Norway: terrorist or nutter?

[eFestivals]

I don't really understand what you mean. Do you mean you don't think thoughts are cognitive processes in the brain?

I think they are, just as you and worm do.

But that proves nothing about the true fact.

And it's a dangerous method - and untrustworthy one - to use thought to identify thought. All we actually know is that we have a thing we label as 'thought'. We don't actually know what it is, how it works, or anything else about it.

Yes, we can detect brain activity when we're in thought, but that still tells us nothing of what a thought is. We can only presume.

It's very unlike physical sciences. We might not know what a brick is, but there's all sorts of ways that it can be measured on a consistent and repeatable basis. There is no equivalent for the likes of psychology.

I would have thought that would have been pretty conclusively verified from brain trauma etc. and how that's affected thought processes.

surely that means that thoughts are subject to the physical, and so not (the standard idea of) 'thoughts' at all?

And if there's a dispute about what thoughts are, then how can there be a sound science from that dispute without a ruling from 'god'? Or alternatively, a worm who thinks he'd god?

The standard idea of thoughts is that its possible to think anything. If there is a physical restriction to the thinking processes then there is not the 'free will' that is normally believed in.

I personally like to use the idea of a woman on her period as a good illustration for this. The free-will angle says that the woman chooses to be moody. Yeah, OK (ducks and runs away)

If you're meaning theories relating to healthy ways to think, Oedipus Complex, attachment theory type stuff, then fair enough. I don't really like someone imposing those types of schema on another person.

I am - because who is able to definitely define what is a "healthy way to think"? It would require psychological ideas to be as subjective as every person.

[feral chile]

surely that means that thoughts are subject to the physical, and so not (the standard idea of) 'thoughts' at all?

And if there's a dispute about what thoughts are, then how can there be a sound science from that dispute without a ruling from 'god'? Or alternatively, a worm who thinks he'd god?

The standard idea of thoughts is that its possible to think anything. If there is a physical restriction to the thinking processes then there is not the 'free will' that is normally believed in.

I personally like to use the idea of a woman on her period as a good illustration for this. The free-will angle says that the woman chooses to be moody. Yeah, OK (ducks and runs away)

I am - because who is able to definitely define what is a "healthy way to think"? It would require psychological ideas to be as subjective as every person.

[eFestivals]

Language is the most mysterious thing ever - how the hell did the brain come up with that?

who knows?

But what I do know is that psychology will never be able to tell us, along with a huge number of other brain 'thought' functions. It will only ever scratch the surface, but that doesn't stop the likes of worm extrapolating things from the tiny amount that's known and presenting those presumptions - HUGE whoppers - as indisputable fact.

After all, if psychology owned up to its limitations it wouldn't be regarded with even half the respect it currently gets from those who unthinkingly respect 'experts' just because they claim to be experts.

[worm]

There's a box. It moves. The box is evident as is its movement. The reason for its movement is not. We measure the constraints in which the box moves and give a reason as to why. This is physics.

There's a person. It moves. The person is evident as is their movement. The reason for their movement is not. We measure the constraints in which the person moves and give reason as to why. This is phsychology.

Deny psychology and you deny physics.

Edited September 1, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

being able to label anything, or share it, doesn't mean that much though, does it? If we couldn't share it, it doesn't mean it hasn't been experienced, or even happened at all. The fact that we came up with language at all seems to indicate we don't 'need' it... we existed before it was there.

Nicely put.

And further from that, if we were only able to think via language, then language could have never come into existence. It's an indisputable logical truth.

There's one proviso to that tho: it might only hold true if we're properly conceptualising what 'thinking' and 'language' are. If we have the ideas of those things wrong, then not only that idea becomes suspect but also every other idea that comes from what we take as being 'thought'. And then things get REALLY messy.

Given that psychology deals with thoughts but only has presumption for what they actually are , that's in the 'messy' already.

There's no way of knowing how we would conceive of anything without language, but I'm really baffled why it's considered a necessity in this way

Oh yes there is! We open our eyes and see light - we conceive it, tho might not understand it. No language required.

[worm]

I think they are, just as you and worm do.

[worm]

Oh yes there is! We open our eyes and see light - we conceive it, tho might not understand it. No language required.

[eFestivals]

Cognitive processes are cognitive processes.

you love these meaningless circular references don't you?

Try actually saying something.

We evidence them outside of the brain within logical structures. They are evident and undeniable. The effects of primacy and recency have been verified beyond doubt. The effects of memory have been verified beyond doubt. The effects of chunking have been verified beyond doubt. In each case, there is little evidence at all of any significant changes in biological composition or functioning of the brain, yet they undeniably exist without question.

things to fit the ideas that exist certainly exist.

What doesn't exist is anything to validate the ideas themselves, or whether the ideas are correctly applied.

As I stated so very clearly earlier today, processes in the brain (ECG etc) are matched to cognitive processes. Like in REM sleep tests and the like. There is no assumption whatsoever that cognitive processes are synonymous with brain functioning. Cognitive processes undeniably exist because they are evident. We can only correspond them to brain functions, and it fails on so many occasions.

all very true. But nothing there to prove anything about the ideas of what thoughts are, only that there is function & activity within brains.

It could all be motor function for all anyone knows, outside of what is generally regarded as the psychological scope (as breathing is).

Responding to stimuli proves nothing either, aside from there being a response to stimuli.

So yet again, you're denying modern science in its entirity with such doubts, while fully accepting what you want to believe in that the brain functions as a core drive.

about as accurate as when you last posted to say I'm putting forwards medieval ideas.

No cognitive psychologist basis his or her believe on biological activity of the brain.

Go find that radio 4 programme and listen to it, rather than waffle from ignorance, eh? You're 100% wrong.

You've absolutely no idea whatsoever of what you're talking about.

says the out-of-date man.

[worm]

being able to label anything, or share it, doesn't mean that much though, does it? If we couldn't share it, it doesn't mean it hasn't been experienced, or even happened at all. The fact that we came up with language at all seems to indicate we don't 'need' it... we existed before it was there.

[eFestivals]

Two things:

i) You aren't conceiving of light in your example, you're experiencing it.

ii) To conceive of it requires language, otherwise you're just remembering or imagining it.

Ergo, you're wrong.

1. To conceive light requires an experience of light, an experience I referenced in what I originally said. "We open our eyes and see light".

2. To have that experience of light and conceive an idea of difference (caused by the difference of darkness and light) does not require that we know what light is or that it's labelled as a distinct phenomenon. The acknowledgement of 'difference' doesn't even require language, it merely requires an experience of a difference.

You don't half talk some right bollocks.

Edited September 1, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I don't know if we did exist before language.

Evolution says we did with the substance that your misplaced thoughts don't have.

I certainly can't see how we were conscious of ourselves before language

PMSL. Just look at the spider you keep.

the self being a bi-product of language and all.

worthless, meaningless circular reference.

We certainly can't see outside of language.

I wonder how new words and concepts come about then.

Oh, we can experience things outside of language, for sure, but all we do in the process is create a new noun, verb and/or adjective when doing so.

Finally, you're getting there, and starting to throw off the bucketloads of shite you drop on these forums.

Edited September 1, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

all very true. But nothing there to prove anything about the ideas of what thoughts are, only that there is function & activity within brains.

[worm]

1. To conceive light requires an experience of light, an experience I referenced in what I originally said. "We open our eyes and see light".

Edited September 1, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Thoughts are the bi-product of thinking. Just as gravity is the bi-product of gravitation. Both are evident. Why deny one but not the other?

Once more Neil, you are denying logic. Quite literally, I may add. Just because we can't see thinking other than in its evidential output does not mean that we should deny it. If we were to do so then we would be denying all logic, including that of physics.

No, I'm simply refusing to work with a literal idea that's baseless.

In your first line here you show that you're only able to think of what we know of as 'thinking' to be exactly as defined in a dictionary.

Just because we take it to be that doesn't mean that it is that. If you have any capability for original thought then you can get that, but if you're a boxed-in dullard you never will.

The fact is that that definition comes from assumption, an assumption made long before the advent of psychology, an assumption made out of of the same otherwise-baseless thoughts as any religion. You only have that blind faith as your basis for your statements.

[worm]

Evolution says we did with the substance that your misplaced thoughts don't have.

[worm]

In your first line here you show that you're only able to think

[eFestivals]

We open our eyes and see light - we conceive it, tho might not understand it. No language required.

i) You aren't conceiving of light in your example, you're experiencing it.

1. To conceive light requires an experience of light, an experience I referenced in what I originally said. "We open our eyes and see light".

That's experiencing light, not conceiving it. To conceive of it requires language, otherwise you're just memorising or imagining the experience.

Firstly, stop pretending that I've not said what I've said.

Secondly, a memory requires there to be something that has been memorised. It can only happen after the experience and conception of experience has been put to memory, from which it can then be retrieved.

Thirdly, a happening in reality is not and cannot be an imagining.

And finally, if experiencing and conceiving light required pre-existing language for light, then we're at chicken and egg - so you still can't prove the idea of the pre-requirement of language. In your world, babies must be born with a pre-programmed language - and which then undermines so very many ideas of psychology. You want it all ways in your favour, it's laughable.

Pretty much the facts dear boy. Argue all you like.

As you love the literal so much (when it suits you ) "pretty much the facts" equals "not the facts".

But anyway, you've not provided a single fact there.

Interestingly though, how are memorising, imagining and conceiving not thought-processes? Oh that's right, they are. There was me paying attention to you against my better judgement again. Yet another thought-process.

You do talk tosh.

In every literal sense they are thoughts. Do pay attention.

Care to show me what proves the literal definition?

[eFestivals]

Loving the irony.

loving your inability to think for yourself, as this proves yet again.

[eFestivals]

No it doesn't. It can only trace our origins back to when our species (rather than we) talked. The current theory is that recursion began the process of complex language, but this is contested as we simply don't know for sure.

Then why do you constantly state that we DO know for sure?

The homosapian is defined by its affliction to language.

boxed in by the literal yet again.

So the 'substance of evolution' actually says otherwise, doesn't it Darwin.

Nope. The evolutionary line - not complete, not without doubts, but with more substance than merely thoughts - gets to show that what became humans existed without language as we know it.

What's not clear here is whether you'd sticking firmly to the literal, or if for your own advantage you've conveniently switched switched tack.

If you've suddenly switched tack, then that gets to show the lack of scientific approach you have, and cannot claim science for psychology.

If you're sticking with the literal then it's a win for me.

My point is that there is no 'we' as we know ourselves today without contemporary self concepts that were completely lacking before language.

throwing away the facts because they're inconvenient is a great scientific methodology.

No sense of self though, eh. Mainly because it has no concepts of self, such as vanity, ego, you know, civility.

PMSL - more than enough of a sense of self and the need of self-preservation to run away from preditors.

Boxed in by the literal again.

All you had to do was look below. They're formed by our internal penchant for noun, verb and adjective formation.

oh, you mean the thing you're demonstrating that you have an absolute lack of?

Doing such a thing requires the ability to put aside the literal, because there is no literal to work from.

[worm]

The evolutionary line - not complete, not without doubts, but with more substance than merely thoughts - gets to show that what became humans existed without language as we know it.

Edited September 2, 2011 by worm

[worm]

With regards to all of your other bullshit that seeks tirelessley to miss the point:

There's a box. It moves. The box is evident as is its movement. The reason for its movement is not. We measure the constraints in which the box moves and give a reason as to why. This is physics.

There's a person. It moves. The person is evident as is their movement. The reason for their movement is not. We measure the constraints in which the person moves and give reason as to why. This is phsychology.

Deny psychology and you deny physics.

Edited September 2, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

You really need to address this irony.

I have done. You're too boxed in by dogma to realise.

I don't deny the process. I simply point out that the conclusions are baseless, unlike with the physical example.

There is a huge pile of evidence to support physical theories, where those theories can be verified by cross-consideration of the idea and evidence across a number of different and unconnected things. For example, the theories for 'mass' are verified by being just as applicable to a feather as for a brick - proving that mass theory is universally constant; that mass theory can then be used in further theories, where there's similar cross-consideration and universal constants, further proving the accuracy of the original mass theory. Nothing of these things are circular references or self-supporting ideas.

As a result, we can have absolute certainty (as much as it gets with science, anyway) in mass theory - it's accuracy is proven time and time again, always and forever, and it's never wrong.

There is nothing within complex psychology that's comparable. The ideas are self-supporting, not independently supported by unconnected things (there are some instances of this actually, but very amusingly the likes of you reject them [you did just this only yesterday] because they screw up other baseless ideas of psychology ); there is no independent evidence, there are only unconfirmed ideas.

And right at the base of all psychological ideas are these unproven and unprovable ideas that are simply blind faith - I've said this countless times, asked you to provide specific things as supporting evidence, and got back no response - there's a reason why, and it doesn't take a psychologist to work it out.

Psychology has theories - theories that are constantly proven wrong, and the "scientific method" () that psychology uses to deal with those errors is to say that they don't matter, that they're an irrelevance. Nothing of the theory changes as a result of the proven errors (which would be true science!).

Anyway, have you got your pointless theories up to date yet, by reading up on what you don't know? Or are you going to continue to prove beyond all doubt the indisputable truth of the preceding paragraph by denying inconvenient truths yet still calling it science?

[eFestivals]

For instance, falling is something we can measure from which we form the abstract concepts of weight and gravity. Addition, speech, expression and imagination are things we can measure from which we form the abstract concepts of thinking and logic.

The abstract concepts of weight and gravity are indisputable universal constants, as proven directly across a huge number of different things, and proven indirectly across another huge number of different things in the theories that are derived from that original 'falling theory'.

Care to show me where psychology has anything remotely similar?

It only has the self-supporting - "I have a feeling I call thinking, and I think it works in this way". And even then it gets proven wrong, constantly.

[feral chile]

The abstract concepts of weight and gravity are indisputable universal constants, as proven directly across a huge number of different things, and proven indirectly across another huge number of different things in the theories that are derived from that original 'falling theory'.

Care to show me where psychology has anything remotely similar?

It only has the self-supporting - "I have a feeling I call thinking, and I think it works in this way". And even then it gets proven wrong, constantly.

Edited September 2, 2011 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Evolution defines 'us' as homosapians. And homosapians are defined by an affliction to language. What homosapians evolved from is not considered 'us', according to the definitions of evolution.

How very convenient.

Of course, by taking a literal view over the use of just one word (but while not doing the same with the word 'evolution' itself ), it doesn't push away the inconvenient facts which fail to fit your theories, eh?

To reach your conclusion you have an inconsistent methodology (so defo nothing that can be called 'science' here), because you take the literal for 'homosapien' (which is a word I didn't use anyway - you've chucked it in for your own convenience), but are refusing to give the word I used - evolution - the same literal use, because it screws your theories.

We were talking about the developmental line that has led to humans - you've simply pretended that the developmental line can only go back as far as is covered by the word 'human', when evolution theory says something VERY different.

Now, which has the greater substance, a theory with a huge amount of supporting evidence, or something with no evidence and which is simply a label that has been put against something as it exists today?

In your world, the 'car' is not derived from the 'horseless carriage', despite the indisputable truth that it is. A 'moving picture' is not a 'film'; an 'adding machine' is not a 'computer'; in law, the 'ravishing' of old was not 'rape'; etc, etc, etc.

But you keep on believing that you're a scientist, eh?

To cite the last great modern philosopher, 'Man, as we know him today, is a 19th century literary invention'.

How very convenient.

Nothing of that is designed to push aside the inconvenient truths that undermine philosophy, eh?