Brains and Politics
- This topic has 46 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I do not waste my time
Anyone reading this thread can see that I answer questions, and outline my democratic and Marxist beliefs about minds.
The materialists refuse to seriously engage with any questions about their materialism, and ALWAYS turn to abuse of individuals (‘fatuous’), just as Lenin, the archetypal materialist, did.
Put simply, the title of the thread is an ideological one, based upon elitist bourgeois materialism, that ‘brains’ (wet stuff) are the basis of politics. For democratic Marxists, it’s not the ‘brain’, but the ‘mind’, which is of central concern.
The mind is a socio-historical human product, and thus we can democratically change it.
Bijou Drains’ concerns with the role of in-growing toenails in the development of proletarian consciousness and the building of socialism is an ideological dead-end for workers.
I should point out to alanjjohnstone, the originator of this thread, that the assumption that ‘brain’ equals ‘mind’ is an ideological assumption.
That is, he makes a categorical error, of juxtaposing ‘brain’ (a biological organ) with ‘politics’ (a socio-historical conscious human activity).
If alan really wants to seek the source of politics in brains, like many bourgeois ideological scientists do, that’s his choice. But alan should be aware of that choice, and consciously justify it to himself, rather than just assume that the two are linked.
I’d advise alan to research the ideology of his ‘researchers’, to whom he links.
I have answered the question BD.
Read my last post, to alan, in conjunction with my earlier replies to you.
Your ideology is to assume that an unexplained link between ‘brains’ and ‘politics’ shows that ‘social production’ is dependent upon biology.
As I’ve already said, you are a Skinnerist.
Furthermore, I’ve politely asked you to show the link between ‘in-growing toenails’ (biology) and conscious activity – you should be able to explain this, if biology is at the root of conscious human activity.
Marx argued that BOTH ‘biology’ and ‘mind’ were required for conscious human activity which can change things, that is, socially reproduce our world to our designs.
If you insist that a child’s smile to its mother is outside of conscious activity, it’s your task to show how this is possible. I’ve already supplied some objections to your claims, to help you formulate a better reply.
Of course, my replies to you won’t employ your ideology, but Marx’s, which I openly state is behind my views – unlike you, who hides their ideological views.
To put to bed (nail bed) the toe nail question, which misses the point any way. Growing toe nails are not a product of activity within the brain, therefore your question is irrelevant, as the brain does not have any impact in terms of toe nail growth. The actions I raised were actions which were based on observable brain activity.
The point I was making is that the Skinnerist approach (perhaps L Bird might read some of Skinner’s work, as it is pretty clear he has not) is that ALL human behaviour is rooted in learnt behaviour in terms of on going operant conditioning, i.e. as a result of trial and error and that behaviour that is rewarding is maintained and non rewarding behaviour is eliminated.
There is clear evidence that this is not the case and that some (not all, but some behaviour) is based on instinctual responses. The example of I have given is of a new born baby instinctivly making first eye contact with its mother (or mother subsitute). The fact that this behvaviour occurs within moments of birth in the vast majority of children, indicates that this is an instinctual response rather than through operant conditioning.
An even more clear example of this is the suckling instinct in new born babies. In the Skinnerist approach the explnation is that new born babies would latch on to this rewarding experience as a result of a random action the child performed. I am afraid if the life and death of babies was resultant on the chance of a baby selecting a random action of suckling during the first few hours of life, we would see a hell of a lot more dead babies in the first days of birth.
For a even more obvious example of the fact that instinctive behaviours are present in mammals, the cat and cucumber response is pretty clear, see link (I have got to say that I for one do not find the response funny, as some of those filming this do).
This does not mean that I think that not behaviour is not fully conscious, just that some behaviours are instinctual.
As to the question of conscious behaviour and unconscious behaviour (in Freudian terms). It seems to me that humans do behave in ways that are influenced by thoughts that that could be described as sub conscious. An example of this sub consconscious activity is the Stroop effect.
Every topic must be converted into a cockfight and an academic discussion
I’ve got to say that I’m surprised and perhaps even a little disappointed about the replies some of the members of this forum have put on the boards about this topic:
“What’s the point of these kinds of non exchanges”
“Every topic must be converted into a cockfight and an academic discussion”
for example
If one of the topics on the board is not something that interests you, then don’t read it.
If you think there should be some other topic being discussed, then put a post on the board about it.
No one is forcing you to read the topics you’re not interested in, there is no rationing on debate on the forum, so other members discussing whatever interests them does not interfere with your right to discuss what you want.
Surely we are part of a libertarian organisation, not some kind of Leninist group think sect, where all debate and discussion needs to be focussed on the needs of the vanguard.
I am fully aware of the fact that engaging with L Bird is like arm wrestling a double jointed octopus which has covered itself in baby oil and dropped a tab of acid, but if I choose to engage with him, what the F**k has it got to do with anyone else. L Bird may be a lot of things, but he doesn’t demand that other posters stop posting about issues that he is not particularly interested. Similarly I know my interests are often not the ones that other posters feel strongly about, the one going vegan/veggie debate does nothing for me, for instance, but I don’t try and suggest that we stifle debate about this subject.
I’d just like to openly support Bijou Drains’ position expressed above. At least BD tries to debate, if not very well – I suspect that the rest would shut me up, if they had the power to do so, without damaging their own image as ‘libertarians’ committed to ‘free’ speech.
Whilst I’m like an “arm wrestling …double jointed octopus which has covered itself in baby oil and dropped a tab of acid”, at least I can argue my position without insulting my opponent (because I’d be banned by the moderator if I wrote that of Bijou Drains or of any other poster, as I was last time I responded to insults by better insults).
Furthermore, I’ve got news for you BD. Youse are “some kind of Leninist group think sect, where all debate and discussion needs to be focussed on the needs of the vanguard”.
Your ‘vanguard’ is ‘matter’. And it’s causing precisely the same sort of problems that Marx predicted it would.
Anyway, good luck with the wet matter of the brain, and its adventures in politics.
Finally, thanks Bijou Drains – there’s always hope whilst debates continue.
Back to the grind.
Bijou Drains wrote: “The actions I raised were actions which were based on observable brain activity”.
Once more, a simple question.
Is this a ‘conscious brain’ (ie a living brain) or a ‘conscious-less brain’ (ie. the matter itself, wet meat, a corpse’s brain).
If it’s the former, you’re trying to discuss ‘an active mind’, not ‘matter itself’.
I am using the term conscious mind, within the commonly used framework derived from Freud. The conscious mind in this sense means, as a part of mind which is responsible for rationalizing, paying attention, logical thinking and reasoning.
For example, if an individual is asked to add one and one, it is the conscious mind which will work out the calculation and give the answer.
In this framework the subconscious mind includes the parts of the mind that are not actively consciously being engaged, i.e. out of awareness, but are still influential on the outcomes of thought and behaviour.
An example of this is sub conscious bias. Say for a person’s formative years they been subjected to a plethora TV shows titles Saturday sunshine showtime or such like, full of cheerful, happy go luck Liverpudlian comedians, such as Stan Boardman, Tom O’Connor and Jimmy Tarbuck, and this had been further supplemented by fecking Cilla Black shouting “Surprise, surprise” over the bloody television. This unhappy individual might find that they have the subconscious desire when they meet another Liverpudlian to squeeze the throat of said Liverpudlian, so tightly that they strangle the poor hapless stranger to death, without realising that it is the build up of scouse tomfoolery that has led to this behavioural impulse.
Also included in that subconscious activity (note I am using the term subconscious, not unconscious) are the instinctual behaviours that I used as examples.
The reason that I made the examples I gave were aimed to discount the view of the Behaviourist school, such as BF Skinner, who argued that effectively all human personality is a result of a collection of operantly conditioned responses, based on reward and punishment.
I am not saying that these behaviours are not part of the human mind, just not part of the conscious mind
If you are referring to my post, I would like to tell you that L Bird transforms every topic into a fight and a pretext to insult and denigrate the Socialist Party, and we always get new members who are students and want to be our teachers.
I have always respected the long history of struggles and ideas of the Socialist Party, we have had members who have dedicated their whole life to this movement, and also Marx and Engels dedicated their whole life to the cause of the working class.
I like to be concrete and I go directly to the point and I do not turn it into an academic discussion, socialists ideas are simple, if some simple workers come to this forum they will leave.
The discussions forums of leftists have more varieties and social varieties than this forum, and sometimes one intellectuals and academic topic dominate the whole forum by the meantime the whole world is falling apart
Well, to be fair, MS, if those are the topics you want to post about, no one is stopping you or critising you for your posting.
Nor does any discussion I have with L Bird or with who ever I, or any one else choose to get into discussion, stop you from starting any discussions you want to start or contribute to, or in any way hamper you from having those discussions.
If you feel it “dominates” discussion, put some other topics on the board.
Anyway 29 posts in 8 days, is hardly dominating anything.
You say that “I like to be concrete and I go directly to the point and I do not turn it into an academic discussion”, however it is implied that you are saying that others should follow your preference and only have the kinds of discussion you wish to have.If you don’t want to read these postings, there is no requirement that you do.
Socialism is also about choice and free expression.
I don’t want to turn this into a spat, however I openly responded to YOUR postings. I don’t and have not criticised any area of debate you want to take part in, I would really appreciate it if you would respect my right to discuss topics that interest me, and in my right to dicuss them in the way that I choose to.
Yours for Socialism
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.