[Peace-discuss] Cognitive hygiene?

[Carl G. Estabrook]

Montaigne's maxim was QUE SAIS-JE? [What do I know?], which he had set on a personal medallion together with the Greek word EPOKHE [I hold back, or I reserve judgment] and a pair of scales, to remind himself of the potential equality of strength of two opposing arguments. 

Ron’s maxim is QUE SAVENT LES AUTRES? [What do others know?], and his answer seems to be RIEN [Nothing]. 

He doesn’t seem to reserve judgment, because he doesn’t think any arguments have strength; they are all merely psychological manifestations. 

But how can he sure that that opinion is more than a psychological manifestation? Is there a course of Cognitive Hygiene that, like mental philosopher’s stone, allows one to distinguish true opinions from those psychologically induced? (Is it called thinking?)

Or maybe, when it comes to the philosophical quadrille, Ron is merely bemused by the poet’s question:

"O body swayed to music, O brightening glance, 
How can we know the dancer from the dance?”

—CGE


> On Jan 21, 2018, at 1:03 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> Just what got you on this track? An interesting  diversion from my ordinary thoughts.
> 
> —mkb
> 
>> On Jan 20, 2018, at 10:34 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Notes on Cognitive Hygiene
>> 
>> Ron Szoke   1/20/18
>> 
>> Anticipation of Confirmation Bias 
>> “The human understanding is no dry light, but receives infusion from the will and affections; whence proceeds sciences which may be called "sciences as one would." For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Therefore he rejects difficult things from impatience of research; sober things, because they narrow hope; the deeper things of nature, from superstition; the light of experience, from arrogance and pride; things not commonly believed, out of deference to the opinion of the vulgar. Numberless in short are the ways, and sometimes imperceptible, in which the affections color and infect the understanding.”
>> — Francis Bacon, c. 1620, as quoted by Carl Sagan
>> ——
>> 
>> Apophenia (/æpoʊˈfiːniə/) is the tendency to attribute meaning to perceived connections or patterns between seemingly unrelated things. Confirmation bias a variation of apophenia. 
>> 
>> The term (German: Apophänie) was coined by psychiatrist Klaus Conrad in his 1958 publication on the beginning stages of schizophrenia.  He defined it as "unmotivated seeing of connections [accompanied by] a specific feeling of abnormal meaningfulness". He described the early stages of delusional thought as self-referential, over-interpretations of actual sensory perceptions, as opposed to hallucinations.
>> 
>> Apophenia has come to imply a universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information, such as gambling. 
>> 
>> — Wikipedia
>> 
>> ——
>> 
>> divination (fortune telling)
>> An undue opinion of our own importance in the scale of creation is at the bottom of our unwarrantable notions in this respect. --Charles Mackay
>> Divination is the attempt to foretell the future or discover occult knowledge by interpreting omens or by using paranormal or supernatural powers. The list of items that have been used in divination is extraordinary. Below are listed just a few. Many end in 'mancy', from the ancient Greek manteia (divination), or 'scopy', from the Greek skopein (to look into, to behold). Most forms of divination rely on magical thinking, apophenia (finding meaning in meaningless patterns), and pareidolia (seeing distinct forms in vague and random patterns).
>> ——
>> 
>> magical thinking
>> "...magical thinking is "a fundamental dimension of a child's thinking." --Zusne and Jones
>> According to anthropologist Dr. Phillips Stevens Jr., magical thinking involves several elements, including a belief in the interconnectedness of all things through forces and powers that transcend both physical and spiritual connections. Magical thinking invests special powers and forces in many things that are seen as symbols. According to Stevens, "the vast majority of the world's peoples ... believe that there are real connections between the symbol and its referent, and that some real and potentially measurable power flows between them." He believes there is a neurobiological basis for this, though the specific content of any symbol is culturally determined. (Not that some symbols aren't universal, e.g., the egg, fire, water. Not that the egg, fire, or water symbolize the same things in all cultures.)
>> One of the driving principles of magical thinking is the notion that things that resemble each other are causally connected in some way that defies scientific testing (the law of similarity). Another driving principle is the belief that "things that have been either in physical contact or in spatial or temporal association with other things retain a connection after they are separated" (the law of contagion) (Frazer; Stevens). Think of relics of saints that are supposed to transfer spiritual energy. Think of psychic detectives claiming that they can get information about a missing person by touching an object that belongs to the person (psychometry). Or think of the pet psychic who claims she can read your dog's mind by looking at a photo of the dog. Or think of Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance. Coincidentally, Sheldrake also studies psychic dogs.
>> 
>> — The Skeptic’s Dictionary
>> 
>>