You mean for direct access to a mind. That's the human (and others) condition. We have indirect access to many more of those minds, but can only see one directly and immediately.
I mean that you have a sample size of 1 and are weighting it to the point of converting data to match it. Instead of weighting the rest of the samples equally and not converting. You're confusing / equivocating continuity with sameness.
I am. The universe is physical. So is the human nervous system. That's what allows me to extrapolate experience. You probably know the other minds problem. We can't know that anybody else has a mind, but we assume that they do because they are made of what we are made of and were made the same way, and they behave like we do, so we consider them conscious and their palette of conscious experience similar to our own - thoughts, memories, feelings, desires, sensation of the environment and body, etc..
No, you are converting subjective internal immaterial experiences into physical experiences, because you do not / cannot understand those experiences any other way. You are pretending or deluding yourself that the word "vision" can only mean 1 thing: Waves in electromagnetic field which are detected by the retina. You are pretending or deluding yourself that "hearing" can only mean one thing: compressed air waves which are detected by the ear drum.
Why write, "No"? That's not a contradiction. Yes, they subject the patient's words to their own understanding of how minds work just like I am doing.
If you do not have details of a person's context it is impossible to understand their experience. It requires humility and releasing oneself of their mindset and adopting the other person's mindset. See below. I attached the PDF source. It's only 13 pages. Emphasis mine.
Rick Reinkraut
EdD, Harvard University
CAGS, Harvard University
PhD, University of Connecticut
MA, University of Connecticut
BA, Rutgers College
To understand another, in a contextually meaningful way, is a challenge to one's capacity for
empathic resonance and a decentering from one's own embeddedness in the service of
stepping into another's shoes with the goal of increasingly greater affective and conceptual
understanding of the experience of another. Chi-Ying Chung and Bemak (2002) commented,
in this regard, that ".... therapeutic empathy must take into account the cultural context so
that the same problem presented in two distinct cultures would warrant different, culturally
specific responses" (p. 156). The way experience is experienced is dependent upon the
culture that bounds and inspires the reality tales that inform and form the framing of what is
involved and expected in being a person. Christopher (1996) discussed what he calls 'moral
visions'. He maintained that we are each embedded in moral visions.
This leads to the recognition that we each find ourselves in relation to hermeneutic circles
which deepen and expand in varied realms of meaning and understanding. How I regard an
event at 20 years old versus how I regard it at 60 will in no small measure be affected by the
way in which that event is placed in a narrative context that reflects my view of experience
from a particular vantage point. The relationship of the part to the whole reflects the
emergent dialectic of the hermeneutic circle of my life. In this way we each are continuous
with the person whom we have been and will become. That continuity, however, is not
necessarily reflected in a sameness in the way events are regarded and given meaning at
varied temporal points in one's life journey.
A challenge for a therapist is achieving a receptivity in relation to the client that diminishes
the assumptions made about the client and increases the curiosity one has for the client:
assume nothing, be curious about everything. This is at once impossible and crucial. It is
impossible because, in addition to our personal lived experiences, we come to the work of
therapy with training experiences that are rooted in research, theory, and practice, each and
all of which lead us to draw conclusions about what helps and what hurts others. It is crucial
because then the client does not become just 'another client' but remains figural as a unique
person. Saying with humility and genuine interest to a client in the initial session "I would
appreciate hearing anything that you are willing to tell me that you believe would be helpful
for me to know" communicates a number of messages. It says that the client owns the
prerogative regarding disclosing information about her or himself. It says that I am interested
in knowing about the client. It says that I want to be helpful. It is an invitation extended, not a
demand made.
Yes, and that's another example of people misunderstanding their inner state.
If you are not speaking the same language, then it is impossible to diagnosis anything psychologial without a translator.
I'm aware of what you've said. I'm just not convinced by it. And yes, I interpret your words according to my understanding of how the world works.
That is admitting that you are not listening to me. You are listening to yourself. In a previous thread, I indicated this to you. You are arguing with yourself.
Not certainty. Tentative conclusion commensurate to the quality and quantity of relevant evidence available and amenable to revision pending new relevant evidence.
The quantity is 1. The quality is grossly exaggerated. You have admitted that you did not accurately interpret your own experience. But that is ignored.
Let's play a game:
In my 20's I felt exactly how you're feeling right now. I said the same things in exactly the same way. What you're saying right now is a carbon copy of what I was going through. Luckily I realized that I had a god-complex. I misunderstood my own intellegnce and insight the same way you are doing now. In the past 30 years I've met so many people who talk just like you and act just like you. And it's not just me, other people notice it too, the god-complex, the self-deification, it's like a drug, its addicting, but its free and accesible anytime anywhere. It's very difficult for a person to escape it. Sometimes even talking about it directly reinforces the delusion. But I know for certain what I went through. And it's exactly what you're going through. You must have a god-complex, you just don't realize it. The antidote, believe it or not, is belief in God. That's what you need.
Now refute it.
It's exactly the same argument you're making, but your "god-belief" which is supposed to be antidote to the mistake
everyone is making is so-called "critical-thinking". The reason I say so-called, is because the criticism is not actually applied.
You claim that often, but when asked to support your claim, you don't. You give me no reason to modify my belief set, which isn't affected by insufficiently supported claims. You'll need more to change a critical thinker's mind. You probably already know that. If so, what's your beef? You haven't produced a convincing argument yet that this way of thinking isn't valid, nor attempted to rebut mine that it is. You just don't like it. You don't like being told that I don't believe you've ever experienced a god. I understand that, but it's a choice to be personally offended.
The first thing is, you don't actually listen to what I say. That means that you don't know what I'm claiming, and you don't know what is supporting it. You don't know the refutations to your own arguments. You have put yourself in isolation.
Lets see if you can accurately answer the questions about me. You've always failed before. The fact that you still think you can magically, telepathically, know me, is proof that you have not learned, cannot adjust, and are therefore not a critical thinker.
It's comforting for you to understand spiritual experiences in terms of spirits.
False. Wow. Your ignorance is off the charts. I don't believe in spirits at all. Whiskey's OK though.
This doesn't phase you at all does it? You have decided that spiritual=spirits and nothing is going to convince you otherwise. It's no different than someone who has decided atheist=evil and cannot be convinced otherwise.
You're made of organic matter that evolved from a single cell into a mature man, who has walked the land in the 20th and 21st centuries accumulating experience and a belief set. This led to theistic Judaism for you, which must meet some psychological need - probably some combination of a sense of community (tradition, common culture and belief set) and an intuition that you have experienced a god.
Well the biology is obviously correct. But that describes everyone. And yes I live in the modern era. I experienced experiences? Wow. You're like reading my mind, Dr.
"And that led to theistic Judaism." No. That's false. All of that leads away from theistic Judaism.
"which must meet some psychological need - probably some combination of a sense of community (tradition, common culture and belief set)" LOL. No. Not even close.
"an intuition that you have experienced a god". Nope.
Although I predict that you will not believe me because it meets some psychological need for you. See how that cuts both ways?
www.kevinmd.com
