No comments on my proposal?I thought you all wanted to learn about things?

Recent Blog Posts

Reader comment on:
The Edifice of Pinkerism
in response to reader comment: We're talking about different things here

Submitted by Andrew McCarthy MD, Sep 20, 2007 04:01

This is why I say that what you will try to do 'scientifically' in regards to the self is never going to be anything but a model that you put down on paper. And you will be absolutely wrong if you think that this model will be anything close to representing who we are. Mind has been thought of for eons as some kind of an intellectual model of our thinking. It is where we came up with the whole idea of 'cognition' in the first place.It is the 'idea' of our thinking.

Secondly, the brain is seen by almost everyone in science as the actual component of thought. Everyone is certain that this 'substance' is where thought is originated. I have almost thought that too until I started to treat brain injury. And I did this for twenty years and I can fill a room with diagnoses given by well intentioned people who classified patients with brain injury as something measurable. And our good intentions have misled us.Our data is always secondary and never primary in regards to measuring via EEG or MRI or fMRI or even with neuropathology. And the same thing is true with neuropsychological testing.And saying this is where we will find consciousness seems certain but we are forgetting that what we are doing is looking outward. But who we are is always inward and hidden. Thus consciousness is not something that can be measured for the person's consciousness can never be really seen. It is immeasurable for it is beyond what we can sense.

This whole idea of brain measurement of sensory input as the only source of knowledge is absolutely wrong. The brain in regards to sensory information is what allows us to sense only. But what does the sensing? It is that part that we will never ever touch. So we receive information via sensory input. And even with that our senses only can perceive certain quanta within certain boundaries.

But remember that the error occurs at the first step of your intention. You are mesmerized by your senses and you think that your senses tell you everything. But all they do is receive information and all this information comes about in some kind of quanta, some kind of energy. It is all coming to you via some kind of measurable quanta via cells that can perceive this information. And you and I are in complete agreement on this. This perception is entirely measurable. But this is the amazing thing about it. It only can measure what has some kind of energy, what has some kind of movement. And thus we are all so enticed by this movement. But what is energy if not something that is transient? So everything we measure seems solid but all it is, is a transient state.

No wonder we are wrong about this. We have been fooled into thinking that what we see is real but it is all coming to us in quanta from who knows where. It is why I admire Socrates so much. It is why I am simply dumfounded with what Kierkegaard wrote. They figured this out entirely on their own.

There does not have to be anything of a religious nature to what I am saying when just looking at this logically. I am not the one who has once mentioned anything about God. This is pure logic. However if what we see is coming from some kind of a system that was made up specifically to fool us well our idea that we have any intelligence beyond just simple logic that even most animals have, is completely ridiculous.

We are simply idiots who can measure a few things as well as name a few things. It is why I reject Evolution as some kind of intellectual process of improvement. And I reject Intelligent Design too. I thus reject the left and the right in political terms for both think they are smart when they are not smart at all.

Thus I reject cognition. I reject the whole idea of mind. I reject what is transient. But I do not reject the power of simple logic nor do I reject the idea that there are things I can never measure, including myself. I am being fooled for some reason. Thus I agree with Kierkegaard and with Abraham Heschel. It is with this entity that I should have some fear and trembling. And it is why I am glad to be Irish for we Irish have always believed in the immeasurable. We have always believed in the hidden. We have always believed in eternity. And we have been killed countless times over this. But as an old bum in a bar once told me in a small town outside Galway was probably the wisest thing I have ever heard: "Wnter hasn't killed us yet." And so stick with your view of winter. It shall never touch who I really am and I will fight you all till my dying breath, and even then I will never give up. After all I am a Celt :)

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.

Other reader comments on this article

Comment	By	Date
It has been about one year since we had our discussion on the 'mind'. And I suspect that Dr Y... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy	Sep 28, 2008 08:15
This is where 'facts' are really nonsense in disguise. If one has a hypothesis that cannot be proved or disproved... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy	Nov 12, 2007 06:42
The confusion of any philosophical science that has no heart What I find so alarming is that our most learned, our... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy MD	Sep 27, 2007 03:21
Pinker's postulations still resonates with the 'soft innatism' and "cast of basic concepts" of a Longinian (Longinus) prefiguration of thought.... [MORE]	obrian worrell	Sep 24, 2007 16:25
Latin is figurative speech, right? Well just look up any word of Latin or Greek origin and you will get... [MORE]	Jean-Philippe De Lasalle	Sep 19, 2007 21:07
I think what has me so dismayed by rational science in regards to human beings, as we want to practice... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy MD	Sep 19, 2007 05:38
We have heard of Evolution as "survival of the fittest," but I understand that studies of chaos and emergence give... [MORE]	John House	Sep 21, 2007 00:08
Pinker's verbal brilliance has been obscured by his inadequate theory and frequent misrepresentation of facts. I demonstrated this in an article... [MORE]	Bruce I. Kodish	Sep 18, 2007 12:59
adding "ism's" to authors (darwinism's, dawkinism's, pinkerism's) is lazy, sloppy and silly, please refrain. these authors have stated empirically verifiable... [MORE]	michael farr	Sep 14, 2007 19:49
I very much doubt that steven Pinker is the cognitive sicentist of our time. first and foremost he is a... [MORE]	charles leighton	Sep 14, 2007 06:18
I once attended a public lecture by Steven Pinker at my university. The event was so popular that I had... [MORE]	W. Dean	Sep 13, 2007 20:29
--- "But has any serious thinker actually held this form of innatism? No; it's at best a heuristic for actual... [MORE]	p. bourges-waldegg	Sep 16, 2007 02:56
Pinker's "sensitivity to subtle semantic distinctions" echoes Anatole France's maxim that "truth lies in the nuances." Basically, this is the... [MORE]	William Hoffman, Ph.D.	Sep 13, 2007 15:39
I haven't read the book, but from what examples are given here of the "cast of basic concepts," it seems... [MORE]	Marc Andre Belanger	Sep 13, 2007 10:27
I apologize for saying cognitive psychology has no merit. I don't mean that. But it does have issues that those... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy MD	Sep 13, 2007 07:34
A very gracious apology Dr McCarthy as well as several valid points that clarify your position. I agree completely with... [MORE]	Laurie	Sep 13, 2007 17:58
John Locke is an eighteenth-century philosopher by only a hair's breadth. Locke died in 1704; his most important works appeared... [MORE]	R. Franklin Carter	Sep 12, 2007 20:00
Logrolling much? But yeah, Pinker is probably more or less on the same level as Roughgarden, though maybe a little... [MORE]	Martin Browning	Sep 12, 2007 15:53
Pinker making diffenence between mind and brain, really speaking all our thinking ,feeling, sensation, language born from brain. We know... [MORE]	Ramesh Raghuvanshi	Sep 12, 2007 11:32
It may sound impressive to detail a fundamental relationship with language and mind but first one must determine what is... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy MD	Sep 12, 2007 06:48
A bit difficult to make out what Dr. McCarthy is going on about...over 500 words to express what seems to... [MORE]	Kyle	Sep 12, 2007 12:03
"Man is not measurable in words or in numbers and that is where the whole idea of cognitve psychology fails.... [MORE]	Laurie	Sep 12, 2007 18:47
Sorry, couldn't help it. First there's this comment, Dr. McCarthy:The problem is psychology is not a true science. It is not... [MORE]	Psychologist Y, PhD	Sep 14, 2007 22:01
I went to a university where psychology was in the school of Arts and Letters. I majored in psychology as... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy MD	Sep 15, 2007 07:22
You are right in one aspect in that I did not clarify my thoughts in a more detailed way. Dr.... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy MD	Sep 16, 2007 04:32
First, don't take the McCarthyism thing too seriously - it was just a play on "Pinkerism" via a reference to... [MORE]	Psychologist Y, PhD	Sep 16, 2007 22:35
Dear Dr Y, I think you agree with me at one level yet do not realize it. You believe that science... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy MD	Sep 17, 2007 18:27
Perhaps we're just talking about different things here. First, I am not a clinical psychologist. Like Pinker, I am an... [MORE]	Psychologist Y, PhD	Sep 18, 2007 09:37
I understand that you are in experimental evolutionary psychology. And I understand that you believe that cognition, whatever on this... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy MD	Sep 18, 2007 18:25
This is why I say that what you will try to do 'scientifically' in regards to the self is never...	Andrew McCarthy MD	Sep 20, 2007 04:01
Well I've given the whole idea of the relation between the mind and reality some thought and this is part... [MORE]	Jean-Philippe de Lasalle	Sep 23, 2007 09:15
Remember to keep categories/fields straight and don't forget fundamentals. Mathematics is much more than idea. It gives one a sense... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy MD	Sep 30, 2007 22:58
I know what I have said here is a bit upsetting to psychologists/ neurologists, to physicists, to mathematicians, to biologists,... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy MD	Oct 7, 2007 06:34
The reason Pinker is difficult to refute is because his ideas and evidence are those of a chameleon. He... [MORE]	esya	Nov 6, 2007 15:42
Jerry Fodor is a philosopher.Yiddish is inherently funny.Etc. [MORE]	Fitz	Sep 12, 2007 06:41

Reader comment on:The Edifice of Pinkerismin response to reader comment: We're talking about different things here

Other reader comments on this article

Comment on The Edifice of Pinkerism

Reader comment on:
The Edifice of Pinkerism
in response to reader comment: We're talking about different things here