Is there a way to tell when you are deluded?

[lightgigantic]

This is lightgigantic's initial response to my first post in this thread:

He maintains that definitions "dictate" personal experience. Let's suppose a definition means something couched in the English language.
So infants who don't yet understand English are presumably free from any dictates, and according to the second sentence, are left with experiences no different from delusion.
Then later, he posts this:So it seems infants are, after all, excluded from experience (unless they have amnesia).
But wait, there's more:So, maybe infants are able to have experiences, or maybe there's a contradiction, or maybe . . . there isn't.

When I introduce the example of breathing, something that the senses "report information about", the argument changes to having to think about it. Then thinking about it means being aware of it, because awareness is a dialog. But breathing is "low end", a non-experience unless you're aware of it:.

And so it goes. Rather confusing, but he appears to enjoy being confused.

So infants can't define who their mother is?

Seriously, if you want to attempt to discuss this topic any further you will have to drop this imbecile notion of thought and awareness having no ultimate form outside of syntax.

:shrug:

 

[arfa brane]

Seriously, if you want to attempt to discuss this topic any further you will have to drop this imbecile notion of thought and awareness having no ultimate form outside of syntax.

But you are prepared to admit that humans think in words. And that if you ask someone what they're thinking about, they will often explain it in their native language.

What if you don't want to think? If you ask someone what they're thinking and they say, "I'm not thinking", are they deluded since obviously they're aware and "having a dialog"?

 

[lightgigantic]

But you are prepared to admit that humans think in words. And that if you ask someone what they're thinking about, they will often explain it in their native language.

What if you don't want to think? If you ask someone what they're thinking and they say, "I'm not thinking", are they deluded since obviously they're aware and "having a dialog"?

So now complex expressedlanguage combination s of syntax can exist independent of thinking ... certainly a novel concept and a worthy companion to your previous gem suggesting one can simultaneously pay and not pay attention.
:shrug:

I reiterate, until you give up this absurd notion of thought and awareness existing in no higher form outside syntax, you don't even enter in the arena of this discussion

 

[arfa brane]

So now complex expressedlanguage combination s of syntax can exist independent of thinking

If by thinking you mean "in words" then what you said makes no sense.

But that seems to be your style: misinterpret things so they fit your agenda. We aren't having a discussion, and we never have.
You admit that humans think in words, but also insist this is something I claim is the only kind of thought or awareness, which I haven't done.
So you invent things I haven't said, thus you can respond through remonstration. I'm not surprised that few people want to engage with you.

But if you're happy with your internal dialog, who am I to criticise? I have to say that despite your projection of being knowledgable, you tend to come across as a bit of a twat.

But here I am, wasting my time. So . . . bye.

 

[lightgigantic]

If by thinking you mean "in words" then what you said makes no sense.
.

If by thinking you mean "in words" then your entire contribution to this thread makes no sense

You are leaving this discussion without ever participating in it.

:shrug:

 

[wynn]

We aren't having a discussion, and we never have.

And these are not words on a page.


Awww, this is so funny!

 

[wynn]

 

[arfa brane]

If by thinking you mean "in words" then your entire contribution to this thread makes no sense

But people do think in words. If you think I believe that's the only way we think, then you're obviously just trying to find a reason to preach your own nonsense.

You are leaving this discussion without ever participating in it.

Well, now you can keep talking to yourself, the only person who is interested.

 

[lightgigantic]

But people do think in words.

Don't know what you are talking about but it has nothing to do with sociology, philosophy or psychology

Well, now you can keep talking to yourself, the only person who is interested.

will the irony never end?
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Have you ever asked someone what they're thinking? What did they do?

run off to learn tap dancing so they could communicate their response to me in Morse code of course.

It sounds absurd that you can pay attention and not pay attention, sure.

glad we finally agree

It also sounds absurd that since awareness is a dialog, that you can be aware of a dialog. But maybe that's a failure of language to inform.

actually its a failure to enter a state bereft of being aware ... I guess that is one of the failings of being alive

But you're probably a linguistics expert, as well as a reknowned authority on, well, just about everything, right? It's why you post here at sciforums.

don't flatter yourself.

Finding shortcomings with your ideas doesn't require expertise.

:shrug:

 

[Logic101]

Yes.

de·lu·sion
1. an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.​

By the definition alone, atheism, for example, would qualify as idiosyncratic (peculiar) and contradicting generally accepted reality.

I am in 100% absolute agreement with you.

 

[Baldeee]

I am in 100% absolute agreement with you.

I'm not.
First he uses "atheism" only in regard to the positive belief that God does not exist.
And not any wider meaning.
Many are atheist without believing that God does not exist.
He confuses the position such people hold with agnosticism which, while often overlapping with such a position and possibly being the cause, is a separate matter (epistemology vs ontology etc).

Second, he is arguing in favor of delusion being defined by popular vote rather than reality itself.
Reality is not a matter of popularity.

I therefore find his definition rather loose and unsatisfactory.
Personally I prefer a definition along the lines of: "a false belief held with conviction in the face of superior evidence to the contrary".
Under such a definition, if one can not show that the belief is false then one can not claim the person to be deluded.
So I do not consider religious belief to be a delusion.
Nor strong atheism.

Holding a belief in the absence of evidence is not delusion.
Nor is holding a belief due to the absence of evidence.

But that is my view.
If one starts with a different definition of such things then one will perhaps conclude differently.

 

[Syne]

I'm not.
First he uses "atheism" only in regard to the positive belief that God does not exist.
And not any wider meaning.
Many are atheist without believing that God does not exist.
He confuses the position such people hold with agnosticism which, while often overlapping with such a position and possibly being the cause, is a separate matter (epistemology vs ontology etc).

Second, he is arguing in favor of delusion being defined by popular vote rather than reality itself.
Reality is not a matter of popularity.

I therefore find his definition rather loose and unsatisfactory.
Personally I prefer a definition along the lines of: "a false belief held with conviction in the face of superior evidence to the contrary".
Under such a definition, if one can not show that the belief is false then one can not claim the person to be deluded.
So I do not consider religious belief to be a delusion.
Nor strong atheism.

Holding a belief in the absence of evidence is not delusion.
Nor is holding a belief due to the absence of evidence.

But that is my view.
If one starts with a different definition of such things then one will perhaps conclude differently.

Believe it or not, I agree with most of that. If an atheist does not hold a positive belief that a god does not exist, then that atheist is unlikely to have any grounds to characterize a theist as delusional. And you are correct, that is the most accurate definition of atheism. And while delusion is defined as contrary to generally accepted reality, you are correct that reality is not a matter of popular opinion, just normative reality used as a criteria for judging delusion (as the DSM states: "The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture").

I agree that a definition of delusion based on evidence is more objective, but then strong atheists (who my argument was mainly addressed to) are not always objective about the evidence, or lack thereof. I would agree that the label of delusion must be applied, or not, equally to religious belief and strong atheism, as neither are based on evidence for a positive assertion.

 

[Mathers2013]

My Doctors think I'm deluded despite the fact the only way they know what's going on in my mind is by what I tell them. I do not blame them for thinking I'm mental: during one meeting I could not stop laughing because Earl (an alien who created us) put images of a dead alien in a football strip, and a three-peice suit, in my mind. :-D I should not have been laughing at a dead alien but I could not understand why he/she was wearing a football shirt!