Whose talking about blame? Just you.

:eye roll: Go fuck yourself.

The reasons are real. What do you even mean by making excuses. Do you just mean not succeeding or trying.

It's important to bear in mind that someof the energy they expend is automatic.

:/ It depends what you mean again. Making it easier for people to engage in "bullshit arguments and lying" is probably not a good idea. I am unclear whether you should make live easier for people with bullshit arguments.

You are wrong here, depending upon whether you mean "ALONE" as in, this is the only intervention.

These are distinct issues.

Take your psychologising away and actually address teh points.

Again, fuck you. Just strawman someone's suggetion with a pun.

Go fuck yourself. It's unclear that this was even what she was talking about and the issues of losing weight are more to do with:

• Consistency
• Planning
• Hunger

Blah blah. This framing of "pleasure" feels infected with ideas of gluttony.

Is that what she is saying? Or is she saying that the concepts of "purity" surrounding diet (and the equivalent concepts of impurity and disgust that go with not following these rules) are similar to those that surround sex.

I believe that it is accurate... but this is difficult to prove - as are many discussions about schema and psychology.

I think this is wrong. Social withdrawal is a component of the etiology of obesity. So in this regard enlightenment can encourage social interaction which will reduce extreme examples of obesity. It may also encourage people to seek support, create a more effective health care system, and system of interventions etc etc.

This is interesting.

I am not sure what understanding means in this context, I'm not sure that remembering and understanding should be viewed as different.

I'm not sure this is exactly true. A good way to remember stuff is to use it (c.f. the maker movement)

"In Austin's framework, locution is what was said and meant, illocution is what was done, and perlocution is what happened as a result. " Wikipedia

This is interesting. Metatheoretical constraint

That's an interesting idea. That a group forum allows people to explore and crystallize unknown truths the better to be understood and fought.

This is perhaps an interesting extension to some of the ideas of Mill, not only can truth be discovered through facing the best of others idea, but perhaps an idea must first be distilled out of people's subconscious.

Is it really... group therapy is a commonly used technique, for addiction, for weight los.

That is an interesting (and theory laden) distinciton.

This reminds me of the techniques of motivational interviewing. When I read a textbook on the topic, it described the process of motivational interviewing as collecting people's own motivation to them like flowers and then presenting them with a bouquet.

Interesting... I gues these forum might allow for unfiltered understanding and explorations of ideas that the medical and psychological profession might prevent.

Psychology can have strong and (maybe slightly) wrong models of people and why they do things. And I can understand that imposing these viewpoints on people, without providing them with the ability to "talk back" might, in many ways, be damaging. Perhaps pro ana forums act as an antidote.

Interesting.... perhaps understandable. Perhaps partly true.

:)

Perhaps ethics might have opinions on the similarity and compatability of a group.

"In medicine, it is usually defined as the recurrence of symptoms after a period of remission or quiescence, in which sense it can sometimes be synonymous with relapse" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recrudescence

That is an interesting endeavour. I wonder what it might mean. It might mean to uncover a system of morality, moral reasoning, aesthetics and shared value that a society possesses

This is not that surprising. Philosophy in many ways describe the underlying process of thought.

I think it might be more informative to look at other industries.

Artificial intelligence can mean many things - some of which are quite broad.

I don't think this is true. While I feel the characterisataion that reality is fundamentally phenomological rather scientific, I think this observation might have no applications or predictions.

I feel, rather, that this mode of thinking and observation might be useful in the fields of psychology and sociology. An observation that one's social model of reality is partial, that one does not have access to social reality, and that this model must be changed and updated. That fundamental science is nowhere near up to the job of describing your day to day life and that one therefore, necessarily, uses other simpler models.

I feel that this article might really be addressing this issue. The fact that that people, drunk with science, might pretend to be living their life "scientifically* when there understanding and model of reality is really fundamentally always provisional and update to change. And while these people may be guilty of "scienticism" using a model of reality (and a metamodel) of reality that fails to function because it is too influenced by the idea of science (too fixed, too reductive. too universal), perhaps here you are doing the opposite a form of phenomenologicalism, that tries to force one's experience of reality into science and that in so doing creates damage, giving value to mere opinion when there is certainty.

I don't think this is true. We can start to explain people's perception of reality, start to model, start to link it to the physical.

There will always r. emain a final step in this process that is impossible, how does one link one's model of reality to inside one's own head. But perhaps, all one needs to assume is that one's own experience is that same as others (a phenomological assumption, for sure) to leave one a physical explanation.

I am not sure that this is true.

We can build models that predict and explain them and simplify them, and these models can be useful psychologically. Eventually we might be able to link them to physical experience.

This is very poetic

Certainly. Though again, the phenomological connector to reality needn't be that complicated.

That is certainly true. But perhaps one need only build a very simply phenomological model of reality that can be tested time and time again in order to link the experiential to the scientific.

That is certainly true. However we might add that these models can be shared between different minds, tested and that they hold true.

How should we consider the entity that is the "shareable and testable model of reality"?

I would agree with that. All we ever have are models in our head that agree with reality. But perhaps our connection to our machines and technology are so consistent that we need nothing else.

I am not sure if this is true. Theoretical physics, for example, is an attempt to generate models.

These models are not fixed. Rather the data (and related submodels are fixed). One has a model of general relativity, and a model of quantum mechanics which hold under certain conditions and one seeks to create a model that captures these two situations (and maybe others) as accurately as possible. The hope is that in making this model simple and elegant it is more useful, more manageable, and more likely to be true. One can then test the predictions that this model makes against reality and find a new model (or perhaps merely use the model because it is useful or beautiful).

Does it not?

Here is one tack. The necessity of a machine to understand when it needs to change it's behaviour going forward and when it doesn't.

In order to understand it's own behaviour the brain must create measures of "controllable" and "uncontrollable" with controllable being defined as those things for which the organism attempts to change itself in order to control.

Is this explanation philosophical or scientific? I'm not quite sure. it is a model with moving parts, if you flesh it out it might become predictive. It might not be connected up with fundamental, but nor really is geography or chemistry (other than through the use of common philosophical methods). It nevertheless gives one an explanation that feels an behaves like science, that has logic, predictions etc.

It should be noted that a cognitive model may still be useful in this context.

A cognitive model seeks to create a model for what the brain will do in terms of moving parts without recourse to a physical explanation.

If one can describe a large part of human experience in terms of simpler moving parts then one is marking progress.

Perhaps it is rather a real God. Perhaps the scientific method is so accurate and true that once it is tested phenomenological it can be forever trusted.

This is true... and yet, science can completely explain the behaviour of another mind. So if one adds the assumption that one's own experience is the same other's experience, then one owns subjective reality becomes physical.

What does irreducible mean in this context? Practically irreducible, or merely impossible using current tooils

I am not clear whether this is more of a problem of the limits of science than a fundamental problem.

Science describes how the brain works at a fundamental level, but these models make no predictions.

We can say that consciousness is a process that goes on within the brain, that it allows an individual to do certain thing, that modelling it can help us understand what a person will do. Etc.

The issue is perhaps, that subjective experience gives one a better tool to explore consciousness than science itself. The problem is that the tools of sciene, while they explain consciousness (because they explain nearly everything), can tell us nothing about it, while other tools can.

I am not entirely sure that this is true (though am not familiar with the research of consciousness).

One could start to enumerate the processes of qualia and then seek to define cognitive or physical models of these processes and then one start to understand consciousness scientifically.

A model of consciousness may proceed as different part of the brain "projecting" experience to other parts of the brain.

This is accurate. But science often renders the act of experience what it measures so consistent, that we can effectively ignore questions of experience (at least within the topic of physics).

When one ventures into the world of sociology and psychology things become more complicated. The science here is difficult to interact with, the world is filled with complex feedback loops, one can often create (or participate) in creating a social reality that is different from others. The mind can perceive things that one does not subconsciously now.

I am not sure, however, whether this should properly be coonsidered a field of philosophy or psychology. The act of defining reality from a phenomenological point of view may have more to do with psychology (or practical psychology) than it does philosophy.

It' interesting to note the rise of the coffee shop during the same period. Perhaps this reflects a change in social spaces, rather than the death of social spaces.

This may in part me a natural consequence of specialization. It is unclear whether the current economy supports long-term stable employment. It should be borne in mind that we get wealth in return.

That's not to say that the social effect of shorter term employment are not real, and that we shouldn't attempt to ameliorate them.

Do you want to attend a meeting where the topic is "talking to other people".

I've gone along to these events before, and they can feel rather odd. The topics can feel strange, and unnatural.

More generally, those who are socially isolated can have a reason to be social isolated. Perhaps they are obese, perhaps they don't like people, perhaps they are ashamed, perhaps things have happened to them that they don't understand. I think these problems can be overcome, but they perhaps need more specific interventions.

Understanding how to bring a community together in part might require an understanding of how people interact, what people enjoy about interactions, what people dislike about interactions.

I can think of a few things, common interests, a person being "like you", enjoying how someone thinks, plans for the further.

But the internet very much is not

This is a common talking point. I'm not sure that it is the correct way of thinking about the topic, and feel that it needs a more detailed analysis.

I'm not too familiar with these terms. But again I think these have more specific meanings.

This is true of 4chan (by design). It is very much not true of reddit, reddit consists of a collection of subreddits which police their own content subject to the will of the subreddit maintainers. Many subreddits have a very high standard of moderation: a great deal higher than, say, the guardian comment section.

This is misleading. "normy" often means people who do not partake in internet culture (such a reddit and memes). By referring to this term in this way, you potentially unfairly label those who use the term as "alt-right"

It's important to remember that "alt-right" has taken (or been given) a new meaning that did not exist when it was first defined.

"alt-right" now means neo-fascist. It did not mean this initially.

I'm not sure that this is true of the correct way of looking at things.

For some mental the health disorders, people do have some control over their condition. Talking about lack of fault is potentially to deny the agency that people do have over their lives. I feel the illness metaphor can be problematic here as well. The mind is one of a persons faculties that one has the most control over. It also one of the organs that other people (and society as a whole) can cause the most damage to.

This is a complicated issue.

It's not necessarily clear what a mental health is, philosophically speaking. "Mental health issues" may reflect the ability of an individual to handle their situation in life (and what they have experienced historically) rather than some feature of a person, so changing the person's situation can "cure" their mental health issues, as can providing them with external tools to deal with their situation.

But it also seems to be the case that some "mental health issues" are caused by or contributed to by disorders in the brain, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder come to mind. (Though for schizophrenia, this is a contentious issues, environmental factors seem to be correlated with psychosis - for example trauma - some will say this suggests that psychosis is not a condition of the brain but rather a treatable condition of the mind, others will argue that trauma is causing damage to the brain through stress). Conditions of the brain may be difficult (though not necessary impossible) to treat with social and talking therapy interventions.

I feel that grouping disorders of the brain together with disorders of the mind and how people should live in the world can be problematic.

But is it actually free. You know what they say, if a tool is free then you are the product. Don't trust them. (Joking)