Ask Prospero anything...thread

[robertlouis]

My goodness chaps, this has become seriously serious.

Just what would mother say?

[danthepoetman]

Sorry, guys: I wish I could have participated to the discussion I somewhat launched, but my gf either confiscated the computer or used it the whole time it lasted - and I'm left to wonder what indeed Freud would say about that...

Though I might agree with Prospero's reference to Wittgenstein, I can't have any tuck with Stravos's Freud crap.

There is a trend to err on the side of determinism – we are defined by our genotype. What naturally concerns us all is that we are not the free agents we would like ourselves to be. However, we ought to worry less about the causes and more about effects. On any plausible view of the world, the aetiology of our behaviour will include causes that are beyond our control. So if anything can make a difference, it is not the existence of such causes, but rather the kind of effects they have. When it comes to free will, what matters is our cognitive phenotype, not its genotypic source. Ordinary responsible behaviour and diverse cognitive and behaviour pathologies that do involve diminished responsibility may both have genetic bases, so the fact of genetic determination, insofar as it is a fact, will not explain the contrast. Of course if you want to alter effects, you will want to look back to causes that may provide you with a handle. So the possibility of substantially increased powers of genetic intervention will give those concerned about human autonomy plenty to worry about. Genetic knowledge does not itself threaten free will, but what we do with that knowledge is another story.

No offence to my good Prospero -nor to you, Stavros, my friend-, but I think Martin nailed it pretty precisely here. Thank you, buddy. Very bright and eloquent!
The reason why I compared animals and humans, Stavros, which seems to have shocked you, is that today, we tend define animals as beings who are the "prisonners", if you will, of their own determinisms. But we know that all animals, to the very simplest, can learn by trial and errors. As the number of responses required by their environment increases, so does the brain and thereof the capacity for a broader range of responses. Obviously, we do have a level of freedom -it's undeniable. Yet, it is obvious by taking account of history and by studying societies through time and geography, also of course by studying human behavior in general, that we too are largely determined by inner and/or by intra-specific impulses. The range of answers to the environment is greater, but the pattern is the same. Culture as shown to largely be the simple surface or presentation of "nature" -as much as these concept are meaningful. So thought Schopenhauer, by the way, one of the great inspirations of Freud, who on the other hand denied having read his work before formulating his own theories to the time of his death, which has to be baloney, like most of what came from this illustrious charlatan.
It seems to me that Martin -whom I'm starting to suspect is an unknown relative, a Corsican twin or something- nailed it to the bone once again with this one:

Untestable - All Freud's theories are built upon their own internal logic which cannot be proved either way. Internally consistent, but externally unprovable.

Even if we know that someone had no father figure against whom to compete for his mother's affection, what does that tell us about his future behaviour?

Theory not based on a large sample of people, or tested under experimental conditions with control groups, etc. Freud's patients were largely wealthy hysterical Victorian middle-class women in Vienna in the late 1800s.

Freud invented many new terms, but rarely defined exactly what he meant.


Metaphysical - abstract throughout and not testable via empirical methods.
Personal projection of Freud's own life, fantasies and conflict with his own father (Oedipus Complex)?

Freud deals with the unconscious mind that he claims can only be understood through dreams, slips of the tongue, etc. But, do we really understand how the conscious mind itself works? Answer: No. Therefore, how can something that does not understand itself, begin to interpret what the unconscious mind generate.


(I never thought I would be having such heavy discussions on a tranny porn site)

I would add to this that it is well known today, Stavros, that Freud was a guru and a charlatan of the purest type. Scrupulous historical reaserches have shown that EACH and EVERY ONE of Freud's human case examples was left after "therapy" with as many problems as he started it with; some of them were commited for long periods of time after and one of them (the famous wolf obsessed man, I think) even died in an asylum, when Freud pretended improvement if not complete resolution of neurosis for all of them. Many were also shown to be simple frauds, like the little Hans with the horse, taken as a case example, who was characterised by Freud as the victim of a complex sexual neurosis involving a bad resolution of the oedipus -which I have to remind you, is at the center of Freud's psychology, and not a secondary element you can discount to appreciate the rest! An adult Hans revealed that Freud had hardly seen him, for the "therapy", that he only in fact had been scared of a horse falling and dying, a fear that he eventually got over of, growing up, of course, and that none of what Freud said had any sense or meaning to his situation, that of a child freightened by something...
And that's without mentioning Freud's addiction to cocain, his numerological obsession or his countless manipulations of patients therapy in order to extort money from them. All of this has been revealed today, Stavros, despite the attempts of the powerful psychanalitic community to cover it up. And I could dig the references for you, if you're interrested in it.
The man was a charlatan and, as Martin is saying, his "discipline" is thourough pseudo-science. Not much more than astrology.

[Prospero]

Stavros... I agree in wondering if science does have any ability to investigate consciousness in any other than a theoretical way. I was talking to the physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose about this and he said he had, indeed, designed a scientific experiment to prove certain of his own theories about the nature of human consciousness (way too complex to report here or indeed for me to understand except in laymen's terms - outlined in various books of his - but in essence relating consciousness to quantum events) But that the problem was he needed an apparatus the size of the solar system to test this out. So not likely any time soon. The use of MRI and other scans have been utilised by some scientists to look at the way that response to stimuli light up arrays of neurons in parts of the brain... certainly adding to theories about consciousness being in some way embedded in our neurons. Then there are people like a Igor Aleksandr scientist at Imperial College who is experimenting with creating machine consciousness. but all of these are beside the point somehow. Most key thinkers about neuroscience and the study of human consciousness now believe that while this is a crucial quest no explanations are likely in the foreseeable future.

And as you say can science address the issue of religion. Again brain scans are looking for the so-called god spot (without success so far i think) and psychological explanations seem to get us closer to some truths. Regarding freud i cannot really join in - I know so little about him. But i do suspect that freud and his heirs are valuable in having created some investigative tools if not explanations.

But I am not a scientist. Just a reasonably well read writer, film maker and journalist.

[Caff_Racer]

Spinoza? Wittgenstein? Freud? By 'eck, I need a cuppa!







By the way, Prospero, you wouldn't be versed in 12V motorbike electrickery would you? If so I might shortly be posting a few questions!

[martin48]

Just one quick comment before my brain explodes. Penrose's argument in essence is "The brain is complicated, quantum mechanics is complicated. Therefore the brain must involve quantum mechanics." No evidence from neuro-science to suggest that QM is involved at all. Sorry

I'll demolish rest later after lie down

Stavros... I agree in wondering if science does have any ability to investigate consciousness in any other than a theoretical way. I was talking to the physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose about this and he said he had, indeed, designed a scientific experiment to prove certain of his own theories about the nature of human consciousness (way too complex to report here or indeed for me to understand except in laymen's terms - outlined in various books of his - but in essence relating consciousness to quantum events) But that the problem was he needed an apparatus the size of the solar system to test this out. So not likely any time soon. The use of MRI and other scans have been utilised by some scientists to look at the way that response to stimuli light up arrays of neurons in parts of the brain... certainly adding to theories about consciousness being in some way embedded in our neurons. Then there are people like a Igor Aleksandr scientist at Imperial College who is experimenting with creating machine consciousness. but all of these are beside the point somehow. Most key thinkers about neuroscience and the study of human consciousness now believe that while this is a crucial quest no explanations are likely in the foreseeable future.

And as you say can science address the issue of religion. Again brain scans are looking for the so-called god spot (without success so far i think) and psychological explanations seem to get us closer to some truths. Regarding freud i cannot really join in - I know so little about him. But i do suspect that freud and his heirs are valuable in having created some investigative tools if not explanations.

But I am not a scientist. Just a reasonably well read writer, film maker and journalist.

[martin48]

Prospero -Please can you explain why his brain hurts?

Thanks

Spinoza? Wittgenstein? Freud? By 'eck, I need a cuppa!







By the way, Prospero, you wouldn't be versed in 12V motorbike electrickery would you? If so I might shortly be posting a few questions!

[Prospero]

I know nowt about electrickery Mr Catweazle... and i guess his brain hurts cos the knotted hankie is way too tight.

and martin... what say you start a thread to argue about freud, Wittgenstein, Free Will, etc with Stavros and Dan and whoever and let my Q + A thread fill up with the normal effluvia, flotsam, jetsam and other stuff folks hurl at me. This is not an Oxbridge common room . (Or are you ghost of Freddie Ayer haunting HA?) My veneer of learning is wearing very thin when confronted by the learned ones like you chaps.

[Prospero]

Oh Martin... how can you be so rude about Professor Penrose. He really is a lovely guy. His study at the institute of mathematics is the closest thing I have encountered yet to a lunatic professor's room -. He has more paper there than i have ever seen in loose leaf form. hen i first visited him he said, "I had a chair in here somewhere, but i haven't been able to find it recently."

[Stavros]

No offence to my good Prospero -nor to you, Stavros, my friend-, but I think Martin nailed it pretty precisely here. Thank you, buddy. Very bright and eloquent!
The reason why I compared animals and humans, Stavros, which seems to have shocked you, is that today, we tend define animals as beings who are the "prisonners", if you will, of their own determinisms. But we know that all animals, to the very simplest, can learn by trial and errors. As the number of responses required by their environment increases, so does the brain and thereof the capacity for a broader range of responses. Obviously, we do have a level of freedom -it's undeniable. Yet, it is obvious by taking account of history and by studying societies through time and geography, also of course by studying human behavior in general, that we too are largely determined by inner and/or by intra-specific impulses. The range of answers to the environment is greater, but the pattern is the same. Culture as shown to largely be the simple surface or presentation of "nature" -as much as these concept are meaningful. So thought Schopenhauer, by the way, one of the great inspirations of Freud, who on the other hand denied having read his work before formulating his own theories to the time of his death, which has to be baloney, like most of what came from this illustrious charlatan.
It seems to me that Martin -whom I'm starting to suspect is an unknown relative, a Corsican twin or something- nailed it to the bone once again with this one:

I would add to this that it is well known today, Stavros, that Freud was a guru and a charlatan of the purest type. Scrupulous historical reaserches have shown that EACH and EVERY ONE of Freud's human case examples was left after "therapy" with as many problems as he started it with; some of them were commited for long periods of time after and one of them (the famous wolf obsessed man, I think) even died in an asylum, when Freud pretended improvement if not complete resolution of neurosis for all of them. Many were also shown to be simple frauds, like the little Hans with the horse, taken as a case example, who was characterised by Freud as the victim of a complex sexual neurosis involving a bad resolution of the oedipus -which I have to remind you, is at the center of Freud's psychology, and not a secondary element you can discount to appreciate the rest! An adult Hans revealed that Freud had hardly seen him, for the "therapy", that he only in fact had been scared of a horse falling and dying, a fear that he eventually got over of, growing up, of course, and that none of what Freud said had any sense or meaning to his situation, that of a child freightened by something...
And that's without mentioning Freud's addiction to cocain, his numerological obsession or his countless manipulations of patients therapy in order to extort money from them. All of this has been revealed today, Stavros, despite the attempts of the powerful psychanalitic community to cover it up. And I could dig the references for you, if you're interrested in it.
The man was a charlatan and, as Martin is saying, his "discipline" is thourough pseudo-science. Not much more than astrology.

I tend to see Freud in the context of the history of ideas, and the growth of psychology which has attempted to use 'science' in its treatment of people with various 'disorders'. I am not shocked to find scientists regarding humans as 'merely' machines, it has for a long time been a cynical and narrow-minded aspect of science which once led the head of the science faculty in a UK university to recommend closing down the faculty of humanities on the grounds that its departments were, in practical terms, useless. Science in its practical applications in say, industry and medicine has transformed the way we live as well as the environment, but as Bertrand Russell pointed out the parameters of thought that inform and express religious ideas are so removed from science as to make a meaningful dialogue and examination pointless, as Trish argued about the limits of science that cannot explain what happened before the Big Bang in another thread. Science can tell us how tears fall when we cry but cannot explain why crying can be induced in some people by Cliff Richard, Wagner, or Nat King Cole, without recourse to the abstractions found in philosophy, psychology and so on, to which they object. And yet scientists do read novels, watch movies, go to art galleries, so they must be moved or interested in what to them is 'inexplicable'. Or, you could wonder if the large number of science graduates who have put bombs on planes or flown them into buildings would have done so had they studied literary criticism instead; is their aversion to music, poetry and dancing a scientific rejection of the irrational?

The truth is concealed -this to me is one of the key concepts that Freud used when trying to understand human behaviour and the mind: just as the development of the lenses used in telescopes and microscopes enabled science to reveal what had previously been concealed, so Freud believed psychotherapy could help people come to terms with aspects of their personal history which was damaging them, by investigating its roots. This mode of enquiry has become central to therapeutic techniques, and I believe is favoured over the Watson/Skinner reduction of behaviour to mathematical/pseudo-scientific models which can -allegedly- be adjusted using drugs or electric shock treatment. George Kelly, famous for The Psychology of Personal Constructs attempted to bring scientific rigour into psychology, and created a row of values used to measure responses; but he also wrote about Mozart's Don Giovanni (as did Kierkegaard), fascinated by a man whose libido appeared to be out of control. And both make interesting points about the Don. And Freud came from a scientific background.

How many transgendered people have had critical moments when they 'realised' that the truth of who they are, was previously concealed? The concept might not be original to Freud -Marx argued the truth about capitalism was concealed in its elaborate production process; Buddhists recommend various strategies to achieve 'enlightenment'- but it was an important part of Freud's thinking and remains, I think an important motif in the narrative of human experience that has influenced others.

[danthepoetman]

I tend to see Freud in the context of the history of ideas, and the growth of psychology which has attempted to use 'science' in its treatment of people with various 'disorders'. I am not shocked to find scientists regarding humans as 'merely' machines, it has for a long time been a cynical and narrow-minded aspect of science which once led the head of the science faculty in a UK university to recommend closing down the faculty of humanities on the grounds that its departments were, in practical terms, useless. Science in its practical applications in say, industry and medicine has transformed the way we live as well as the environment, but as Bertrand Russell pointed out the parameters of thought that inform and express religious ideas are so removed from science as to make a meaningful dialogue and examination pointless, as Trish argued about the limits of science that cannot explain what happened before the Big Bang in another thread. Science can tell us how tears fall when we cry but cannot explain why crying can be induced in some people by Cliff Richard, Wagner, or Nat King Cole, without recourse to the abstractions found in philosophy, psychology and so on, to which they object. And yet scientists do read novels, watch movies, go to art galleries, so they must be moved or interested in what to them is 'inexplicable'. Or, you could wonder if the large number of science graduates who have put bombs on planes or flown them into buildings would have done so had they studied literary criticism instead; is their aversion to music, poetry and dancing a scientific rejection of the irrational?

The truth is concealed -this to me is one of the key concepts that Freud used when trying to understand human behaviour and the mind: just as the development of the lenses used in telescopes and microscopes enabled science to reveal what had previously been concealed, so Freud believed psychotherapy could help people come to terms with aspects of their personal history which was damaging them, by investigating its roots. This mode of enquiry has become central to therapeutic techniques, and I believe is favoured over the Watson/Skinner reduction of behaviour to mathematical/pseudo-scientific models which can -allegedly- be adjusted using drugs or electric shock treatment. George Kelly, famous for The Psychology of Personal Constructs attempted to bring scientific rigour into psychology, and created a row of values used to measure responses; but he also wrote about Mozart's Don Giovanni (as did Kierkegaard), fascinated by a man whose libido appeared to be out of control. And both make interesting points about the Don. And Freud came from a scientific background.

How many transgendered people have had critical moments when they 'realised' that the truth of who they are, was previously concealed? The concept might not be original to Freud -Marx argued the truth about capitalism was concealed in its elaborate production process; Buddhists recommend various strategies to achieve 'enlightenment'- but it was an important part of Freud's thinking and remains, I think an important motif in the narrative of human experience that has influenced others.

Indeed, Stavros, these were not original ideas from Freud, as you can find them in Schopenhauer's work, Pierre Janet's, William James' and several others. But I understand your point of view. You see science giving into a reduction of the marvels of the cultural variations to mechanics. And you're right. Prospero, you're pretty much expressing the same thing in invoking the work of Penrose.
But I think we really do make too much of the manifestations of our minds. I think we humans have a fixation for our own grandeur. Every bit as much as we all see the world with its injustices and its pain through the looking glass of our little ego, we still see human beings at the very center of the universe. The whole of human culture has also consisted in extracting ourselves from such a perspective. Freud himself diagnosed this human crazyness, as he quite immodestly put himself on top of the deconstructive process, after Copernic and Darwin. We've backed from a flat world created for us by its creator to an infinite world for which the very question of meaning is vain.
(By the way, Stavros, there wasn't anything "before" the Big bang, as time, the way we understand it, was created by it with space. We are creatures of this universe and we can only understand, as Kant saw it, through time and space or volume. But the question of what was "before" the Big bang, that is "before in time", of course, is non sensical. There was no time before the creation of time. If we eventually get to have any understanding of this one, it will be through mathematical construction.)
I think we're still making way too much of what we are. The mind can be found in the brain. Consciousness is a neurological process which we are discovering and understanding slow by slow. And we do know a lot about it already, contrary to what was said so far on this thread. It involves several zones of the brain in conjunction, emerging from the simple sense of awareness of the thalamus to the more reflexive pre-frontal cortex, heavily connected to the sensory and motor areas, as well as to the hypocampal memory areas, etc. The brain has specific functional areas which can only work in conjuction with one another; damage one of these areas and the functions exercised by it is compromised. The progress in neurology have been tremendous in the last couple of decades. Neuro imaging has been the key to such progress. Neurology has been the poorest scientific field for a long time, but neuro imaging and progress in endocrinology have changed all of that; it is now at the forefront of scientific discoveries.
This being said we have to keep in mind that the brain is only the top and the central command zone of the nervous system. It is constituted of nervous cells, exactly as the rest of the nervous system, exactly as the spine is: grey and white matter. It simply is the result of natural selection of the simplest organisms; those organism which were able to integrate a simple organ of awareness thrived more than others. These simple organ of awareness, be they a cillum or a vibratil fold, developed into sensory organs. And as the need for more complex responses to the environment grew, so did the nervous system. The brain and all its wonders is simply an organ of awareness, Stavros. Knowing you, I sense that you probably wince, reading this. But by putting aside all other consideration, religious or cultural, that's what appears as the factual reality of our existence as living organisms. Science is not really guilty of reductionism; it is its very nature to reduce in order to understand.