Behaviorism, Misc

摘要：基于“玄-弦”本体论框架与笔者20年纯个人禅修实证，本文系统阐释修行瓶颈 期“魔考即佛考”的辩证本质与“妄心即真心”的转化逻辑。研究发现：修行瓶颈期的核心 表现为“弦的剧烈波动”——源于后天情绪记忆（如被欺骗的执念）、错误修行方法（如 憋气功、数息功）导致的神经紊乱，以及生活、精神、身体的多重压力，具体呈现为 嗔恨心泛滥、怀疑谩骂报复、身体衰弱、生机枯竭等“魔考”形态；“魔考即佛考”的本质 是“弦的波动与静定的博弈”，是习气转化的关键契机；妄心与真心同源异态——妄心是 弦受后天污染的波动状态，真心是弦归玄定的清净本体，二者的转化依赖三大核心要 素：坚定的“立志”（弦的定向锚点）、善友/伴侣的“安抚”（弦的波动缓冲）、圣贤经典 的“明理”（弦的回归指南）。本文以个人真实经历为实证根基，结合《论语》《六祖坛 经》《道德经》等核心原典与现代心理学防御机制理论，由笔者基于“玄-弦论”独家注 解，构建“立志-安抚-明理”三维转化模型，为修行者突破瓶颈期提供兼具学术深度与生 命温度的理论支撑与实践指南。.

摘要：基于“玄-弦”本体论框架与笔者20年纯个人禅修实证，本文聚焦禅修中视知觉 体验的现象学辨伪，核心探讨“真常觉照”与“幻妄光影”“精神异常视知觉”的本质区分。 研究发现：禅修中偶发的“金黄色光”“未来预知感”，本质是“弦归玄定”过程中，意识澄 明、神经平衡的自然显化（真常觉照）——其核心特征为“身心舒适（清凉/温暖感）、 预知内容精准应验、意识自主可控”；幻妄光影与精神异常视知觉的本质是“弦的妄动或 神经功能紊乱”，核心特征为“身体躁狂不适、认知内容虚妄无验、意识失控”。二者的 根本界限在于：真常觉照顺应《黄帝内经》“阴平阳秘”的生命规律，契合西方神经学 “神经递质平衡、脑区功能协同”的生理机制；而幻妄与精神异常违背生命规律，表现为 神经兴奋过度、激素分泌失衡。本文以纯个人实证为唯一依据，结合《金刚经》《黄帝 内经》等核心原典与现代神经学研究，由笔者基于“玄-弦论”独家注解，构建“身心状态-认知验验-意识可控性”三重辨伪标准，为禅修中异常意识状态的真伪判断提供学术 化、可操作的辨伪体系。.

In this article, I will introduce the idea of mental anti-representationalism (MAR) that I defended. According to MAR, psychological sentences are not representational. The article has four sections. I will first clarify MAR (“Three Clarifications about the Thesis of MAR”) and explain it with the help of the view of noncognitivism or expressivism in metaethics (“Metaethical Noncognitivism, Expressivism and MAR”). Like noncognitivism, MAR is a negative thesis. However, the positive thesis of MAR is not that psychological sentences express some non-cognitive (...) or desire-like attitudes, but that they are a type of rationality sentence. I will then compare MAR with other views of mind on the market, such as mental eliminativism and mental fictionalism (“Mental Eliminativism, Fictionalism and MAR”). MAR rejects eliminativism and improves fictionalism. Finally, I will outline my main argument for MAR and address some challenges (“My Master Argument Outline and Some Challenges”). My argument relies on the uncodifiability thesis of rationality and my view can avoid what I will call the Question-Begging Problem. (shrink)

It is widely thought that philosophical behaviorism is an untenable and outdated theory of mind. It is generally agreed, in particular, that the view generates a vicious circularity problem. There is a standard solution to this problem for functionalism, which utilizes the formulation of Ramsey sentences. I will show that this solution is also available for behaviorism if we allow quantification over the causal bases of behavioral dispositions. Then I will suggest that behaviorism differs from functionalism mainly in its commitment (...) to anti-representationalism, and I will offer two new objections to anti-representationalism. The first will be based on considerations concerning the contents of desires and intentions. The second objection concerns inner speech and mental imagery. We will see that the objections are of relevance to contemporary debates, as they apply with equal force to the currently popular anti-representationalist versions of embodied and enactive cognition. (shrink)

É minha afirmação que a tabela da intencionalidade (racionalidade, mente, pensamento, linguagem, personalidade etc.) que apresenta proeminentemente aqui descreve mais ou menos precisamente, ou pelo menos serve como um heurista para, como pensamos e nos comportamos, e por isso engloba não meramente filosofia e psicologia, mas tudo o resto (história, literatura, matemática, política etc.). Note especialmente que a intencionalidade e a racionalidade como eu (juntamente com Searle, Wittgenstein e outros) a vêem, inclui tanto ações ou reflexos automatizados inconscientes do Sistema (...) 1. Eu forneço uma pesquisa crítica de algumas das principais descobertas de dois dos mais eminentes alunos de comportamento dos tempos modernos, Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle, sobre a estrutura lógica da intencionalidade (mente, linguagem, comportamento), tendo como ponto de partida a descoberta fundamental de Wittgenstein – que todos os problemas verdadeiramente 'filosóficos' são os mesmos — confusões sobre como usar a linguagem em um contexto específico, e por isso todas as soluções são as mesmas — olhando como a linguagem pode ser usada no contexto em questão para que suas condições de verdade sejam (Condições de Satisfação ou COS) são claras. O problema básico é que se pode dizer qualquer coisa, mas não se pode significar (COS claro do Estado para) qualquer expressão arbitrária e significado só é possível em um contexto muito específico. Analiso vários escritos por e sobre eles da perspectiva moderna dos dois sistemas de pensamento (popularizados como "pensando rápido, pensando devagar"), empregando uma nova tabela de intencionalidade e nova nomenclatura de sistemas duplos. Eu mostro que este é um heurista poderoso para descrever o comportamento. Assim, todo o comportamento está intimamente conectado se tomar o ponto de vista correto. A Ilusão fenomenológica (esquecimento ao nosso Sistema 1 automatizado) é universal e se estende não apenas ao longo da filosofia, mas ao longo da vida. Tenho certeza que Chomsky, Obama, Zuckerberg e o Papa seriam incrédulos se fossem informados de que sofrem do mesmo problema que Hegel, Husserl e Heidegger, (ou que diferem apenas em grau de viciados em drogas e sexo em serem motivados pela estimulação de seus cortices frontais pela entrega de dopamina (e mais de 100 outros produtos químicos) através do tegmentum ventral e do núcleo accumbens), mas é claramente verdadeiro. Enquanto os fenomenologistas só perderam muito tempo de muitas pessoas, eles estão desperdiçando a terra e o futuro de seus descendentes. (shrink)

Antes de comentar en "La nueva ciencia de la mente", primero ofrezco algunos comentarios sobre filosofía y su relación con la investigación psicológica contemporánea como se ejemplifica en las obras de Searle (S), Wittgenstein (W), Hacker (H) et al. Ayudará a ver mis reseñas de PNC (Filosofía en un Nuevo Siglo), TLP, PI, OC, Making the Social World (MSW) y otros libros por y sobre estos genios, que proporcionan una descripción clara del comportamiento de orden superior, no se encuentra en (...) psicología ni filosofía, a la que me referiré como el marco de WS. Al igual que con tantos libros de filosofía, podríamos parar con el título. Como indican las citas y comentarios anteriores y en mis otras reseñas y los libros que cubren, hay razones convincentes para los problemas que enfrentamos al describir la psicología del orden superior considerado como conceptual y no científico. Esto debería ser cristalino para todos, pero la envidia de la ciencia y el olvido casi completo a WSH, etc. es un modo la! Pero como H señala anteriormente, los temas discutidos aquí son todo acerca de los juegos de idiomas y no tienen nada que ver con la ciencia. De hecho, como de costumbre, si uno traduce al inglés claro hay muy poco interés aquí, y ciertamente nada no dicho antes y mejor por WS, etc. innumerables veces desde los años 30 (véase, por ejemplo, The Blue and Brown Books de 1933- 35). No es de extrañar que no haga referencias significativas a ninguno de los libros o personas anteriores (¡la única referencia a S es un artículo de 1958!), aunque en mi opinión están en la parte superior de la lista de las principales figuras de la psicología descriptiva. En la p119 nos dice que la clave de todo esto es averiguar cómo "... un proceso cognitivo a nivel personal puede pertenecer a un sujeto representativo. Esta es la tarea de la segunda mitad del libro". Pero W hizo esto hace 80 años y ya que tenemos las explicaciones bellamente claras de WSH, H&M, etc., no tiene sentido torturarse con la prosa bastante sin rumbo y opaca que se desvía terminan en Sartre, Heidegger, Husserl y Frege, con un toque de ensalada de palabras posmodernista para buena medida. Un esfuerzo valiente en un tema interesante, pero en última instancia agotador e infructuoso. Aquellos que deseen un marco completo hasta la fecha para el comportamiento humano de la moderna dos sistemas punto de vista puede consultar mi libros Talking Monkeys 3ª ed (2019), Estructura Logica de Filosofia, Psicología, Mente y Lenguaje en Ludwig Wittgenstein y John Searle 2ª ed (2019), Suicidio pela Democracia 4ª ed (2019), La Estructura Logica del Comportamiento Humano (2019), The Logical Structure de la Conciencia (2019, Comprender las Conexiones entre Ciencia, Filosofía, Psicología, Religión, Política y Economía, Historia y Literatura (2019), Delirios Utópicos Suicidas en el siglo 21 5ª ed (2019), Observaciones sobre Imposibilidad, Incompletitud, Paraconsistencia, Indecidibilidad, Aleatoriedad, Computabilidad, Paradoja e Incertidumbre en Chaitin, Wittgenstein, Hofstadter, Wolpert, Doria, da Costa, Godel, Searle, Rodych Berto, Floyd, Moyal-Sharrock y Yanofsky(2019) y otros. (shrink)

By drawing on the philosophy of Bernard Stiegler, the phenomena of mechanical (a.k.a. artificial, digital, or electronic) intelligence is explored in terms of its real significance as an ever-repeating threat of the reemergence of stupidity (as cowardice), which can be transformed into knowledge (pharmacological analysis of poisons and remedies) by practices of care, through the outlook of what researchers describe equivocally as “artificial stupidity”, which has been identified as a new direction in the future of computer science and machine problem (...) solving as well as a new difficulty to be overcome. I weave together of web of “artificial stupidity”, which denotes the mechanic (1), the human (2), or the global (3). With regards to machine intelligence, artificial stupidity refers to: 1a) Weak A.I. or a rhetorical inversion of designating contemporary practices of narrow task-based procedures by algorithms in opposition to “True A.I.”; 1b) the restriction or employment of constraints that weaken the effectiveness of A.I., which is to say a “dumbing-down” of A.I. by intentionally introducing mistakes by programmers for safety concerns and human interaction purposes; 1c) the failure of machines to perform designated tasks; 1d) a lack of a noetic capacity, which is a lack of moral and ethical discretion; 1e) a lack of causal reasoning (true intelligence) as opposed to statistical associative “curve fitting”; or 2) the phenomenon of increasing human “stupidity” or drive-based behaviors, which is considered as the degradation of human intelligence and/or “intelligent human behavior” through technics; and finally, 3) the global phenomenon of increasing entropy due to a black-box economy of closed systems and/or industry consolidation. (shrink)

Behaviourism is the view that preferences, beliefs, and other mental states in social-scientific theories are nothing but constructs re-describing people's behaviour. Mentalism is the view that they capture real phenomena, on a par with the unobservables in science, such as electrons and electromagnetic fields. While behaviourism has gone out of fashion in psychology, it remains influential in economics, especially in ‘revealed preference’ theory. We defend mentalism in economics, construed as a positive science, and show that it fits best scientific practice. (...) We distinguish mentalism from, and reject, the radical neuroeconomic view that behaviour should be explained in terms of brain processes, as distinct from mental states. (shrink)

There are many psychic mechanisms by which people engage with their selves. We argue that an important yet hitherto neglected one is self-appraisal via meta-emotions. We discuss the intentional structure of meta-emotions and explore the phenomenology of a variety of examples. We then present a pilot study providing preliminary evidence that some facial displays may indicate the presence of meta-emotions. We conclude by arguing that meta-emotions have an important role to play in higher-order theories of psychic harmony.

People see five kinds of views in epistemology and ontology as hinging on there being words a person can learn only by private ostensive definitions, through direct acquaintance with his own sensations: skepticism about other minds, 2. skepticism about an external world, 3. foundationalism, 4. dualism, and 5. phenomenalism. People think Wittgenstein refuted these views by showing, they believe, no word is learnable only by private ostensive definition. I defend these five views from Wittgenstein’s attack.