[Xmca-l] Re: Fate, Luck and Chance
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Wed Nov 26 06:47:32 PST 2014
Exactly! There is a difference between the objective processes (which
can be studied by science) which produce, or as you say, yield the
illusion and the illusion itself. That is the *whole* point. To deny
this difference in the name of "embedded consciousness" or rejecting
"some kind of mental process" as "mysterious" is to retreat into
absurdities. We *do* indeed experience consciousness (i.e. mental
processes), i.e., we experience illusions, but these illusions arise
from objective, material processes which we can understand and study.
But the illusion *in itself*, the product, cannot be studied
scientifically. And for the same reason - that is, that the illusions
arise from from objective material processes, they are *useful guides to
those material processes* for the beings which enjoy those illusions and
have to live by them.
Vygotsky calls them "phantoms". Do a search on "phantom" in that web page.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
Huw Lloyd wrote:
> It may not be clear to foreign readers. When I read the english
> phrase, "one has only to apply the formula to see what is the matter",
> I understand it as "one has only to apply the formula in order to see
> what is wrong with it".
>
> This seems quite consistent with LSV's follow on point about
> separating direct experience from knowledge. In terms of studying
> consciousness a useful distinction could be made between the system
> yielding consciousness at any given time and the experience of
> consciousness itself. (Note that I don't consider these to be
> distinct things, but rather distinct foci).
>
> Huw
>
> On 26 November 2014 at 14:13, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
> In physics we try to eliminate the subjective factor from what we
> perceive as an object. In psychology, when we study perception it
> is again required to separate perception as such, as it is, from
> how it seems to me. Who will study what has been eliminated both
> times, this /*appearance*/?
>
> But the problem of appearance is an apparent problem. After all,
> in science we want to learn about the /*real*/ and not the
> /*apparent*/ cause of appearance. This means that we must take the
> phenomena as they exist independently from me. The appearance
> itself is an /*illusion*/ (in Titchener’s basic example:
> Muller-Lyer’s lines are physically equal, psychologically one of
> them is longer). This is the difference between the viewpoints of
> physics and psychology. It /*does not exist in reality*/, but
> results from two non-coincidences of two really existing
> processes. If I would know the physical nature of the two lines
> and the objective laws of the eye, as they are in themselves, I
> would get the explanation of the appearance, of the illusion as a
> result. The study of the subjective factor in the knowledge of
> this illusion is a subject of logic and the historical theory of
> knowledge: just like being, the subjective is the result of two
> processes which are objective in themselves. The mind is not
> always a subject. In introspection it is split into object and
> subject. The question is whether in introspection phenomenon and
> being coincide. One has only to apply the epistemological formula
> of materialism, given by Lenin (a similar one can be found in
> Plekhanov) for the /*psychological subject-object*/, in order to
> see what is the matter:
>
> the only ‘property’ of matter connected with philosophical
> materialism is the property of being an objective reality, of
> existing outside of our consciousness ... Epistemologically the
> concept of matter means nothing other than objective reality,
> existing independently from human consciousness and reflected by
> it. [Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism
> <http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/five2.htm#bkV14P260F01>]
>
> Elsewhere Lenin says that this is, essentially, the principle of
> /*realism*/, but that he avoids this word, because it has been
> captured by inconsistent thinkers.
>
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/crisis/psycri13.htm#p1371
>
>
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>
>
> Martin John Packer wrote:
>
> Where does LSV say that consciousness is an illusion, Andy?
>
> Martin
>
> On Nov 26, 2014, at 8:58 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
> No, no! And we are close to agreement here!
> LSV says that consciousness is an illusion, and science
> does not study illusions, but that this illusion arises
> from the "noncoincidence" of two objective, material
> processes, physiology and behaviour, both of which can be
> studied by science (just as light rays and the things
> reflected by light rays can), therefore we can study
> scientifically how these illusions arise and how they
> mediate human activity! This is called psychology. I
> completely agree with Vygotsky. Don't you?
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>
>
> Martin John Packer wrote:
>
>
> Andy, LSV argues in Crisis that a science does not,
> cannot, study illusions. Science studies what actually
> exists, and in doing so seeks to *explain* how
> illusions occur. Science studies the real candle and
> the real mirror, in order to *explain* how an image of
> a candle appears in the mirror.
>
> By saying that consciousness is an illusion, you
> appear to be suggesting that it cannot be studied
> scientifically. Or perhaps you find some flaw with
> LSV's argument?
>
> Martin
>
> On Nov 26, 2014, at 8:21 AM, Andy Blunden
> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Huw, don't misunderstand me. By saying
> "consciousness is an illusion" I am saying
> something very positive about it. It is an
> illusion which proves more or less adequate for
> guiding my activity, just as for example, my rear
> vision mirror is adequate for guiding my driving,
> because I am "educated" about mirrors. It is
> useful I think to frankly say that consciousness
> is an illusion - an illusion with survival value
> for humans - because it opens a point of agreement
> between the positivists and the psychologists. We
> both can say "consciousness is an illusion." OK,
> let's discuss that.
>
> But consciousness differs from a material process
> like stimuli-response, that is, an unmediated
> relation between an organism and its environment,
> between physiology and behaviour. This is what the
> neuroscientist typically overlooks. We say "yes,
> the mediating element is just an illusion, which
> is why you can't find it, but hey! it's a very
> useful illusion." :)
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>
>
> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> I would concur with Andy that 'mysterious' is
> not useful, but I'd say
> Andy's use of 'illusion' has this problem too,
> because any such illusions
> are materially manifested.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list