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

[Andy Blunden]

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.
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>       
>
>
>
>
>