[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