[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Fate, Luck and Chance



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> 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/
>
>
> 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> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>> 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> 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/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>