Observations of a Rational Mind
Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online Observations of a Rational Mind file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Observations of a Rational Mind book.
Happy reading Observations of a Rational Mind Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF Observations of a Rational Mind at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Observations of a Rational Mind Pocket Guide.
Moreover, our intuitions and habits determine the large majority of our lives, which we spend on autopilot mode. That's not a bad thing at all. It would be mentally exhausting to think intentionally about every action and decision. The intentional system is like the elephant rider.
It can guide the elephant deliberately to go in the direction that matches that of our actual goals.
The Interplay between Intuition and Rationality in Strategic Decision Making: A Paradox Perspective
Certainly, the elephant part of the brain is huge and unwieldy. It is slow to turn and change, and it stampedes at threats. But we can train the elephant. Your rider can be an elephant whisperer. Over time, you can use the intentional system to change your automatic thinking, feeling and behavioral patterns.
I hope this information fills you with optimism. You can use these strategies to get what you want and achieve success in life! This "auto pilot," as you describe it, IS the cause of our misery. It breeds ego and desire. Why should I care whether the Red Sox or the Yankees win? The colors of the uniforms are the only thing different. Self observation IS the control that you speak of. Once a person equates the painful feeling with placing his hand on the stove, he never places his hand on the stove again. Lon, I think you're right that self-awareness is crucial, and indeed, the autopilot system does steer us wrong sometimes.
However, it's also important to rely on our autopilot system, as it helps us make decisions and lead our lives quickly and efficiently. It's valuable to use the intentional system to catch when the autopilot system is likely to make mistakes, catch those mistakes, and retrain our autopilot system to avoid making those mistakes again Article looks good in theory But how to use that intentional part in our day to day dealings.
Great question! NOT think about a subject he doesn't want to think about. Unhelpful thoughts can be disgarded like ceasing to fear your own projected shadow on a wall, or our first parents who must have been terrorfied at seeing the Sun go down, And not knowing whether it would raise the next day but you can't and shouldn't forcefully repress feelings. Great article, however I wish it went into more detail as to how the intentional system can be trained to check the autopilot system.
Is it simply a matter of being self-aware? Are there some concrete exercises that can be applied to keep us on our intellectual toes? Yeah, I hear you. However, making the blog any longer would have prevented some from reading it.
The Scientific Method | Boundless Psychology
Gleb Tsipursky, Ph. He is in private practice. Back Psychology Today. He is capable of incredible feats of logic, such as playing three-dimensional chess. Medieval Islam. The Scientific Revolution. All of the above. Malcolm Reynolds. Obi-Wan Kenobi. Observing stars through a telescope.
Dissecting a frog. Solving a mathematical equation. Anonymous November 20, , am Reply.
Rationalism I. Quiz 1.
- Rational Thinking | Organic Lyricism.
- Espiritualidad y Abundancia.: El Camino del Mago (Spanish Edition).
Much as they disagreed about the nature of respiration and combustion, Priestley and Lavoisier gave quantitatively similar reports of how long their mice stayed alive and their candles kept burning in closed bell jars. Priestley taught Lavoisier how to obtain what he took to be measurements of the phlogiston content of an unknown gas.
A sample of the gas to be tested is run into a graduated tube filled with water and inverted over a water bath. Priestley, who thought there was no such thing as oxygen, believed the change in water level indicated how much phlogiston the gas contained. Lavoisier reported observing the same water levels as Priestley even after he abandoned phlogiston theory and became convinced that changes in water level indicated free oxygen content Conant , 74— The moral of these examples is that although paradigms or theoretical commitments sometimes have an epistemically significant influence on what observers perceive, it can be relatively easy to nullify or correct for their effects.
They then try to explain how observational data argue for or against the possession of one or more of these virtues. One way to decide whether a theory or a theoretical claim is true, close to the truth, or acceptably probable is to derive predictions from it and use observational data to evaluate them. Hypothetico-Deductive HD confirmation theorists propose that observational evidence argues for the truth of theories whose deductive consequences it verifies, and against those whose consequences it falsifies Popper , 32— But laws and theoretical generalization seldom if ever entail observational predictions unless they are conjoined with one or more auxiliary hypotheses taken from the theory they belong to.
When the prediction turns to be false, HD has trouble explaining which of the conjuncts is to blame. If a theory entails a true prediction, it will continue to do so in conjunction with arbitrarily selected irrelevant claims. Ignoring details, large and small, bootstrapping confirmation theories hold that an observation report confirms a theoretical generalization if an instance of the generalization follows from the observation report conjoined with auxiliary hypotheses from the theory the generalization belongs to.
Observation counts against a theoretical claim if the conjunction entails a counter-instance. Here, as with HD, an observation argues for or against a theoretical claim only on the assumption that the auxiliary hypotheses are true Glymour , — Bayesians hold that the evidential bearing of observational evidence on a theoretical claim is to be understood in terms of likelihood or conditional probability.
For example, whether observational evidence argues for a theoretical claim might be thought to depend upon whether it is more probable and if so how much more probable than its denial conditional on a description of the evidence together with background beliefs, including theoretical commitments. Earman , 33— Roush , — According to all of them it can be reasonable for adherents of competing theories to disagree about how observational data bear on the same claims.
As a matter of historical fact, such disagreements do occur. The moral of this fact depends upon whether and how such disagreements can be resolved.
Because some of the components of a theory are logically and more or less probabilistically independent of one another, adherents of competing theories can often can find ways to bring themselves into close enough agreement about auxiliary hypotheses or prior probabilities to draw the same conclusions from the evidence. Saving observable phenomena. Theories are said to save observable phenomena if they satisfactorily predict, describe, or systematize them. How well a theory performs any of these tasks need not depend upon the truth or accuracy of its basic principles.
Theorists are to use those assumptions as calculating tools without committing themselves to their truth. In particular, the assumption that the planets rotate around the sun must be evaluated solely in terms of how useful it is in calculating their observable relative positions to a satisfactory approximation. For Duhem a physical theory. Investigators produce them by performing measuring and other experimental operations and assigning symbols to perceptible results according to pre-established operational definitions Duhem , For Duhem, the main function of a physical theory is to help us store and retrieve information about observables we would not otherwise be able to keep track of.
Theorists are to replace reports of individual observations with experimental laws and devise higher level laws the fewer, the better from which experimental laws the more, the better can be mathematically derived Duhem , 21ff. Let EL be one or more experimental laws that perform acceptably well on such tests. Higher level laws can then be evaluated on the basis of how well they integrate EL into the rest of the theory.
Other data may need to be accommodated by replacing or modifying one or more experimental laws or adding new ones.