. Quite different from the morning routine.

 

That’s one reason I’m left with no alternative than Mindscape, because it’s trying to describe a mental world brimming with scenes and knowledge and lordie only knows what all. But, the point is that all of it, including the interacting with other people, etc., originates on the other side of those physical synapsis and ion channels and all the rest of the intricacies unfolding within our little gray cells. That boundary I believe needs to be much better recognized and appreciated.

I didn’t realize it would be such a mental hurdle.

I must be a strange cat. :wink:

29
I don’t know whether I am being obtuse, or you are.
Tim, I hope you didn't think my earlier use of obtuse was referring to you. You've posted nothing I'd argue with, I'm just taking it a little further that you. I'm dancing with Daniel on this one, I need more of that sort of direction critique, not going to pass up my chance when it comes along.

 

30
Science seeks to objectively learn about our physical world, but we should still recognize all our understanding is embedded within and constrained by our brain’s mindscape.

Religion is all about the human mindscape itself, with its wonderful struggles, fears, spiritual undercurrents, needs and stories we create to give our live’s meaning and make it worth living, or at least bearable.


A poetic and sexy term, “Mindscape”. But don’t let it obscure the reality that all of our thoughts are behaviors. Some of these behaviors we can be subjectively aware of.

Neither Science or Religion are part of the Physical Reality of ‘stuff’ – they are products of our mind, of whatever it is that happens at the other side of physical synapses and molecular cascades.
Religion and Science are in great part a product of our advanced verbal behaviors. Like all behaviors our verbal behaviors are functional and a product of contingencies. Other than that, in the case of thoughts, I don't think that there is anything "that happens at the other side of physical synapses and molecular cascades". Our brain does its processing and we experience our cognitive behavior of the moment.

(Note, I am not being pedantic about this stuff. I just think that I have some ideas that other people have not considered.)

 
 
31
The fact remains that just about everyone can report when they have a certain thought, or when they visualize something that is not present. -- CC
I'm being slightly obtuse, maybe about 96 degrees. I agree with all the stuff you said, but we've gone way beyond "plain English" haven't we? Which was the original point we were discussing. I still say you can't do that with "mind". You seem to be focusing on our imaginations, forming images and descriptions in our mind, but that comes way later in my opinion.

Yes, everyone thinks they are reporting their thoughts, but recent experiments show those thoughts come from somewhere we are unaware of, from what we would be more likely to call “feelings”. Then, the thoughts try to explain the feelings, i.e. we rationalize why we had that sexual thought about whatever image just flashed by and we layer on our culture and your reasonable cognitive abilities that keep us from acting on that feeling/thought inappropriately. Is our mind the thing that generated the base instinctual thoughts, or is it the thing that works out the words that explain that reaction to stimuli? Well, it’s both right? So are hormones included in the mind? Every sense detecting mechanism to the tips of our fingers? What about senses like “balance” why do I have trouble doing a cartwheel and some people can do triple flips?

 

32
I’m being slightly obtuse, maybe about 96 degrees. I agree with all the stuff you said, but we’ve gone way beyond “plain English” haven’t we? Which was the original point we were discussing. I still say you can’t do that with “mind”. You seem to be focusing on our imaginations, forming images and descriptions in our mind, but that comes way later in my opinion.
Well I think that I gave a decent "plain English" description of what the term "mind" refers to. But if you want further description, then there are volumes of potential descriptions of all of the types and examples of all of the cognitions that we have.
Yes, everyone thinks they are reporting their thoughts, but recent experiments show those thoughts come from somewhere we are unaware of, from what we would be more likely to call “feelings”. Then, the thoughts try to explain the feelings...
Each of those thoughts are cognitive behaviors (part of what we refer to as actions of our minds). We ARE aware of and can report some of our thoughts. And there is also much that we are not aware of.
... we rationalize why we had that sexual thought about whatever image just flashed by and we layer on our culture and your reasonable cognitive abilities that keep us from acting on that feeling/thought inappropriately. Is our mind the thing that generated the base instinctual thoughts, or is it the thing that works out the words that explain that reaction to stimuli? Well, it’s both right?
Right. All of that can be included in what we call "mind". Every sense that we have (the typical 5 senses, plus proprioception as well as sensing where our own body is in space) is potentially involved in the formation and the interplay of our various cognitive behaviors. And hormones, definitely have an impact on our cognitions.

As far as your gymnastic abilities, I am not sure how that relates to our discussion. Except I would say that our cognitive skills are much like our overt behavioral skills, in that some people have certain skills and others don’t.

33
why do I have trouble doing a cartwheel and some people can do triple flips?
If you had started training when you were 4 yrs of age, and practiced diligently for many years, you would likely be able to do triple flips.

However you obviously spent more time on developing cognitive skills. e.g., You could, no doubt take Simone Biles down, in a debate, with your cognitive skills.

34
Is our mind the thing that generated the base instinctual thoughts, or is it the thing that works out the words that explain that reaction to stimuli?
That one's easy, no entity can be understood without also appreciating the environment it is embedded within and interacting with.

It’s a dance between input and neurons, on more levels than we can imagine.

Still, nothing anyone has said here, disputes that the mind, the product of our brain originating in synapsids, supported and formed by physical entities, but mind, the home of our thoughts and all our conceptions, that thing that has eluded scientists since like for ever. Today with amazing hardware and software, hints seem to be appearing, but still every time I hear an expert sharing their opinion, they all fall back on, it’s still a mystery, a black box. That’s telling us something.

 

My proposed Mindscape v. Physical Reality boundary does not conflict with anything science has produced, all the aforementioned handwaving not withstanding.

What I’m becoming more and more convinced of is that the problem is that it conflicts with our ego driven perceptions of our place in the universe. Well okay I thought that all along, just didn’t realize how correct I was.

 

{For what it’s worth Lausten, that above quote, labeled -CC, is not from me. :slight_smile: }

35

CC, That quote was from me.

I noticed that Lausten put your moniker next to a quote from me, but I just let it go.

Also, I used the word “obtuse” in an earlier post in regards to my discussion with Lausten. (It’s weird that I used the word “obtuse”, before I registered that it had been used by you, in another post.)

36
I am not usually easily irritated, but I am passionate about clear, effective and unambiguous writing, because poor writing frequently leads to miscommunication and, in the context of business and technology, where I served as an IT director for some 17 years, can very easily cause everything from delays to systems that either do not function or produce inaccurate results. -- DrJr
That's a run on sentence about being a good sentence writer.
Creation: Something that happens as a part of a process that results in a change of state or initiation of some event vs. the creation of a new object or entity that did not previously exist? -- DrJr
As much as I could bear to follow the arguing about the word "creation", it seemed like you were trying to use the word in a way that it would only be accurate if you were talking about the beginning of the universe, like the point before time and the laws of physics as we know them existed. That's the only "previously existed" you seemed to be accepting (and I realize you didn't specifically state it that way, so, correct me if I'm wrong [as if I need to invite you to correct me]). Because, technically, everything after that, after the initial cooling and creation of matter, nothing else has been created or destroyed, just transformed. So, technically, you don't "create" a baby, one is grown from the available nutrition that comes from the mother. You don't "create" a cake, you assemble it from ingredients. But that's pedantic to use the word in that technical way.
Bottom line: I think we would have had more to discuss more interesting issues if some of the statements here were expressed more clearly up front as as result of consideration of their likely understanding or interpretation by others. -- DrJr
Bottom line: even when you write a long post about sorting out definitions, you include two possible definitions in one without saying which one you think is better.
37

Daniel, I’m trying very hard to be clear, succinct even. I’m thinking you’re being a bit more knee jerk reflex, so you’re tossing everything at me, without actually thinking through what I’m trying to explain. If you deliberately misrepresent what I’m explaining then of course it’s remain as crazy as you want it to be. I’ve addressed your specifics.

Now you’re just piling up words, all the while staying away from recognizing, or even acknowledging, the black box of the human mind… and human consciousness… the home of our ALL our thoughts. So reaching second base is impossible.

I would hope the average Joe would start at the beginning of my argument and follow it in good faith.

 

 

@timb - Is our mind the thing that generated the base instinctual thoughts, or is it the thing that works out the words that explain that reaction to stimuli?

That one’s easy, no entity can be understood without also appreciating the environment it is embedded within and interacting with.

It’s a dance between input and neurons, on more levels than we can imagine.

Still, nothing anyone has said here, disputes that the mind, the product of our brain originating in synapsids, supported and formed by physical entities, but mind, the home of our thoughts and all our conceptions, that thing that has eluded scientists since like for ever. Today with amazing hardware and software, hints seem to be appearing, but still every time I hear an expert sharing their opinion, they all fall back on, it’s still a mystery, a black box. That’s telling us something.

My proposed Mindscape v. Physical Reality boundary does not conflict with anything science has produced, all the aforementioned handwaving not withstanding.

What I’m becoming more and more convinced of, is that the problem is that it conflicts with our ego driven perceptions of our place in the universe. Well okay I thought that all along, just didn’t realize how correct I was and what defensive contortions folks would be driven too.

Why am I surprised, don 't know, after all I been championing climate science for a half century and we can see how well that one has gone, even though the science has never been show to be significantly wrong (if anyone want to dispute it please do it with facts and sources, not FOX news soundbites, please do - under new thread.) - best contrarians can do is quibble about percentage points and chump change, while ignoring the gathering storm clouds over head.

@timb - But don’t let it obscure the reality that all of our thoughts are behaviors.
Really?

Definition of behavior

1: the way in which someone conducts oneself or behaves

2a: the manner of conducting oneself criminal behavior normal adolescent behavior
b: anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation
c: the response of an individual, group, or species to its environment They are studying the behavior of elephants in the wild.

3: the way in which something functions or operates

 


Hmmm, never thought of it that way, will have to chew on it, but, but, it seems to me there’s a lot of observing, and processing of information, that doesn’t trigger actions or behaviors that we are aware of, even it’s perhaps true at the imperceptible microscopic level.

 

38
CC said, ...it seems to me there’s a lot of observing, and processing of information, that doesn’t trigger actions or behaviors that we are aware of, even it’s perhaps true at the imperceptible microscopic level.
It may be helpful to recognize that there are 2 major categories of behavior: 1) Respondent and 2) Operant.

Suffice it, for now, to say that behaviors that we do a lot of, are often going on without our focused awareness. Heart beating, breathing, blinking, etc., etc. These are in-born behaviors (not learned thru an individual history). So many of these behaviors, Respondent behaviors, happen outside of our awareness.

There are other reasons that we often do behaviors that we are not aware of. Consider the Operant behavior of “being aware”. This is a learned behavior. It is probably enhanced by our advanced verbal behavior development (also Operant behavior). Now consider that with advanced verbal behavior we can describe things. As we describe things, we focus more on and become more aware of things.

Now consider that before you were three years of age, there is not much you could describe, if anything, that you experienced (before you developed advanced verbal behavior).

 

 

 
39
@timb Now consider that with advanced verbal behavior we can describe things. As we describe things, we focus more on and become more aware of things.

Now consider that before you were three years of age, there is not much you could describe, if anything, that you experienced (before you developed advanced verbal behavior).


Okay I’m following what you are saying, but I’m not getting the point you are trying to make as it pertains to the boundary between Physical Reality and our Mindscape.

 

“Now consider that with advanced verbal behavior we can describe things. As we describe things, we focus more on and become more aware of things.” and thus our mindscapes grow. :slight_smile:

 

40
Okay I’m following what you are saying, but I’m not getting the point you are trying to make as it pertains to the boundary between Physical Reality and our Mindscape.
I don't know your concept well enough to answer that, very well. But, now that you explicitly ask what I think of a boundary between physical reality and what you refer to as Mindscape, I will say that I did want to provide input that would highlight that any of our cognitive or other covert behaviors, ARE part of PHYSICAL REALITY.

Although, cognitive behaviors are special in that they tend to be difficult or impossible to observe and track, in others. But, perhaps, more importantly, they are special because they can, often, be described subjectively.