Question for psychology enthusiasts. Is there a book that will explain what exactly a person is? A person obviously has a conscious mind, an unconscious mind, a feeling and a thinking side. What part of the mind, though, is the self? Is the rational side of the mind the "I" and does it only exist by communication with the feeling, primitive and irrational side of the mind? Do they exist dependently of one another? I would like a psychological book that explains this phenomenon.
Question for psychology enthusiasts. Is there a book that will explain what exactly a person is...
Christopher Brooks
Matthew Adams
It would do you well to remember that the self and 'I' are not the same thing. You're crossing into spiritual territories with this question. Check out Rollo May
Jayden Cook
This isn't a question of psychology but of philosophy so if you want a psychological book on the matter you are out of luck. These links should give you a good place to work from. The questions you have asked are immensely difficult and complicated
plato.stanford.edu
plato.stanford.edu
plato.stanford.edu
Lincoln Brooks
And what exactly is the difference between the self and 'I'
Jaxon Hughes
Read this. As someone who studies neuroscience for a living I can attest that it's a question that can't be answered by science alone. This book does a decent job of exploring the topic from a psychological and neurological standpoint though while incorporating philosophy.
Robert Cook
He is just stating his opinion, there is no consensus about that whether it's in Psychology or Philosophy. I know contemporary Psychology basis itself on metaphysical dualism, i.e. believes there are two basic substances that constitute reality: mind and matter.
William Wright
Not OP here.
What do you think of neuroscientists who think there is no mind, only matter?
Thomas Long
>I know contemporary Psychology basis itself on metaphysical dualism, i.e. believes there are two basic substances that constitute reality: mind and matter.
Where'd you hear this bullshit?
Logan Morgan
That question can be read two ways.
The first, where "mind" is only used as a stand-in for "soul", "atman" "manas" or whatever, is the less scientifically reasonable one, being the form of cartesian dualism we're all familiar with from highschool. If something is not material and experiential by definition it is beyond the scope of scientific examination.
The second concept of there being no "mind" to speak of at all is flawed, in my opinion. Denying the "mind" as internal, subjective experience is like denying that Usain Bolt runs.
>His legs only move over an inanimate surface to propel him forward. Where is the "running"? Can you show me this invisible "run" of yours in a bottle?
Obviously "running" is not an essence you can bottle, but it's stupid to say that runners don't run, in the same way that brains have qualae.
>Where is your invisible, intangible "mind" here? All I see are the rushing of blood, electrical activity of pyramidal neurons and discharge of neurotransmitters across synapses, you quaint mystic.
Nolan Lee
I didn't hear that "bullshit", it's implied. Most Psychology work done today considers both body and mind, and does not reduce one to the other (monism). Since Jung and Freud era has passed, talking about spirits or something beyond body and mind is considered pseudoscience.
Aiden Stewart
"Mind" doesn't necessarily mean what you're probably thinking it means, in the tradition of idealists who thought ideas were ONLY REAL in the mind, or something like that. The popular notion of the "mind" is the you that's reacting to (yous) and not the literal grey matter of your brain and the salty juices sloshing around in it. Materialist monism is compatible with the concept of a mind simply through the tired hardware/software metaphor.
Problems with your "hardware" are for PhDs. Problems with your "software" are for psychologists, therapists, and the like.
Logan Clark
The mind is a million parlour tricks, made of more than smoke and mirrors, a second
Xavier Rodriguez
holy...
Thomas Thompson
>hardware
>software
I also think there is a gradient spectrum, relating hardware to software:
Hardest, not quite hardest, not quite not quite hardest, less hard, over medium, medium, middle medium, lower medium, slightly softer than lower medium.....etc..
How much power do you think the software can potentially have over the hardware? if even like 0.01% - 0.9%?
And then at the same time, it might be 40% (at least from time of baby to grown child)
development stage, where a lot of the brain-mind is developed via sense information, what is able to be seen, and human information: writing, language, video: that the inner relation with the outer, the outer relation with the inner, the inner relation with itself and memory, and own thinking, physically shapes the physical layout of the mind/neurons/hormone levels/rates and modes of chemical productions.
(after I wrote this, waiting for the captcha to come up, I was afraid my computer browser would crash and I would lose what I just wrote... I would not have been able to rewrite what I just wrote (mainly due to pure flusteration), what does this say about my mind
Charles Reed
dont ware it out ;)
Jonathan Miller
The insula is considered relevant to self reference. I don't have a book. I hope this helps
Xavier Phillips
>What part of the mind, though, is the self?
None, the self is an illusion
Justin Rodriguez
This, there's no such thing
Bentley Wilson
I believe phycologists are just theriost with a common three to base the theory upon example most drug addicts lacked a stable home environment
Lucas Harris
lol
James Ramirez
Its true though most pedos. Had abuse as children people that grow up with no control over things in life grow up to be dominant blah blab
Matthew Richardson
this thread really made me think
Juan Myers
It seems too easy to make you think, bro. There is nothing remotely thought provoking here, it's just obvious shit.
Dominic Collins
My thought exactly
Kevin Cox
this comment really got my neurons firing. thank you for it.
Oliver Hughes
It's a flightless biped you fool
Christian Wilson
I think contemporary psychology implies a property dualism more so than substance dualism.
Samuel James
I is how you perceive the self. The self is what you are outside of all perceptions.