(Part 3) Best behavioral sciences books according to redditors
We found 896 Reddit comments discussing the best behavioral sciences books. We ranked the 319 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 41-60. You can also go back to the previous section.
Anyone read The Sum of Small Things: A Theory of the Aspirational Class? It's about how people consume, and how that might have changed recently with a group of people she calls "the aspirational class" -- a group more focused on knowledge and the application of such to their daily lives as opposed to pure materialistic consumption. Anyway, I'm only 20 pages in so don't put too much into my summary (or assume that I agree or disagree with the author), but curious if others have read it and what they thought. Might have some interesting overlap with people who pursue FIRE, but again, just started the book myself so we'll see. I find studies of people's consumption, or lack thereof, typically pretty interesting.
An Introduction to the Event Related Potential Technique was (and still is) my go-to source for EEG. It's comprehensive yet very readable and suitable for both beginners and more advanced researchers.
https://www.amazon.com/Measured-Lies-Bell-Curve-Examined/dp/0312172281
https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Genes-Success-Scientists-Statistics/dp/0387949860
https://www.amazon.com/Inequality-Design-Cracking-Bell-Curve/dp/0691028982
https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Debate-Russell-Jacoby/dp/0812925874
https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Wars-Intelligence-Republic/dp/0465006930
You should read The Sum of Small Things. It does a good job at explaining how consumer habits are dictated by the truly wealthy and uses a lot of examples. Essentially the whole mantra of wealth being a quiet influencer...
Your time may have been better spent delving into the science of human memory, in particular the work of Dr. Julia Shaw. I could see how some might think this train station nonsense counts as a glaring inconsistency or anomaly in James’s account, but in light of what we know about how memory works, it really isn’t. It’s likely we’re all walking around with memories — even vivid memories — that are substantially inaccurate, especially from the events of our childhood. Yet most of us don’t have an army of amateur sleuths who are willing to pull up decades-old construction permits in order to verify just how faulty our memories are; that is the only thing that’s strange about Safechuck’s memory vis-a-vis the train station.
The resistance to this idea is understandable. We’re probably hard-wired to have misplaced faith in the accuracy of our own memories. So much of how we get along in life, after all, seems premised on the reasonable reliability of our own capacity to remember. Yet all the psychological research shows that reasonable reliability is actually far less reliable than we suppose. It’s not the first time science has undermined our common-sense assumptions.
With regard to James, he seems to have clearly forgotten that the Disneyland train station was built very late in his relationship with MJ. After all, if he clearly and vividly remembered the train station suddenly appearing when he was almost 16 years old, and he were setting out to fabricate a story about abuse between 10-12, he certainly wouldn’t have included the train station in his fabrication. He would know that it would be fact-checked sooner or later. That’s one indication that we’re dealing with faulty memory and not deception.
Keep in mind, too, that James was essentially tasking himself with recalling multiple sexual acts (traumatic ones at that) which took place over the course of several months or years, and on an enormous property that was constantly undergoing change as new structures were being added. Within that gigantic blur — a time in his life he surely worked to suppress — it’s completely understandable that some of his memories would be substantially inaccurate; indeed, based on what we know about how memory functions, that is to be expected.
It bears mentioning again: everything about this case points to the conclusion that Michael Jackson abused these boys. This train station stuff is not an exception.
EDIT: I should add that “false memory” doesn’t imply that the entirety of the abusive relationship was somehow suppressed, only to be recovered late in life. If one has been sexually molested, that is not something one would forget, though the details may be altered by memory.
The two modalities I use nowadays are ACT and AEDP:
Accelerated Experiential Dynamic Psychotherapy (AEDP): The Healing Power of Emotion by Diana Fosha, Daniel Siegel, and Marion Solomon: I seem to be recommending this one a lot on here recently. It's because I've really found AEDP to have transformed my psychotherapeutic practice and filled in the deficits of ACT's radical behaviorism. I've witnessed this approach radically change my patients for the better. I think Fosha and her colleagues are really onto something important and vital in their work that will be corroborated by the experience of many relationally-focused therapists. This attachment-based approach is especially useful for people with long-standing psychological issues, particularly those who have a history of abuse, trauma, neglect, or social alienation.
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT): Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: The Process and Practice of Mindful Change (Second Edition) by Steven C. Hayes, Kelly Wilson, and Kirk Strosahl: ACT has been the overarching therapy I "present" to my patients for many years. Although, my sessions nowadays look much more like dynamic therapy towards the middle, ACT is where I begin therapy with a patient and ultimately where I "arrive" with my patients after doing some depth work. Put another way, ACT helps me conceptualize the ultimate goal of therapy (to help the patient live a valued life), followed by AEDP-type work if I find they need it, then ultimately back to ACT for behavior change. Hayes is brilliant and I think ACT offer a life-affirming and rich take on behavior therapy. This book is probably the most detailed in the underlying philosophy that informs ACT.
Yes. Their core drivers are remarkably different.
https://www.amazon.ca/Moral-Politics-Liberals-Conservatives-Think/dp/022641129X/ref=asc_df_022641129X/?tag=googlemobshop-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=296007343627&hvpos=1o3&hvnetw=g&hvrand=13203732789082959761&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9000914&hvtargid=pla-489186824873&psc=1
I'm 55% of the way through Moral Politics right now and finding it excellent. That's kind of what it says. What it really does is claim that both liberals and conservatives in the USA are basing their politics on deep morals, but it links those moral systems to the way that we raise our families. Basically, we use the metaphor of the nation as a family and the government as its parents, so our moral positions tend to be the same for both.
Apart from making an excellent and persuasive case, the author also goes on to conclude that, in his opinion at least, the conservative approach to both raising a family and governing a nation is terribly flawed. The book was written in 1996, and seems completely relevant to today. I highly recommend it. I also heard about it from a reddit comment, so, I guess I'm trying to keep that going.
If you want to find out more on behavior and experiments like these and what they can tell about humans, then Behave by Robert Sapolsky is the book to go for.
Complex, deep and able to present both sides of a scientific argument with some humorous sprinkling, it is a very important book that helps understand behavior from all angles (neurotransmitters, hormones, genes, culture, environment).
The cucumber/grape experiment is mentioned in the book in a chapter about morality and fairness. Fascinating read.
Behavior is not explained by the theory of free will. We know free will to be an illusion - it feels that way but reality suggests something far less independent. As scientists develop more and more ways to explore the living human brain, we can see decision making processes at work. Studies have revealed unexpected things about human agency, moral responsibility, and consciousness in general.
For example, Benjamin Libet developed a fascinating experiment in which he could predict the so-called "free will choice" of a subject --- before they themselves decided what their choice would be. As of 2008, the upcoming outcome of a decision could be found in study of the brain activity in the prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 7 seconds before the subject was aware of their decision (wiki).
From invasive tumors to studying neuroscience in detail, the idea of a metaphorical homunculus, a little person living inside but apart from our brains, piloting our actions, has fallen away as evidence simply cannot support it.
Are you open to doing some reading?
​
"Behave" by Robert Sapolsky
​
This book is an amalgamation of scientific research, referencing study after study that demonstrates how different aspects of our biology play key roles in our demeanor, our emotions and how we think and behave. Our gut flora, for instance, plays key roles in mood and perhaps even our social interactions [1] [2] [3]. That's just one example of the many dozens of lines of evidence that the book describes.
​
Now, it does look as though you've done some research into the philosophy of human subjective experiences, specifically qualia. I'm sure you're aware, but there are other philosophers who explain that qualia doesn't exist at all. Even one of the larger proponents of qualia, John Searle, doesn't ascribe it to a soul, or substance dualism, but to property dualism. Interestingly, Searle and Dan Dennett (a denier of qualia) had a published exchange on this very topic some 20 years ago. I'm not versed enough on the topic to actively engage in a debate on it, but it seems that, at second glance, qualia isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be. Time will tell, of course.
​
With that said, there are vast amounts of data that thoroughly link our emotions, feelings, behaviors, etc. specifically to certain function of our biology. There is certainly more to be discovered in this field, but "Behave" spells out all of the nitty gritty details and compiles years and years worth of research. If you're actually interested in reading a thorough hypothesis coupled with the multiple lines of evidence to support it, I have a pdf copy of this book I'd be willing to share. Simply PM me your email address.
If I still had my copy of this book from the sociology class I took in college I would send it to you so you can allow them to touch and then watch the resulting matter-antimatter annihilation reaction: http://www.amazon.com/Inequality-Design-Cracking-Bell-Curve/dp/0691028982/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334789710&sr=1-10
I don't know why you're being downvoted. People should real "Our Inner Ape" for more on this:
http://www.amazon.com/Our-Inner-Ape-Frans-Waal/dp/1573223123
Monogamy is how we're defined as a species. It's not completely societal. It's in contrast to our other two closest genetic relatives -- bonobos have sex with everyone, and chimps have a primary dominant male that practices infanticide. All three methods (monogamy, dominant male, and "polygamy") are valid methods of survival.
In our case, monogamy came around (probably) to prevent infanticide.
Full disclosure: I haven't read any competing theories, I just found DeWaal's to be particularly compelling. If he's generally discredited, I'd love to hear why.
Dennett, Carruthers, Ned Block, Paul Churchland and others have all offered more or less naturalistically acceptable accounts of first-personal conscious experience, so it's probably not the case that the received view among contemporary researchers is that consciousness is magic.
Understanding How We Learn
https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-How-We-Learn-Visual/dp/113856172X
This should be required reading for every teacher. I recommend it to every teacher I can.
It uses research on cognitive psych to debunk old myths and gives easy to apply concepts of how to help students learn, and develop their study strategies.
It's also a really easy, engaging read.
>I think I heard they’re doing another season
Fantastic.
A good follow-up read on the problems of memory & false confessions is The Memory Illusion by Julia Shaw.
While I'm parsing through this, I'll recommend Epstein and Axtell's "Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up." The authors use adaptive agent-based computational simulations to model population dynamics, trade, conflict, and disease. The agents possess heterogeneous characteristics and although--for the case of trade--their actions can approach a statistical equilibrium, it need not be Pareto-optimal. Trade is carried out locally based on two agents' marginal rates of substitution for two commodities, so the Walrasian central auctioneer is thrown out. They use some pretty simple rules for individual behavior yet achieve some insightful emergent results.
Edit: Also, /r/ComputationalEcon exists if anyone is interested.
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, Second Edition: The Process and Practice of Mindful Change
Esse livro foi o que me deu um caminho pra lidar com a depressão/vida.
Academic Cross Cultural Communications papers are literally made of this stuff, if you want some direction. Edward T. Hall's "Beyond Culture" is a good primer to a lot of cross cultural communication concepts (although it focus on international cross cultural communication), and the field in general does a lot of analysis of how to communicate in a a way to make your ideas understood in good context by another party because of it's usefulness in diplomacy.
Some language and rhetoric texts would also be a good place to start.
I like The Mystery of Consciousness by Searle.
That book and those studies have been debunked so fucking hard over the years for having a cultural bias i cant believe you are actually citing it here. The tests would show people at tennis courts with pictures of A.) Tennis Rackets B.) Basketball C.) Baseball bat and ask which belongs. Obviously a middle class white kid will know to choose A. but what does a poor black kid who has never seen a tennis court choose.
Shit science from a shit scientist.
I've been interested in bonobos for a while, I even read Our Inner Ape, but I never knew they could understand casual human language enough to reach into that woman's pocket, take out a lighter, gather wood and start a fire when they're told. That is just ridiculous.
I strongly suggest that you read The Victory Lab. The book goes into great detail how elections work and how the money is spent.
One thing that Obama showed was that TV ad buys don't mean all that much but instead micro targeted voter outreach is far more effective. By figuring out exactly who is more likely to vote for you and then contacting them in face to face canvassing efforts you are far more likely to get them to turn out. The volunteer canvassers will inform these likely supporters how to register if they are unregistered, where and when they can vote, what they need to bring to vote, help organize transportation if necessary, and motivate them to vote.
One thing that is also extremely important is that general elections aren't primaries. Primaries are largely persuasion games rather than voters outreach, and that is where Trump succeeded. The general election is filled with lots of people who are already decided as our country is so polarized, so increasing voter turnout among those who like you is extremely important.
It's conspicuous vs inconspicuous consumption. The aspirational class (people who are culturally sophisticated, vs just wealthy) used to buy what they thought rich people had. The things they can see. Fancy cars, expensive clothes, $1000 purses.
Now they spend their money in ways you can't necessarily see. Good schools for their kids, expensive gym memberships, organic foods, retirement.
The Sum of Small Things: A Theory of the Aspirational Class
All fair, but this was made political. That was total bullshit.
Clapper was an idiot for his explanation when he said he was being cute by half. Wyden set him up though. He already knew the answer, and if Clapper would have said lets go to a closed session or that's classified then rumors. How do we know if Wyden wasn't being political?
It pisses me off to no end that Greenwald and Snowden are blaming Obama for this. This is all a republican/libertarians wet dream. It's politics not open debate. Also the PRISM direct access was a total lie too, but that was done to build the hype. That's all this is.
I guess at the end of the day most people don't care how they get their info or from whom. IMO it's very important though.
I guess that's because I am a high context person who grew up in a low context society. Neither is wrong but there can be too much of either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_and_low_context_cultures
http://mqjeffrey.hubpages.com/hub/High-Context-vs-Low-Context-Communication
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Culture-Edward-T-Hall/dp/0385124740
Here is a much more relevant and practical book.
I’m a teacher and I love learning about how to help my students learn. Schools these days don’t have any budget so I buy my own books. I’d love a copy of Yana Weinstein’s “Understanding How We Learn: A Visual Guide “ [link](Understanding How We Learn: A Visual Guide https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/113856172X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_6xlkDbYQ654VG)
May I recommend the book I Am a Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter?
Yeah man, I think your onto some stuff.
>My question for you, is that during ones life, does our actions alone influence gene expression, and therefor, does our everyday actions influence gene expression that has to do with the 'activities (both physical and mental (ie. thoughts))' they do most?
Yes, I think this is true. For example, there's the example that is often associated with epigenetics that the children of people who experienced starvation at some point in their life would have epigenetic changes that made their body hold onto calories and store much more fat, even though they themselves had never experienced starvation. I'm sure this happens with all sorts of different environemtnal stimuli, like drugs, diet, if they've experienced trauma, etc. You might see this in a way of environmental and cultural stimuli causing physical genetic changes in unborn future generations.
>Ive came up with the idea, which is something about the evolution of beliefs, and how that in turn influences actions.
I think humans primary mode of evolution is cultural. We dictate the structure of our societies by the beleifs of our culture. And the structure of our society is quite literally the survival strategy of our species. It is our Ecological Niche. And just as coming out of trees and choosing to hunt and forage on the ground has had physical evolutionary changes on our species, so does any survival strategy alter our evolutionary course.
Our culture is how we pass down our survival strategies and the beleifs that shape how we act. So culture has very real evolutionary implications, and IS how our species primarily evolves, imo.
>here is then sub cultures, and linkages of sub cultures, for which all thought (semantics) is connected. What is this 'source' that integrates all semantics (meaning), and how does it influence our actions? Do we have the power to choose what we feed this source, and therefor spread good karma, which would then make our actions, and generally our world a better place?
I don't know if your familiar with the idea, but you should look into the concept of memetics which is a concept for how ideas and behaviors spread through a population, and looks at it in evolutionary terms. Seems really relevant to all the ideas you put forward here.
I think I agree with the idea that religion has evolutionary implications, and also the idea that your own mindset, thoughts, and behaviors, can influence the people around you, the culture, and even our evolutionary course.
Some more scientific books that are in line with what you're saying here that you might want to check out:
Evolution in Four Dimensions which seeks to show that evolution isn't just about genes, but also things like behaviors, culture, and also epigenetics.
The Social Conquest of Earth by the great biologist E.O. Wilson. This guy also developed the concept and field of study of sociobiology which looks at how organisms in a society (whether human or ant) interact and how their social systems evolve. Here he goes really deep into the biological foundations of human culture and society.
The Evolving Self; a psychology for the third millenium. I just mention this one because the way you talk about these things makes me think you'd enjoy this book. This is kind of a book that tries to get at the ethics that a modern person could adopt, and the conclusion is along the lines of doing what you can to contribute to the larger evolutionary process that we are all a part of. He goes into a lot of thinking about genes, memetics, and what impact a person could have in it all.
This is a good book, though a bit old now. If you're interested in agent-based simulations, a lot of great work has been done since then -- I'd suggest starting with something like Growing Artificial Societies, or reading up in general on Sugarscape and the models that have followed it.
Both these and The Limits to Growth lead to "systems thinking," which Meadows wrote about in Thinking in Systems. That book in turn (along with many others) was a big influence on my game designs, and on my book about game design and systems thinking. Understanding how systems and games work together is vital, IMO, for building virtual worlds.
Responding publicly to: "Any recommendations for stuff to read about agent based modeling?"
One of the best resources for agent based modeling is the modeling tool, NetLogo. It's developed by Northwestern:
https://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/
It has TONS of sample models in quite a few different disciplines to see how things work.
Railsback and Grimm have a nice textbook style book on agent based modeling (http://www.amazon.com/Agent-Based-Individual-Based-Modeling-Practical-Introduction/dp/0691136742)
Mitchel and Resnick have a smaller book focused on the concepts of ABM called Turtles, Termites, and Traffic Jams. (http://www.amazon.com/Turtles-Termites-Traffic-Jams-Explorations/dp/0262680939)
Lastly Growing Artificial Societies by Epstien (http://www.amazon.com/Growing-Artificial-Societies-Science-Adaptive/dp/0262550253). He developed generative models of economics using an environment he called "Sugarscape".
Another popular modeling system is Repast (written by people at Argonne National Labs) but I think it's not as easy for the non-programmer to get started with. If you happen to be near University of Oregon, they are having a complexity conference later this month that features a day-long seminar on Repast taught by some guys from Argonne.
http://calendar.uoregon.edu/event/exploring_complexity
cool, not new though. i recommend everyone read Our Inner Ape by Frans de Waal, it's interesting, covered stuff like this, linking our personality traits back to the chimpanzee and bonobo
Loving the feedback--thank you! I've also found a couple of highly rated books regarding observations on cetacean intelligence and social structure:
Cetacean Societies: Field Studies of Dolphins and Whales https://www.amazon.com/dp/0226503410/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_Za1YxbZZHJTBV
The Cultural Lives of Whales and Dolphins https://www.amazon.com/dp/022632592X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_Kf1YxbNSC7VFD
most philosophers of mind are physicalists:
Accept or lean toward: physicalism 526 / 931 (56.4%)
Accept or lean toward: non-physicalism 252 / 931 (27%)
Other 153 / 931 (16.4%)
Most continental philosophers of mind are non-physicalists.
For reductive physicalism, the strongest work is typically taken to be Kim's, which the following monograph by him lays out well: http://www.amazon.com/Physicalism-Something-Princeton-Monographs-Philosophy/dp/0691113750
Against reductionism, the strongest work is typically taken to be on Multiple Realizability, which started with Putnam. You may want to check out his Representation and Reality.
I was trying to remember another book title (it's hard when they all have "whales" in it), and stumbled across this, which looks reeeeeally interesting. I haven't read it, but the summary looks really good.
The Cultural Lives of Whales and Dolphins
Don't forget Dr. Luck's book: an introduction to the event-related potential technique. It's very accessible and thorough.
Mostly commenting here in case someone else comes along with a more proper answer...
I'm assuming you're asking for literature, as in the studies he's citing as he goes along, etc. I don't have that, but you can probably get a lot of them from looking at the "textbooks" for the class. In the first lecture, he mentions these 2 books as essentially the "textbooks" for the course:
Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers, Robert Sapolsky
Chaos: Making a New Science, James Gleick
​
Later on, he also brings up Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind of Science
And since that lecture series was done, in 2017, Sapolsky published a book, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst, which has TONS of overlap with the lecture series. He doesn't go into the same exact stuff, especially in the later chapters versus the later lectures, but he follows the exact same pattern of explaining the biology of human behaviors. He even tells a lot of the same stories and personal insights.
It wouldn't surprise me if the vast majority of the literature he cites in the lectures are all referenced across those books, too, so it would be a totally valuable avenue to dig in on. I haven't personally read through the first two all the way yet (I'm about halfway through Zebras right now). Behave is worth reading in addition to the lectures, despite the huge overlap, imho, and probably lists most of the same studies he cites in its Notes section.
Here is a short reading list that should give you the essentials:
Some of these will read like stories, others are more academic in nature. There is both Canadian and American material included. overall, you should get a pretty good impression of how political campaigns are planned and how they actually roll out.
Podcasts/youtubes are fundamentally going to be opinion pieces unless they're heavily sourced and annotated throughout. If you can't scroll down and see links to primary research in the info, it's not exactly a "resource," it's an unsourced argument. Which if fine! It's just not going to actually do convincing or informing.
That goes for subreddits with a purposeful biased link, including r/socialism and r/capitalism. But bias isn't a bad thing! A source can be 100% accurate and still be biased because they tell only the stories they want to.
A classical liberal has no set definition, I'm afraid. A common theme among modern progressives is . . . nobody can agree on anything. Now classical liberal, it's seemed to have moved to a "defense" identity, something people say to . . . I dunno, blend in or try to say their views aren't as harsh as they're coming off.
Try books by George Lakoff. Moral Politics is a book I remember first scanning on my brother's bookshelf, and it always comes back to me as a starting point for untangling differences between right and left in America.
I picked up Smithsonian's [Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises] (https://www.dk.com/us/9780789489906-smithsonian-handbooks-whales--dolphins/) yesterday, along with The Cultural Lives of Whales and Dolphins, but I'll be sure to check this out, too. Thanks for your help!
This funny inversion of causation between mind and matter is the subject of the book I am a Strange Loop.
I highly recommend the book "Evolution in Four Dimensions" for this discussion. https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Four-Dimensions-Epigenetic-Philosophical/dp/0262600692
>Why is fighting to protect a working machine from unnecessary modifications unpopular, when the machine still works?
Here's the thing. I'm reading a book called The Political Mind right now. And he talks about one thing that progressives consistently do that empowers conservatives like hell. They think of the world in terms of clean cut rational thought with no emotions, and think that given enough facts and sound reasoning, everyone should understand the Truth. Well, the reality is more subtle than that...
Ron Paul might have done the rationally correct thing to do. But, given that his action was already inefficient (he certainly didn't change the outcome since he was the only one to vote against), this action was more detrimental to the cause of libertarianism than had he for example abstained. Because now, there is an emotional frame in which Ron Paul hates children. I know it sounds dirty, but this is how "they" win. It's entirely human to frame events relative to their emotional context... This is the key to "feel good" advertising, character assassination, swift boating etc. etc.
Eugenics isn't really eugenics. I suggest Evolution in Four Dimensions if you're interested in the philosophy of genetics.
> That's not proof. How do you prove solipsism isn't a thing?
Axiomatically. If we accept solipsism, any further discussion is pointless, and any positive claim you make on that basis is incoherent. So we reject it based on the counterfactual of it being true.
All proofs accept this axiom, so if you are going to bother with this argument, nothing is proof. And you've abandoned reason entirely, so this discussion is pointless.
>A "self" is distinctly different from qualia.
It is a necessary precondition for qualia, though.
>From what I've seen, plenty of people reject the idea that they have and experience qualia. Often not being able to understand the concept at all.
This is contradictory. Plenty of people reject qualia, but this is usually because they don't understand the concept? Then how can they possibly know what they're rejecting? I don't see any point in considering irrational arguments.
>To me that says they likely don't experience them.
Or they do, and simply don't understand what you mean by "qualia," especially since you are clearly using a nonstandard definition of the term. But even if your term is correct, you cannot logically conclude that simply because someone isn't certain they experience the thing you call "qualia" that they lack it altogether. This would actually contradict your earlier argument that qualia can't be measured...if true, you have no possible way of knowing whether or not this is "likely" or even possible.
>I'm not seeing the logic here. I see no reason that qualia should exist. Let alone how it's even possible.
Argument from ignorance.
>None of these are qualia. You can do this while lacking qualia.
How?
>But as I said, some people outright reject and fail to even comprehend qualia.
Or maybe they're understanding it differently. This is not even close to a conclusive standard by which to determine whether or not qualia exist. Or maybe the thing you believe to be qualia in yourself is an illusion. You can't discount this possibility.
You are making some rather strong assertions about the metaphysical nature of qualia on some rather uncertain or downright unknowable premises. I see no reason to accept this logic.
>And that's exactly why it has huge implications for religious debate. Because some people experience them and some people don't.
Your last sentence here is completely unsubstantiated.
>It's often rejected due to it's unique nature which appears nonphysical.
Math and logic are nonphysical. This is not unique to qualia.
>Most people who accept qualia are dualists, which goes against the skeptic/materialist worldview.
True. I also disagree with dualism, but I don't see why dualism and qualia are necessarily linked. This is an argument ad populum, since you aren't connected the ideas logically, but only based on the number of people who accept this connection.
>Right, but that's just an extra loop. Not an entirely fundamentally unique thing that has no similarities to anything else in the universe, just existing with no real function.
Qualia is similar to plenty of other things, as I just explained. Like math and logic.
>So? I'm referring to the same things. I do like to talk about things in my own way. But it should easily be seen what I mean.
I don't see what you mean. You've never defined your terms, and seem to be changing it periodically, and you aren't using the standard philosophical definition. I've already specifically stated I find it unclear.
You seem to be taking a lot of things at face value that really shouldn't be taken as such when discussing philosophical concepts.
>I don't use definitions when I talk about actual things. When I talk about apples, I don't think of a particular definition. I think of an apple. When I talk about qualia, I don't think of a particular definition. I think of qualia.
And you have a particular concept in mind when you say "apple." If you said you didn't like apples because they were black, spiky, and taste too much like a hot dog, you shouldn't be surprised when people say you are using a nonstandard definition of "apple." If you then responded "that's just what I think of when I say "apple", would that really be an adequate response?
No.
>Right. But the point was to distinguish the qualia from the material brain, whether or not qualia are material.
Something can be contingent upon the material but not material itself. For example, math. Or art.
>Really? I haven't seen anything of the sort. I'd love to see a study demonstrating the existence of qualia. It'd be much easier to point to a scientific study than just fumble around with words.
Here's a whole book on the subject.
>Qualia aren't "a sense of self". You can have that without qualia.
How?
>Qualia would not help in predicting future states of being.
OK, let's go back to the "standard definition" of qualia:
>"The 'what it is like' character of mental states. The way it feels to have mental states such as pain, seeing red, smelling a rose, etc."
If you had no mental states that associated a self with those mental states, how could you predict your future circumstances?
>Qualia are unrelated to both intelligence and imagination.
False. Both are required to possibly experience qualia. What do you think qualia are!?
>It's baffling, ain't it? But realistically such people would operate like complex computers. Nothing inside, but they still take in input and produce output. Lacking qualia wouldn't impair those functions.
How do you know complex computers lack qualia?
>So which part of physics describes the nature of qualia? I've yet to see anything on them.
Neuroscience. There's a whole field related to the operation of the brain. You keep trying to act as if qualia are some independent mystical function, but have already admitted you accept that qualia is contingent upon brains.
>Stable fusion is still an objective observable process. Qualia are not.
Technically it isn't. We can no more stand on the surface of the sun and examine atoms fusing together than we can experience the subjective feelings of other creatures. We learn about it through other means...in the case of qualia, through neuroscience and psychology.
>I was convinced of that for a long time until I met people who absolutely rejected that qualia were a thing, and thought I was talking about nothing.
Maybe you did a poor job of explaining it. Considering our conversation thus far, I find that far more likely than the idea that other people lack subjective experiences.
But let's pretend for a moment this were true...it would utterly destroy any argument for dualism, as it would mean that having a "soul" or non-material aspect to the mind isn't necessary to be human. Your conception of qualia would actually prove that materialism is true for some people but not for others, which is kind of a strange argument.
>So I either had to assume they were dumb, or that they lack qualia.
First of all, never underestimate human stupidity. People believe all kinds of ridiculous things, and understand very little about reality. Even intelligent people have massive blind spots in their understanding of reality...yours seem to be heavily related to neuroscience and physics, for example. So the hypothesis that they are "dumb" is perfectly possible, and more probable than the idea that they lack some fundamental mystical function that you personally possess.
It's also possible you did a shitty job of explaining it. If you used your apple explanation above, I'd probably think you were full of crap, too. The only reason I know there is something to the concept you're talking about is because I've independently researched it; based purely on what you've wrote so far I'd also argue that the thing you're talking about could not exist. And it's not because I'm dumb...it's because you think "qualia is qualia" is an explanation.
>I assumed the former until I ran into so many of them (most atheists seem to reject qualia).
Probably because you are defining it as dualistic. I too reject such unverified nonsense. But qualia is not inherently dualistic.
>And we have no descriptions of how qualia work.
We don't know how dark matter works, either. Or black holes. This is yet another argument form ignorance.
(Continued)
If you want moral arguments
https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Reasoning-Ethical-Contemporary-Problems/dp/0136013783
Or more recently published but idk how unbiased
https://books.google.com/books/about/Ethics_and_Moral_Reasoning.html?id=Sy4uAgAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description
Logical/fallacious
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Critical-Thinking-Merrilee-Salmon/dp/1133049753
> But we're talking about whether or not there's something nonphysical about me being able to read and listen, right? Different things can get me to think about the same object?
In many cases, there's no particular object that you're thinking about, unless we classify concepts or ideas as 'objects'. But concepts and ideas appear to be abstract objects, not concrete physical things.
> As far as I'm concerned, you're talking about something phsyical: neurons.
I'm not talking about neurons when I talk in the abstract about cars. This is just obvious.
If you want to learn more about the prospects for reducing the semantic to the neurophysiological, you should read Putnam's Representation and Reality. I think it'll do a lot to bring you up to speed; I remember finding it helpful, at least.
>In many cases, there's no particular object that you're thinking about, unless we classify concepts or ideas as 'objects'.
In those cases, we are referring to patterns that we can detect.
All that means is that we have a "circle detector", which just means we have neurons that can detect a circle.
Same as how I have "dog detector" neurons. Its the same thing.
>But concepts and ideas appear to be abstract objects, not concrete physical things.
Not as far as I can tell.
It seems we can describe this stuff physically.
>I'm not talking about neurons when I talk in the abstract about cars. This is just obvious.
"this is just obvious" is not an argument.
>If you want to learn more about the prospects for reducing the semantic to the neurophysiological, you should read Putnam's Representation and Reality. I think it'll do a lot to bring you up to speed; I remember finding it helpful, at least.
You're welcome to present whatever is relevant from that in your own words.
For information on the biology of consciousness, I would recommend the books and lectures of Daniel Dennett, in particular Consciousness Explained.
You have the burden of proof to show that there is anything other than the physical body in a physical body.
In case you didn't hear about it, this book is excellent: the Memory Illusion.
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Critical-Thinking-Merrilee-Salmon/dp/1133049753
I think you're ignorant of the fact that courses in logic and critical thinking/argument exist and you're trying to save face by coming up with absolutely ridiculous bullshit like "you can't teach thinking" and "it's ruled out as a topic".
Just about everything you've wrote is wrong. I'd go over it point for point, but I've already wasted enough on it...
Just admit you didn't know about it and stop projecting your ignorance onto me. You're embarrassing yourself.
1
2
3
4
5
6
These are all good books to start with ^^
Critical thinking by Merrilee Salmon. It is written for newcomers.
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Critical-Thinking-Merrilee-Salmon/dp/1133049753
Both books? Which 2 books? And what do you mean by still sucking lemons?
Also when you mention a book on habits, a book on ACT are you referring to this book? https://www.amazon.com/Acceptance-Commitment-Therapy-Second-Practice/dp/1462528945
What are you referring to?
Thanks for mentioning Edward Hall!
Give me a break. There is a difference between anticipating objections and manipulation. Manipulation implies malice or nefariousness.
The sheep argument is a little week. The right can just as easily make that claim against the left. Why people believe things is deeply complex. I suggest this book:
The Political Mind
http://www.amazon.com/Political-Mind-Understand-21st-Century-18th-Century/dp/0670019275
And I do see your point, and I also enjoyed the slightly incorrect analogy.
Philosophy. Seriously.
Considering how far away we are from a concrete answer this is as good a place to start as any. not discounting the considerable advances that have been made, just pointing out that there is a lot of disagreement at a very basic level of even the definition of the conciousness problem.
This is the primer I used for a class in college by Chalmers
And here's one that critiques some of those arguments by Searle
(these might be a little dated. anyone else have more current suggestions?)