Posted by @Karen_Fu in environment, ethics, faith, human quality, Justice, life challenges.
Tags: Bentham, justice, Nature, Psychology, The Mind Is Flat, trust
This is a question Penny Ramsden is pressing to know. Though I am not asked to reply, I feel obliged to make a comment though I honestly think it needs a good draft before publishing it. It’s a difficult subject area to write. But it is definitely a very relevant question to ask. My reply was done in context to a video called ‘The Mind is Flat’ <video is found in the previous reblogged post.>
I will paste my reply here for crit:
‘Firstly, I don’t totally agree that the mind is flat to begin with.
The Prof mentions the mind is flat because there is no mental depth and the mind is unable to hide inner feelings. Something that goes against what I have always been thinking that the mind has a 4th dimension. However, I do agree with the points that People’s minds are unstable and are always inferring mental states by looking at their own behaviour, inventing a perceived preference. The mind is considered flat despite its infinite depth.
I could see how value perception works. Value is perceived by the buyer or the consumer. It is fixed by the product image set by the seller (or the product designer). If I have a perceived set of value, I would decide how much I would pay despite the amount of money I have. Value is of essence here. What is added to the dimension is the amount of money the consumer or the buyer has in order to determine how much to pay.
Policies are national and regional based. To be flatly honest, even if we chose to set a guide, any entity that is huge enough and powerful enough can ignore by simply jumping out of the set guides. That’s where the behavioural psychology comes in. People ‘will cook up’ their reasons for doing so. Especially so when issues have extremities. That I can agree with. I can see why the Prof says the mind is flat because the depths are unreal. Then again, I could say that the mind is multidimensional which is why there are so many facets of deceit and lies, over textured by different contexts. The mind is as difficult as it can be called cunning.
Bentham’s aspiration for human freedom and justice is admirable. Quote from his’ The Principles of Morals and Legislation’ via wiki,
‘Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think ‘
I thought his choice to preserve his corpse was itself a pain more than a pleasure. Something I cannot quite understand why people could do something that is contradicting to what they preach (?) unless they don’t see that as a pain like I do.
IMHO, in search of happiness, pain must be experienced and understood. The lives of the poor and the destitute must be empathised. The mind isn’t flat as i think it has complex dimensions. The triangularity concept sounds convincing but there are certainly hidden parts of the mind that cannot be seen.
Can justice be totally done? I think the scary answer could be no. But we can mitigate it the situations to make the world a peaceful place.
So the principles of justice and the nature of values cannot be fully practiced due to the negative nature of human behavior of many people. But with knowledge of such situations, we can adjust the situations. And rest assured that justice be done by Mother Nature if we still refuse to heed her calls.
Small little thoughts from a non psychology major grad.’
to add, triangularity is 2D, hence it is said to be flat. However, to me, the mind is a tetrahedron — a 3D. A 4th dimension comes in or even a 5th because I believe the mind is Highly mutatable and morphable. Hence the high complexity that cannot be resolved. A 2D one is a far simpler configuration to solve. Perhaps I have misunderstood the video. It’s 2:30 am here, and I haven’t managed to return to complete reading the online comments….- Karen
add note 9/11/2013: the alpha version will be good to see the whole picture by Prof Nick Chater. The mind is shallow for people who are small and short of intelligence. I doubt the mind is that shallow in general. So many permutations talking about. Then again, I am just rambling as a layperson having my own mind….. – Karen Fu