Science Without a Soul

Ahnimus · October 2007

angelica wrote:

right.....the more men in suits back you up mean you MUST be right. Did you know that's a marketing/psychological ploy? To convince people you have powerful or vast groups supporting your "product", "service" etc?

Whether you know it's a trick or not, I know....

In the end, opinions remain opinions.

Did you know the moon landing never happened?

angelica · October 2007

The fallacy of the "objective" view, Ahnimus, that you rely so heavily upon is that it rests upon your own personal subjective preferences, and isn't any more objective in actuality than anyone else's.

Ahnimus · October 2007

angelica wrote:

ah...the "revert to the methods epitomized in the videos" ploy, huh? Revert to the ole social-psycho control, eh??

*smiles and nods*

Angelica, your whole philosophy is hypocritical. I'll find the statement here where you said "If someone calls you imbalanced, they are imbalanced". Talk about a self-refuting statement. Not to mention that the person who claims others are "imbalanced" the most, is you.

Ahnimus · October 2007

angelica wrote:

The fallacy of the "objective" view, Ahnimus, that you rely so heavily upon is that it rests upon your own personal subjective preferences, and isn't any more objective in actuality than anyone else's.

If you honestly believe that, then you should take a page from OutOfBreath and not assent to any claims. Save yourself from the hypocracy of your current philosophy.

Ahnimus · October 2007

Angelica wrote:

Post: 97
If someone tries telling another that due to their ideas or point of view that the individual is imbalanced, or even sick, that is a power play. The one embarking on the power play is coming from an imbalanced position of looking down on the other, and has entered the "rescuer/victim/persecutor" triangle. They will continue to cycle through these three imbalanced positions.

A brief look at the posts where you have used the term "imbalanced" mostly directing the allegation at an individual.

http://forums.pearljam.com/search.php?searchid=1684169&pp=25

Case in point

Angelica wrote:

Thread: The Morals of an Atheist
Post:162
When you "justify" poor behaviour by saying your eyes are on the future, at the expense of what IS--reality--you show the faulty premises that create your imbalanced actions at this time.

angelica · October 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Angelica, your whole philosophy is hypocritical. I'll find the statement here where you said "If someone calls you imbalanced, they are imbalanced". Talk about a self-refuting statement. Not to mention that the person who claims others are "imbalanced" the most, is you.

I fully own my observations, self-refuting or not. I'm well aware that as a human being with all kinds of diverse aspects to my nature, that I do and say hypocritical things all the time. I'm not a logical process. I'm a human being.

angelica · October 2007

While we're discussing human beings, you know, Ahnimus, that human beings are supposedly addicted to their thoughts. And also that they find conflicting thoughts from others to be discordant, and they experience dissonance. You know that applies to you. So to, at the same time, consider yourself scientific and objective given the conflicting nature existing within you is also a hypocritical view. No one is perfect. And frankly no one is better or worse.

Ahnimus · October 2007

The following is relevant and taken from The Engine of Reason, The Seat of the Soul: A philosophical Journey into the Brain by Paul Churchland. The text is from the final chapter Neurotechnology and Human Life, specifically the subsection Medical Issues: Psychiatric and Neurological Medicine. The following paragraphs are founded on the previous ten chapters explaining the philosophical position of Churchland and the history of our understanding of the brain, as well as the current models in neuroscience. An understanding of all this is ideal for the reader to interpret the text and to have a decent opinion on it. I recommend this book to everyone as an introduction to neurophilosophy and a primer on neuroscience.

The first place we will feel the effects is in psychiatric and neurological medicine, the domain of damaged or dysfunctional brains. As we saw in chapter 7, these disciplines already have the shape they have by virtue of the theoretical knowledge we possess and the technologies we command for observing the brain and for intervening, in a benign spirit, it its activities. Developments now coming on line will accelerate their development.

The following few paragraphs outlines the advancements in brain imaging techniques I mentioned earlier. fMRI, MEG, how they work and the pros and cons of them.

These new ways of monitoring and manipulating neural activity especially when used in conjunction with pharmacological modulation of the biochemical soup in which that activity takes place, will eventually give the psychiatrist and the surgeon a much better understanding of the dimensions and mechanisms of normal brain function. This will inevitably lead to better and safer techniques for detecting and fixing failures of normal function. And perhaps for heading them off before they ever occur.

Is there a dark side to all of this? Of course there is. Ignorant psychiatrists will occasionally presecribe dangerous drugs. Clumsy surgeons will occasionally damage vital neural subsystems. Confused theory will legitimize some irrelevant and retrograde medical practices. Bureaucratic policy will occasionally attempt to solve chemically what can only be solved socially. Some welcomed cures will prove to have disastrous long-term side effects. A black market in neuroactive drugs and devices will flourish. A subculture of abuse, however small, is inevitable. All of these things will happen. Only their frequency is uncertain.

In the face of these inevitable frustrations we might be tempted to slam the lid on the entire project, research and technology alike. That decision, of course, would have consequences of its own. Wise psychiatrists would be denied the drugs to restore dysfunctional brains. Skilled surgeons would be denied the information necessary for pinpoint interventions. Accurate theory would never sustain a more enlightened medical practice. Bureaucratic policy would frustrate its itself trying to solve socially what can only be repaired chemically. There would be no welcome psychiatric cures at all, with or witout long-term side effects. And finally, we are already up to our ears in a vicious black market of insidious and self-destructive drugs. Without neural research and improved health care, we may never replace them with more benign drugs, nor find treatments that will stop addiction in its tracks.

The problem is one we have faced many times before, ever since the discovery of fire. Any new technology brings the potential for careless accidents and deliberate abuse. In the early stages, when society barely understands the new technology, apprehension and outright fear are the natural reactions. But subsequent public understanding regularly replaces fear with comfort; subsequent government regulation of practice brings confidence; and a subsequent flood of public benefits eventually brings a strong commitment to the new technology. What we need to do with neurotechnology, as with any other, is learn to use it responsibly.

Everyone should read this book from the MIT press. You might even find that you agree with some of it, if you read the whole book.

Ahnimus · October 2007

angelica wrote:

While we're discussing human beings, you know, Ahnimus, that human beings are supposedly addicted to their thoughts. And also that they find conflicting thoughts from others to be discordant, and they experience dissonance. You know that applies to you. So to, at the same time, consider yourself scientific and objective given the conflicting nature existing within you is also a hypocritical view. No one is perfect. And frankly no one is better or worse.

Do you have an example, or is this just another assent to an unfounded claim?

angelica · October 2007

Unfortunately, psychologically speaking, the whole problem is that humans deny aspects of themselves which don't fit their ego idea of who they are, and thusly, they block off parts of themselves which then operate unconsciously and beyond their own awareness. Integration is about the willingness to own all parts of one's self, not just the parts that are logically (or morally) acceptable.

Ahnimus · October 2007

angelica wrote:

Unfortunately, psychologically speaking, the whole problem is that humans deny aspects of themselves which don't fit their ego idea of who they are, and thusly, they block off parts of themselves which then operate unconsciously and beyond their own awareness. Integration is about the willingness to own all parts of one's self, not just the parts that are logically (or morally) acceptable.

So, no, you don't have any examples. Rather you are making a claim about my "Self" to which you have no introspective capacity. Forget about claiming that an apple is red, here you are assenting to a claim you have no sense of. You are asserting that I have internal conflicts, which only I would know, unless you can show behaviorally that I have exhibited conflict. In which case you would be practicing Behaviorism. Wouldn't that be ironic?

angelica · October 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

So, no, you don't have any examples. Rather you are making a claim about my "Self" to which you have no introspective capacity. Forget about claiming that an apple is red, here you are assenting to a claim you have no sense of. You are asserting that I have internal conflicts, which only I would know, unless you can show behaviorally that I have exhibitid conflict. In which case you would be practicing Behaviorism. Wouldn't that be ironic?

Ahnimus, you know those psychological tests that they give people and how they weave in the "truth" questions that indicate whether the person is lying or not....For example, when they ask "have you ever lied before?". So if/when the person answers "no", they know it's a lie, due to basic human awareness. The same goes for inner conflict and contradiction. If you are denying it, you are denying it to yourself. We can see the conflict--you act out unconsciously (to yourself) but overtly to us, all over the board. Just as you can see my conflicts. These are known human traits. Period. You're welcome to keep up the facade and the denial, though.

Ahnimus · October 2007

angelica wrote:

Ahnimus, you know those psychological tests that they give people and how they weave in the "truth" questions that indicate whether the person is lying or not....For example, when they ask "have you ever lied before?". So if/when the person answers "no", they know it's a lie, due to basic human awareness. The same goes for inner conflict and contradiction. If you are denying it, you are denying it to yourself. We can see the conflict--you act out unconsciously (to yourself) but overtly to us, all over the board. Just as you can see my conflicts. These are known human traits. Period. You're welcome to keep up the facade and the denial, though.

I'm just asking you for an observational example. I'm also pointing out the fact thus such inferences are the brain-child of B.F. Skinner and Behaviorism.

You are referring to the lie-detector test here, which as I understand tests galvanic skin response and EEG. Both of which are rather unreliable methods of lie-detection and hence why it is rarely admissable in court. It takes a very well trained physician to properly analyze GSR and EEG results.

angelica · October 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm just asking you for an observational example. I'm also pointing out the fact thus such inferences are the brain-child of B.F. Skinner and Behaviorism.

You are referring to the lie-detector test here, which as I understand tests galvanic skin response and EEG. Both of which are rather unreliable methods of lie-detection and hence why it is rarely admissable in court. It takes a very well trained physician to properly analyze GSR and EEG results.

No I am not referring to a lie detector test. I'm referring to the psychological tests spoken about frequently in true crime books. Written tests.

Observational examples....let's just say I'll leave that one alone....... Just trust that people can see the contradictions, conflicts, etc that you deny to yourself. Do you think you are the only one to see it in others?

catefrances · October 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Did you know the moon landing never happened?

but...but...i saw the film footage.

Ahnimus · October 2007

angelica wrote:

No I am not referring to a lie detector test. I'm referring to the psychological tests spoken about frequently in true crime books. Written tests.

Even more unreliable. Darren Brown might get away with it in his editted for TV illusionist pranks. But I doubt that it is used much in any field. Body-Language experts or Kinesiologists might be called in from time to time for criminal investigation, but this is referred to as circumstantial evidence, no smoking gun.

Observational examples....let's just say I'll leave that one alone....... Just trust that people can see the contradictions, conflicts, etc that you deny to yourself. Do you think you are the only one to see it in others?

No, I don't think so. There should be a distinction made between a change of opinion, or paradigm shift, and a directly hypocritical view. I think, the wise thing to do, is to acknowledge specific "conflicts" and work to resolve them. Difficult to do without an awareness of them, which makes observational examples critical in progression. Of course, there is always the option of externalizing that conflict by making the claim that everyone else is also in "conflict".

angelica · October 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Even more unreliable. Darren Brown might get away with it in his editted for TV illusionist pranks. But I doubt that it is used much in any field. Body-Language experts or Kinesiologists might be called in from time to time for criminal investigation, but this is referred to as circumstantial evidence, no smoking gun.

You doubt it, so it must not exist....

I've read literally 100's of true crime books, and interestingly the same test was mentioned in numerou s (at least 20) of these books, many times explaining the "lying" control aspect of the test that the test-taker was unaware of. The point is that a human who says they've never lied is a liar.

and I'm talking about a directly hypocritical view.

Ahnimus · October 2007

angelica wrote:

You doubt it, so it must not exist....

I've read literally 100's of true crime books, and interestingly the same test was mentioned in numerou s (at least 20) of these books, many times explaining the "lying" control aspect of the test that the test-taker was unaware of. The point is that a human who says they've never lied is a liar.

and I'm talking about a directly hypocritical view.

I don't see how that is relevant. I've never claimed that I've never lied, nor have I claimed that I've never been a hypocrit. But it's not a question of my distant past, it's a question of my current state. You usually try to force us into talking about what IS and totally ignoring the past. But here and in this thread, you are asking us to do the opposite. Ignore what IS and focus on the past.

angelica · October 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I don't see how that is relevant. I've never claimed that I've never lied, nor have I claimed that I've never been a hypocrit. But it's not a question of my distant past, it's a question of my current state. You usually try to force us into talking about what IS and totally ignoring the past. But here and in this thread, you are asking us to do the opposite. Ignore what IS and focus on the past.

It's clear you are not seeing the power imbalances that myself and others see in psychiatry. To each their own.

Ahnimus · October 2007

angelica wrote:

It's clear you are not seeing the power imbalances that myself and others see in psychiatry. To each their own.

By saying that there are imbalances in psychiatry, does that make you imbalanced, based on the premise set forth in post 97?

Science Without a Soul

Comments

Categories