The Deceptiveness of Scientific Models

[Fran11]

I will focus on Psychology as an example, becouse I remember making a point about this on the forum, and it's a good time to elaborate becouse it ties in beautifuly with the series Leo is currently releasing.

On a thread about Law of Atracttion, 
a user was arguing for phsychological explainations of LOA, as if those somehow contradicted or were incompatible the spiritual ones. 

Really, what happens Psychology studies the mind by making models, and Mysticism studies the mind by direct consciousness. (Although everything is Mind, here I'm calling "mind" the low-density forms of consciousness wich the layman would also conder "mind").

What we consider mind is a low-density/amorphous/fluid/sublte form of consciousness.
Matter is just a more condensed/gross/concrete form of the same Mind. This is why Magic and The Occult are great disciplines for colapsing the difference beetween mind and matter and realizing the imaginary/mental nature of reality.

This is also easy to realise on Psychedelic trips. As you up your doses, Imagination becomes progressively more concrete and dense.

So, the point is that the phenomena which Psychology stuides in an asbtract way, actually happens on a subtle plane on consciousness of which you can be conscious in various degrees.

Scientific models decieve us so deeply that we convience ourselves of the existance of abstract human constructs which are never found in actuality.

The deception goes so deep, that professionals study the mind without really knowing what it actually is at all. 

Mind is not some hidden structure sitting somewhere inside your brain, consisting of and Ego, Supergo and Id, and performing actions such as Attention, Cognition, etc. That's a model. Yes, it's useful, consistent, can make predictions, etc... But it doesn't exist in actuality!!!

 

[Origins]

Psychology is a perfectly adequate subject, its really only some of the people in the field and the culture therein which cause us to suffer hailstorms of false interpretations of reality. 

So it's better to talk about people that try to do psychology and the people within the field specifically more than it is to talk about psychology itself as a deceptive field - models point to people after-all. This is how we define psychology that is good versus psychology that is bad.

Psychology is no different to any other industry, let's take the building industry, the building industry may be bad but building in itself when done right is a perfectly adequate thing when it comes to creating enclosed spaces.

Placing the object, in this case the thing that's being touted as the psychological phenomenon of study, outside the main category here, psychology itself, including the entities that create said relation, people, helps in differentiating how the blame pie eating contest should really be baked.

Category > Relation > Object > Relation > People is where folk in psychology have gone wrong.

Where some of their predecessors have done right as stated:

People > Relation > Object > Relation > Category (the field of psychology being a legitimate field)

Edited October 29, 2020 by Origins

[DocWatts]

Ah the old Empiricism vs Phenomenology debate... the fun part is that the Authenticity question between the two is probably unresolvable, and will most likely be with us for as long as humans are around.

Edited October 29, 2020 by DocWatts

[Origins]

@Fran11  Can you give an example of where mysticism isn't creating a mental model? We may just be interpreting this a little differently, but in every moment for example, the brain is creating a model of itself in order to orient itself in existence, the latter is an example of a theory of mind the brain has about itself.

And you're not talking to a materialist here by the way, I'm a nothing. Just making sense of things as reasonably as possible.

On a personal front I'm not really fond of mystics outside of learning from them, this is because relative to the definition to define oneself as a mystic is to say that you're not at all suspicious of your own perceptions. 

There have been already enumerable well documented case studies now in relation to how easily the brain is fooled by belief, but by many mystics their own beliefs are considered absolutely true and you're a materialist if you don't believe them.

The openness they want you to have is the openness they don't want to demonstrate ironically.

It's very reasonable though to have the same insights as a mystic but not associate yourself as a mystic, I could be one of those and you wouldn't know nor would I find it important for you to know so.

Edited October 29, 2020 by Origins

[Fran11]

49 minutes ago, Origins said:

Psychology is a perfectly adequate subject

Of course it is, I love studying it and it's extremely useful. I'm focusing on the limitations and traps of modeling in science in general here, using psychology as an example. I'm not throwing them away or saying they are inadequate.

24 minutes ago, Origins said:

Can you give an example of where mysticism isn't creating a mental model?

Just like consciousness of your sensorial experience can be radically increased, the same is true with mental phenomena. No models involved.

[Origins]

@Fran11 Cool. Yeah like I said it depends on how you're interpreting the term model. I see it both from a literal and more formal sense it seems you may only be referring to its formal sense. To me unless you can correct me there's no differentiation between the perception of existence and the literal modelling of said existence relative to the limitations of that perception. Eyes, ears, touch, etc, series of layers before we have any kind of graphics sound/visual/etc. The graphical interface is our survival bias because, relative to the best theory so far, it was only engineered to aid the survival of the body. Maybe there's other useful interpretations there if you have any.  

[Fran11]

6 minutes ago, Origins said:

there's no differentiation between the perception of existence and the literal modelling of said existence relative to the limitations of that perception.

Perception is existence. There's no existence and it's perception.

I'm not gonna try to convience you of this, nor should you take in on faith if you haven't had that insight. It has been discussed extensively on many Leo's videos and other threads. Not to be rude but it's just not this thread's point.

[Origins]

@Fran11 No problem, I'm not a follower of anyone.

It hasn't been justified that perception is existence, rather I'd argue its simply relative existence. Perception has dimensions, dimensions have limitations, its within the scope of those limitations that existence can be termed from that reference frame. If you remove 99% of my intelligence, I might very well be perceiving existence but its certainly not something to have a party over. Please for the sake of discussion avoid quoting Leo's videos in discussion just so we can stick to what's been stated and can be reviewed very easily without having to refer to certain videos. Any point that needs to be made can be made with these symbols we're creating here.

[Gesundheit]

Alternative title: The Paradigm-lock of Reducing Everything Down to Perception.

[Origins]

@Gesundheit You've gotta simultaneously lock and unlock things relative to both collective and individual perception in order to move forward with discussion. One path aids communication between others and the other aids communication with oneself and what is both a bridge and doorway from perception to reality. The assignment of reality is for communication, the doubt on reality altogether is for individual metamorphosis.

Edited October 29, 2020 by Origins