^ That is an amusing post sir. You are attempting to invalidate introspection in its entirety based on the reasoning that it lacks clarity, but that is precisely what introspection does - provide clarity.

You are using examples of issues due to a lack of introspection as support against introspection!

No, not in its entirety. Introspection has had some value in research on recollection and memory.

As for your protest, I have not said anything about lack of clarity, and it would be strange if I did. Most introspection seems very clear to people, much clearer than extrospection that tends to require quite a bit of effort and knowledge.

Did you miss my post #79 where I spent some time offering good reasons why religion cannot be considered science, and vice versa? Or have you abandoned that line of thought?

I was never clinging to that line of thought. However, as long as science is of the mind that objective experience is the only thing that matters it will be filled with dogma, same as religion.

My post was in response to the difference between "I" and "am" or the state of being of "I" rather than the identity of who we believe ourselves to be. I realize it doesn't much matter to some people itt bc the subjective exp is complete BS to them but hopefully it will help some people reading it.

So what you're saying is the subjective experience often differs from the objective experience, yet you say the objective experience is more important/valid. Well sure, if we're all trying to agree on the exact same thing then yes, that would be true. However, if you're talking about an experience important to an individual person then the subjective experience is the most important because it deals with a specific persons' perspective.

How would something like knowing how old the universe is help someone to make profound changes as a human being toward life improvements in a way that introspection can't do equally as well or better?

Just because we can observe a relationship between brain-mind states, you can't disregard that you are making assumptions about the brain-mind relationship, causality, and consciousness. You dismiss the possibility of transcendent, subjective experiences because you don't want to acknowledge that your entire perspective is based on an assumption rather than fact.

No, I do not dismiss subjective experiences. Extrospection is also a subjective experience.

I dismiss introspection as a good method for learning about the mind and minds, this on the basis that the knowledge it provides is very rarely valid or reliable. I have no special desire to invalidate introspection, I am merely noting that if it is to provide knowledge it must be validated.

You and LucidDream can talk as much as you want about your subjective introspective experiences. However, once you cross over to talking about the implications this has for how we should understand the mind - you are in a different ballpark and a different game.

I'd be very skeptical regarding the value of introspective experiences from a drugged mind.

Yes, it would be ideal if we could solve the mental illness problem through observation and measurement, and eventually pharmacy, but what if this is not possible? Introspection is messy, but what if it is the only solution and we just haven't taken it far enough yet? As someone who has claimed to have taken it far enough, gaining new insights about the mind, those aren't just theoretical questions to me. Skepticism is necessary, but to take it further can be harmful to progress similar to religion. I'm just saying pump the brakes a bit.

Do you have any experience with this personally?

Well sure, I've had longtime friends who have thrown away decades of their lives to drugs, and some that have thrown away their lives completely. I've met plenty of guys like you, guys in the early phases. Be careful man - the drugs sneak up on you, and you'll be the last one to know that you're completely fried.

LOL....you keep using the word drug. What drug(s) are you talking about? It's very convenient for people like you to make anti-drug rants by lumping everything under the label "drug" and then chastising it for all the negative effects it's so obviously going to bring upon any moron dumb enough to use it.

The problem with all that is that it's just a bunch of propaganda and isn't actually true. Every drug is completely different and labeling them "dangerous drugs" without taking a look at each one specifically is pretty ridiculous as they have totally different effects on the user.



Which ones? How frequently? What kind of doses? What was their state of mind at the time?



Oh, have we met before? Thanks for the advice but I'm a bit skeptical about people who give advice on things they haven't actually experienced themselves.

Enjoy your time in Happyville.

This is a good point as well, since a drugged mind does not function like a non-drugged mind. A good example of this principle is studies dreams which also occur in a different state of consciousness. Dreams have by many been ascribed special meaning, but the reality is that dream studies have produced close to zero knowledge about the mind. Its extrospective alternative however, the study of sleep, has told us alot.

Part of something being scientific is that it be Useful, Repeatable and Testable, by other people if necessary. If a result were subjective, those criteria would not be met. If you perform my experiment and get a different result to me, then how Useful is my result in explaining anything? It's not. So science can't be anything but objective if it's to actually explain anything.

When I look around at religions, I see so many of them, and so many different belief systems that I can't help but consider it a subjective thing. But, within each of those individual belief systems, the people who believe them consider them objective, don't they?

Agree, kinda. I wouldn't be quite so sweeping in my claims but I think that there is definitely an element of propaganda and control of substances going on. Funny how most people who drink Alcohol don't consider it to be a drug.



Strange how that comment makes me think not of people having a good time with drugs (including Alcohol) but of people who've been sold a line about how we're supposed to live our lives. Have you never wondered why Alcohol, a drug that would be Class A if it were illegal, is in fact legal where so many other mind altering substances are illegal? Why is that frommagio?

I can't predict the future. But so far when it comes mental illness introspection has some value in diagnosis, but has had little value when it comes actually going from diagnosis to cause. A physiological analogy would be for example a fever: Introspection (self-reporting) can have value in the diagnosis, but little indicates it has much value when it comes to actually finding the cause.

Introspection can have value for the individual however, for example in combating addiction. But it is often a double-edged sword, as it can also strengthen negative affections, a typical example would be depression.

So, to come around full circle:

You:
Me: Objection - Speculation.

Judge: Sustained.

An unlikely comment from the judge, since I am the expert witness and you are a layman who has even failed to provide an argument.

Introspective knowledge examples
Can't be sure but sure
Nor-adrenaline
Dopamine
Histamine

How to test each?

Sure

Glucose
Sleep
Amphetamine
Chinese food
Adrenaline

Blurred
Language

These are to an extent controllable by will, all considerations end with god. Where there is 'sure' , surely science agrees. Sure also = controllable experience. Although some are also autonomic. Blurred is actually the 'external' information. I read someone ITT saying that introspective knowledge is mostly untrustworthy or along those lines. This is due to blurred language when it enters the introspective domain.

When we have reduction in domains, we just auto assume that it stops at two, or three, or four. Or maybe higher if you ask the string theorists. And there are very special ones in art i.e 'kingdom of heaven' It's very strange how bad it feels to look at it sometimes, everything is kind of bland. I give my view too much and should perhaps conform.

Lol yeah you're an expert in the way an NBA scout is an expert at basketball compared to Lebron James. I'm withdrawing from this thread. Enjoy your weekend.

Well, let us summarize. You have accused me of ulterior motives (which I don't have), you have accused me unfounded assumptions and speculation (which is certainly wrong, this is my field), you have accused me of wanting to dismiss subjective experience (which is wrong, extrospection is also subjective) and so forth.

However, the three extremely basic points I made in the first post you replied to you have ignored, opting instead to write a mocking post.

In all fairness: You have represented your position (whatever it might be) extremely poorly and acted very arrogantly. Sarcasm doesn't really work well for you at this point.

No, I am not saying that at all. Extrospection is also subjective.

I'm not familiar enough with introspection and extrospection as terms of art in psychology to be sure exactly what is being discussed or how the subjectivity of extrospection is different or more reliable than the subjectivity of introspection. When I think of sleep studies I think of more or less objective science, i.e observation of sleeping persons and various physical measurements. In an extrospective study of sleep, would that mean the subjective observations made of the sleeping person by someone else, apart from such measurements?

One thing that came to mind from this conversation (bearing in mind my confusion) is that many religious traditions that suggest the value of introspection via meditation or contemplation or the like also emphasize the need for initiation and guidance. The aspirant is supposed to share their thoughts and experiences openly with a guide who helps them understand and progress. And all of that also within a particular culture that conditions the experience. They don't tend to suggest just naked introspection off on one's own, for similar reasons that you bring up

Introspection is the study of the self, one's affects, thoughts, experiences and so forth. Extrospection isn't really a common term, but it is useful to use to differentiate external study from introspective study. The debate is not very complicated. The main question can be posed simply as this: "Will we learn more about our mind by studying ourself or by studying others?".

And it is not as if introspective method to achieve this end has been ignored, supressed or remained untested. As I aluded to earlier it has even had some minor success in memory studies, more precisely in the memorable work and studies by Hermann Ebbinghaus, which are well known to most psych-100 students.

Other than that, introspective method has achieved very little. Some might argue that achievements in terms of validity and reliability is not the goal of introspection. That's fine. As I said earlier, introspection has value to the individual. The problem arises when people start arguing about the mind in general terms based on their introspection.

To make up for my last couple of posts, let me try to provide something of value or at least share more where I'm coming from. Like I've mentioned, this all started for me with the goal of personal development, improving myself and my quality of life. The main difference I can see between myself and others who have pursued this is that I kept taking it further and further. It has been almost 10 years now since I started.

Eventually, you get to a point where you realize to progress it's not about adding anything necessarily but about getting rid of what is hampering you. The way current medicine operates, specifically psychiatry, is almost entirely by symptom management. This approach is unsatisfying to me; I'm only interested in cures. But before you can solve a problem, you have to understand it completely. You have to understand the chain of causality and discover the root cause otherwise you're just spinning your wheels.

This is the chain of causality that science and medicine operates under:

Brain -----> mind

As Tame mentions, extrospection is a superior method of understanding the mind under this model and introspection has very little value. To understand the mind, we simply need to use the scientific method to observe what is simultaneously occurring in the brain/DNA/physical body.

Here is how I've discovered the chain of causality actually occurs:

Mind ----> brain ----> mind
Or
Brain <-----> mind

There is a mechanism that exists in our subconscious mind that is fundamental, that operates before DNA mutation in the chain of causality. Since the mind is non physical, this mechanism is beyond the scope of observation and the scientific method. The only way it can be accessed is through introspection or meditation. When I talk about the spiritual journey, I'm talking about this pursuit. It is a progression that takes a significant amount of time and effort. Even the Buddha didn't take it far enough.

What is this mechanism? It is mostly a survival mechanism also known as the 'freeze' response, which is found in all animals with a nervous system AFAIK. In humans, it also serves as a mechanism for morality. It is found in and affects every single human being.

Sit down and relax yourself as much as you can. Now cup your hand around the front of your throat and squeeze like your choking yourself. As you squeeze harder, eventually you'll feel constricted muscles behind your throat. This is evidence of that mechanism.