Thoughts about psychology and philosophy

I have come up with a few ideas related to therapy that can help someone alter their mind in any way they want, such as decreasing negative emotional states and negative thought patterns, cultivating deep satisfying happiness, or increasing intelligence through increasing raw thinking speed. I wanted to start a discussion about them (without advocating that they should actually be tried). Here are the strategies below: 1) If you insist that your mind does something enough times (like 10,000s of times or more), then eventually your mind will do whatever you want it to do. At some point it will give up and give in to what you want. It won’t resist your insistence forever. 2) The mind thinks that overall it should be operating in the way that it is currently. You can challenge that “should”, though, as an irrational should statement in respect to the particular way that your mind is operating. This can be done in the repeated and persistent way that CBT is customarily done. This can be ...

  I think the computers are able to figure out with an algorithm the propositions accepted as true by the mathematics community. To boot, I think there are holes in Godel's incompleteness theorem and Turing's halting problem resulting from the formalism employed in these proofs and concepts that are assumed in them. One gets the impression that Godel's mathematical platonism indicated that mathematics was something that occurred in the minds of people in a way axiomatic formal systems of math did not capture. Many believe that Godel's theorem also shows that certain mathematical propositions are not able to be solved by an algorithm used by a computer. One such person is mathematical physicist Roger Penrose. I don't see from a logical point of view how his arguments lead to a conclusion that machines can't compute mathematical propositions, a position that he attempts to argue for in books like An Emperor's New Mind and Shadows of the Mind. In this brief w...

Thesis: “logical implication” and “causation” are terms that correspond to ideas that probably don’t describe reality. The instances in which “logical implication” does not describe reality are those in which they mirror “causation” in terms of the images of thoughts that correspond with them. I will first take a look at logical implication, and then the notion of causation based off the contentions of Hume, and then describe possible strategies to describe reality that are free of both the ideas of logical implication and cause. (the notions of logical implication and cause are not themselves subject to logical implication and cause). The bivalence functor may be argued to be talking about synonyms at times. De Morgan’s law may be an instance of logical grammar determining instances, and may be related to when multiple descriptions result in the same outcome. This may be another class. These things should be said to be what is not being described in the essay. Any abstraction using ...