4-layer three-dimensional
No matter how systematic and specific other people's opinions are, it feels like a little bit like pouring one's own chunks with someone else's glass of wine. Knowledge needs to be digested and absorbed. Although this is a metaphor, it is still very appropriate. Without digestion and absorption, it cannot be considered one's own.
The Master said: If you study without thinking, you will be confused; if you think without learning, you will be in danger. In my opinion, if experience and theory are brackets, then thinking and practice are mortise and tenon. Only by learning and thinking while thinking and applying while you can you gain something. After learning and thinking, I summarized the theory about individuals into four layers and three dimensions.
The fourth layer divides these theoretical knowledge into four levels, namely: consciousness level, brain area level, neural level and molecular level.
The hierarchical view of theoretical knowledge is also mentioned in other books in similar ways. For example, in the book "From Western Philosophy to Zen Buddhism" by Professor Fu Weixun , theories about life are divided into ten levels. In the book "Exploring the Brain", the author divides the levels of analysis into five levels: molecules, cells, systems, behavior and cognition. In the book "Surveying the Traces of Memory", the relevant discussions are most similar to mine, but my four-layer three-dimensional thoughts have been roughly the same before I saw this book, just like reduction . Before reading Professor Lin's "Rise and Fall", I had the idea of layering the world, because I already had relevant knowledge about psychology and physiology related books before I came into contact with this book. Everyone has similar ideas, but they are not specifically and clearly discussed. What impressed me the first time I read the book "Surveying Traces of Memory" was the discussion on the molecular level of Haitu's behavior, and the specific discussion on the author's ideological context and reductionism were only noticed when I read it the second time. I have repeatedly emphasized that knowledge must be consistent with a person's current knowledge structure to be well absorbed, otherwise no matter how good the knowledge is, it will be ignored.
As mentioned earlier, stratification is an important idea of reductionism, and the more important idea is that the previous level of laws can be derived from the next level. When it comes to laws, we need to talk about causality and effect. In the words of the British philosopher Russell , the power of science lies in the discovery of the law of causality .
Causal Theory
What is causal relationship? Two important scientific ideas mentioned in Professor Lin’s "Rise and Fall", one is reductionism and the other is cause and effect. Cause and effect are so ordinary that we never think deeply about what it actually means. If I were to define it, it would be like the deterministic view of cause and effect that Professor Lin mentioned in "The Rise and Fall": A→B, as long as A appears, B will definitely appear, then we will say that A is the reason for B.
But if we want to find causality in psychology, it seems not so easy. In "Human Knowledge", Russell believed that there was no law on psychology that could prove that under certain conditions, something would definitely happen, and A→B did not exist. For example, if a person suffers from phobia, a psychologist will find that this or that piece of artillery is the reason for his illness after analysis, but many people have had the same experience but have not obtained the same result. In fact, many psychological causal relationships do have such characteristics. For example, Huang Biying, the girl in "Depression", dares to refuse others. Many people have similar experiences. Most parents will tell their children to be obedient, praise and reward when they are obedient, and punish when they are not obedient. However, not everyone will have Huang Biying's behavior pattern that cannot refuse others.
But this kind of relationship that may not necessarily occur is often used by us. For example, we would say that a student’s inferiority complex is because of his poor academic performance or poor family conditions. This sounds very reasonable, but under the same circumstances, the relationship that may not necessarily produce the same results is still called causality?
For this fundamental problem, Professor Lin’s solution is to believe that the relationship that is not necessarily deterministic is called causality, and the relationship of probability is also called causality. For example, in physics, quantum theory is fundamentally probabilistic, but it should also be attributed to causality. When I first read this part, I didn’t understand Professor Lin’s meaning at all. In my thoughts, causality is equivalent to the causality of determinism . That non-determinism relationship cannot be called causality. But if this relationship is not taken into account, many things will be excluded. Planting seeds may not necessarily lead to gains, and studying hard may not necessarily lead to college. However, in real life, farmers will still plant crops on time and students will try their best to learn. Their trust and dependence on this indeterminate relationship is no less than the trust and dependence of physicists on the decisive causal relationship of mechanics, and they are also used to calling it causal relationship. Therefore, there is no need for us to exclude this relationship from causality. Mr. Russell also believes that although these relationships are only general, as long as the probability exceeds half, we can call it the law of causality. These rough general relationships should be included in science, otherwise many useful knowledge will be excluded. According to the above view, we should also call this general relationship a causal relationship.
If everyone has a consensus on this, then we can establish a causal relationship at the level of consciousness.
