Looking for a book which actually breaks down the structure of the mind...

Looking for a book which actually breaks down the structure of the mind, so I can understand why I think the things I do. A lot of stuff is related to studies of behavior, or goals a person has, all of which are external observations of behavior. I want to know how the inside of my mind works, perhaps the brain itself if it can be explained empirically with our current level of science.

Attached: persona-1966-004-liv-ullmann-bibi-andersson-head-shots-00m-fiv.jpg (1000x763, 249K)

>the structure of the mind

No one has the first fucking idea. We don't even know what method would be appropriate to talking about this. Nineteenth century descriptive psychologists gave up after a while of initially thinking they could get access to certain things. Neo-Kantians got blown the fuck out. Husserl's phenomenology originally wanted to be even semi-systematic but was replaced by hermeneutic fundamental ontology and Derridean deconstruction which claim that our language and our experience of the world can't ever refer to the objective structures of the world. Wittgenstein agrees and thinks language is irreducibly public. Ordinary language philosophers and post-positivist analytics defer all questions of metaphysics to mainstream empirical science.

The best you can get is either Merleau-Ponty tentatively trying to come up with a kind of gay panpsychism, or weirdo metaphysical schemes. The worst (and most common) shit is absolute dreck nothing pseudo-philosophy like Negarestani "naturalizing" epistemology for the five thousandth time and calling it metaphysics with a bit of sleight of hand that doesn't even work properly. It's not even elegant fraud, usually.

>perhaps the brain itself if it can be explained empirically with our current level of science.
No, not a chance. Neurologists usually understand that the limit of their science is subjective experience and consciousness itself, which is only accessible through descriptive psychology, which ceased to be meaningfully developed over a century ago. Not only have modern neuroscientists not advanced beyond their German predecessors in the late nineteenth century, they have considerably regressed compared to the latter, especially in terms of their philosophical and conceptual reflexivity.

Cognitive science and all its fruity little offshoots is a borderline cult filled with extremely retarded people who should mostly be ignored. Take the lack of reflexivity of the actual scientists, dial it up to 10, and that's a cognitive scientist. They are nineteenth century epiphenomenalists mixed with the absolute worst of analytic philosophy. At least the better analytics commit themselves to being "therapeutic" and "pragmatist" and ignore issues of truth-correspondence and metaphysical reference. Cognitive scientists just awkwardly lash a tacit presumption of epiphenomenalism and vulgar materialism to some trendy jargon and call it a "model of the mind," without realizing they are reproducing the same two or three dumb ideas over and over again.

Nobody knows what consciousness is. The farthest we got in studying it is the acknowledgment that some kind of special explanation is needed to account for its relation to matter. Since the Germans pushed all the major stances on this problem to their head around 1900, everyone just gave up. Americans turned everything into a quantitative social science for selling cigarettes to infants and French people turned everything into social theory.

You cannot empirically validate subjectivity.

I can't believe people spend money on his "Legos with my erudite and insightful instructions for how to play with them." Either give up on subjectivity or use it as an inscrutable grounding norm, like Kant did.

Thomas Metzinger
Julian Jaynes

Imo the only promising theory of mind is an development of old double aspect theory a la Schopenhauer and parallel process a la Wundt/Leibniz

modern psychology is basically just statistics, so try /sci/

what did you think of rosen?

bump

The Gospels. Also, Hour of the Wolf>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Persona.

it's posters like you that give me hope for Yea Forums user

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

what are your favorite books user?

Complete Works of William James

excellent post and trips

Neuropsychoanalysis. It combines cutting-edge neuroscience with Freud's original insights. Despite a lot of his work being guesswork, a lot of his concepts can be translated into what we factually know about the brain. Stuff like the unconscious, libido, repression etc. Apparently, he wasn't that far off in some of his claims and it was the best he could do at the time.

Watch Mark Solms lecture on the conscious id for a nice introduction.

Other than that, the book "Unlocking the emotional brain" maps out pretty clearly how we can use the process of memory reconsolidation in a clinical setting to yield actual transformational change. It doesn't break down the structure of the mind, but it's probably the best model of psychopathology I've seen. After reading it, you'll better understand the unconscious and how most mental issues come about from implicit emotional learning in the limbic system. Mark Solms seems to also agree that utilizing memory reconsolidation is the de facto method of therapeutic change and is oddly similar to what Freud called "retranscription", but I don't think he commented on Ecker's specific model and only time will tell how effective it is.

moar

>Not mentioning Jung

Attached: Jung disgusted.jpg (480x360, 12K)

>Not mentioning Jung

It is true that a prominent basis for the mind is subjective and so to understand it by an objective description would be unrealistic however, that is not to say that there is no objective basis for the mind for if that were true we as humans would have no instinctual similarities, Men would not collectively have a desire for survival, there would not be the creative, the practical there would only be total nonsensical chaos by which the possibility of self renewal or "rebirth" would be impossible by the very first instance.

This objective element is what we base our ego and personal unconscious upon and they are based upon the collective unconscious. Jung broke down the objective elements that reside in the mind fairly easily, and by that we could find a good understanding of the subjective element.

Attached: Jung Laughing.jpg (503x700, 52K)

And that original objective element or at least largest objectivity we can find within the Psyche which is the collective unconscious is based upon the Will to Life, or the Will to whatever the fruit that life itself bares is.

Late imperial Germany was the apex of human society until it was damaged by Anglos and Jews in the inter-war period and then utterly destroyed by denazification, which rates in the top three atrocities against the collective human spirit in all of history, right up there with the sacking of ancient Egypt and Persia by the muzzies.

>Late imperial Germany was the apex of human society

Agreed.

>utterly destroyed by denazification

Agreed, the world of the Jew soon sprouted after.

>collective human spirit

You mean collective unconscious right?

No I mean spirit, I'm not referring to Jung here, I mean they were just of a high and noble spirit.

Oh I see.

Bhagavad Gita (An epic inside a big epic known as Mahabharat) gives you an aspect of the existence and non-existence that other texts couldn't give you. It's a must-read in one's life.

Former Psych grad here. Quit the field after I saw how pseud and paradoxical everyone's beliefs were. What I hate most is how pretentious and smug the entire field is, sure of its own understanding of the mind and mental illness. I get triggered just by thinking about it.

>no one mentioned Phenomenology of Spirit yet
brainlets, all of you

Attached: 1542218396880.jpg (396x396, 50K)

Jung was a pseud that wrote a lot of garbo to confuse himself and feel smart.

Wild Straberries > all

please refrain from using this pepe

Only valid post and not a single (you).
Have one

all of medicine seems to be kind of like this

i've had major health problems and my doctors are fucking assholes if they don't find the answers right away, like it's my fault

seems like you are projecting user ;)

So, which of these anons:

is right?

Unironically bergson

What are you autistic or something? How can you not understanding Jungian psychology enough to see how the logical conclusions?

As stated, we don't have a definitive model of the mind, as for the true nature of consciousness, that's not even a problem science can tackle
That being said, Tim Leary's model of the mind in 8 circuits is probably your best bet. He put together the ideas of the best minds in the field, including Jung which people have mentioned already, and synthesized a comprehensive model.
It is by far the best thing that's helped me to understand why people do the things they do. The model was best described by Robert Wilson in Prometheus Rising.

Anyone ever read this guy?

Attached: henri.jpg (1623x2560, 261K)

>muh archetypes

People are uncomfortable with being uncertain.

>t. philosophy undergrad thinking about psych grad program
What kind of school did you go to? And what did you do instead?

Also is it a cliche that they're all obsessed with Silence of the Lambs?

have you? looks like you just read some chap named arthur mitchell instead

I hope you're not memeing us. I bought it

Yes hes a genius

Howso

Faust - Goethe

seeing that frees

You could've easily pirated it off of libgen.

>thinking archaic memory's don't exist

I like to read physical copies though

I don't know if this is what you mean but I read the first chapter of Huckleberry Milton straight through and I felt disconnection and total verbal mind breakdown unlike any experience I have ever had in my life. I don't know if this is really an AI enabled book or what, but the patterns and sounds really got to me. It was the closest to transcendental meditation that I ever had outside of actually meditating