As for Harris: this free will stuff

[Rum]

But what do you want? Even in mathematics you cannot do anything without making some initial assumption first. One guy set out to establish the principles of the pure mathematics and failed. As for the mind, nobody denies it exists but nobody can define it. It is the product of the brain yet it can induce material changes in the brain. Hence the boom in meditation, mindfulness, guided imagery, etc. especially over the last 10 year, there have been many studies in hypnosis too which shares a great deal.

I think there are degrees of ‘assumption’. Newton’s maths work extremely well based on his assumptions about a static machine like universe for example. Freud and the early psychoanalysts, psychologists and psychiatrists based their theories on very much shakier ground.

We've come a long way since Freud, it's been some 100 years.
How something works is not the same as what it is. Are you saying Newtonian maths is free of any initial assumptions? Then he exceeded Bertrand Russel!

I’m not sure how you inferred that. My point, which I was in too much of a rush to make properly, was that ideas based on mental health issues as presented in the 19th century, particularly by Freud, Jung and others were not only non empirical, they were based on the observations, and rapidly drawn conclusions, of a few (generally speaking sexually repressed - at a time when sex was deeply repressed anyway) individual patients. On the basis of such case studies the most influential thinkers, like Freud, developed a model of the human persona as a seething mass of repression, sexual frustration, suppressed savagery and the resultant ‘perverted’ playing out of these forces.

Very little in the way of empirical or real science was offered as proof and yet, while I agree things have moved on to a degree, those models still form the basis of much ‘therapeutic’ interventions for some disorders.

[DRSB]

Freud was a total fraud, made up his reports to fit his claims. Also very unethical he was!
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/freud- ... doscience/

There's not to apply "real science" on things that you cannot put under a microscope. You cannot apply such real science on the free will we are discussing here either. We don't even have a proper definition for it.

[Rum]

And yet many of his ideas and his models of what makes up our human ‘selves’ persist, even as they apply to this topic. He was the first to popularise the notion that human beings are at the mercy of unconscious forces deep within us over which we (apparently) have little control.

[Sean Hayden]

It's obvious we are dominated by unconscious forces. Furthermore, what tiny part of us is conscious is a damned fool liar.

--muddlers, all of us, except for maybe jamest.

[JimC]

You do not have to accept any non-materialist explanation for the ability of carefully designed psychological manipulation of human beings en masse. The nazis were particularly good at it, but plenty of other cults exhibited similar trends. Most likely because of hominid tribal factors, group thinking can be induced in our species quite easily...

[DRSB]

And yet many of his ideas and his models of what makes up our human ‘selves’ persist, even as they apply to this topic. He was the first to popularise the notion that human beings are at the mercy of unconscious forces deep within us over which we (apparently) have little control.

Not sure about the being first. Actually, William James did more in this respect. As for Freud, he plagiarized his mentors and this is a well-known fact. Also, the book mentioned in the link (I've read it) goes into very specific and documented details about this.

[Rum]

And yet many of his ideas and his models of what makes up our human ‘selves’ persist, even as they apply to this topic. He was the first to popularise the notion that human beings are at the mercy of unconscious forces deep within us over which we (apparently) have little control.

Not sure about the being first. Actually, William James did more in this respect. As for Freud, he plagiarized his mentors and this is a well-known fact. Also, the book mentioned in the link (I've read it) goes into very specific and documented details about this.

I did my social work degree thesis on the falling out of Freud and Jung (and in retrospect what an utter waste of time it was!) so I know the stuff. James had similar ideas, but Freud, as I say, put them ‘out there’ in the public domain.

As Sean says above, much of what goes on in our amazing brains is of course unconscious, I.e. it happens without our conscious awareness of it happening - and I spell that out because it isn’t a specific thing in the way some would have it. What bothers me is when people, with no real evidence start deciding how it all works. Smacks to me of the same sort of process that religions go through establishing the ‘orthodoxy’.

[JimC]

Yes, the "unconscious" of modern cognitive science is a very different beast to the "unconscious" of Freud, although there will inevitably be some overlap...

[pErvinalia]

To say that Hitler somehow hypnotised large crowds of people diminishes his influence and the responsibility those people hold for their own actions in my view.

That he was a powerful public speaker is not in doubt. That he appealed to some of the lowest aspects of human nature and fears is also in no doubt. And that he was in the right place at the right time to grasp power in the way he did is also clear. But to suggest hypnotism was partly responsible is fanciful and speculative in my view.

Not partly responsible, but a useful tool he knew hot to use, not the only one, and a narrow definition of hypnotism is not useful either, powerful speakers induce mini-trances,

What's a "mini trance"?

[Brian Peacock]

Yes, the "unconscious" of modern cognitive science is a very different beast to the "unconscious" of Freud, although there will inevitably be some overlap...

Most of the activity of the brain has nothing to do with conscious awareness. I mean, is anyone really aware of their brain regulating their glucose levels, body temperature, or endocrine system?

[pErvinalia]

I am. The fucker won't shut up about it!

[Rum]

I am. The fucker won't shut up about it!

[laklak]

What's a "mini trance"?

You are getting sleepy.....sleeeeeeepy....

[DRSB]

Yes, the "unconscious" of modern cognitive science is a very different beast to the "unconscious" of Freud, although there will inevitably be some overlap...

Most of the activity of the brain has nothing to do with conscious awareness. I mean, is anyone really aware of their brain regulating their glucose levels, body temperature, or endocrine system?

Precisely.

[DRSB]

To say that Hitler somehow hypnotised large crowds of people diminishes his influence and the responsibility those people hold for their own actions in my view.

That he was a powerful public speaker is not in doubt. That he appealed to some of the lowest aspects of human nature and fears is also in no doubt. And that he was in the right place at the right time to grasp power in the way he did is also clear. But to suggest hypnotism was partly responsible is fanciful and speculative in my view.

Not partly responsible, but a useful tool he knew hot to use, not the only one, and a narrow definition of hypnotism is not useful either, powerful speakers induce mini-trances,

What's a "mini trance"?

An awake trance, a short one with no big outward signs, yet catalepsy may be there (transfixed) and the parasympathetic nervous system kicks in.