re: #47 Obdicut

For this study to work, there would need to be a clear notion of the workings of consciousness and the mind. This doesn’t exist. If it does exist, and it’s accurate, then you are correct. To my knowledge there is no universal agreement on the nature of the mind. Physicists study it, so do neurologists—both of whom juggle several theories in the air. Neither do a great deal of communicating with Psychologists—it’s built into the nature of disciplines.

No, it’s not. It’s clear you don’t actually know what Pavlovian means.

I did pretty well in my psych classes. I tend to take a definition and go with the poetry of it. I’m a layman now, I get to do that.

That’s because a Pavliovian response is tying a neutral stimulus with a significant stimulus, provoking the significant reaction from the neutral stimulus even in the absence of the significant stimulus.

You are doing the common thing of just using “Pavlovian” to refer to any sort of innate response. It’s a complete misuse of the term.

Technically you are right. However, there is a need for the colloquial use of the term. Poets fill that need. I’m happy to be a part of the distortion.

This seems to really have struck a nerve with you. I’m not sure why.

Here’s why. My favorite bookshelf, of many, consists of Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Herbert Marcuse, Theodore Adorno and his debate with Karl Popper, books on New Physics, Asian Philosophy, Ivan Illich, Michel Foucault, and James Burke. And other assorted items from the Frankfurt School. I was associated with a magazine that published articles along these lines. These are the arguments for which we would take up the gauntlet.

And rightly so. Skim through the trusted science sources on the internet. I do. There is precious little headway on the topic of mind and consciousness. That is a bit of a problem, because without that knowledge, it’s awfully difficult to be self-aware. It brings the ‘other’ into existence. This is a problem right up there with food and clean water.

So, that’s the reason.