"Secularism is a religion...Atheism is a religion"

[worm]

Start speaking sense and address the issues put to you. Stop trying to avoid them by turning to other things as you always do. This is a fucking discussion, you child.

[worm]

Psychology might look to understand, but in that looking it has to resort to the made up out of nothing. Like the 'psyche'.

Edited August 16, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

You are repeating the same thing you said a few posts ago. The same thing I addressed in complete and fully disqualified.

Neil, you are unbelievable. I disproved your language bullshit along with everything else. I disproved it scientifically.

if you think that's science, you really are a joke.

I showed how there is no need for language to see that a person is addicted in exactly the same way as you don't need language to see that an apple falls. You need it to formulate a theory of gravity though. Much like you need it to formulate a theory of dependency.

It's not the same thing.

You don't need a theory of gravity to understand what gravity does and what it acts on; you don't even need the word gravity. The falling apple does all of that for you.

You *DO* need a theory for addiction to gain the same level of understanding of addiction. Without a theory, all you can know of is how an addicted person acts towards their addiction, not what the addiction is internally acting on or from.

For what addiction acts on, psychology has invented a 'psyche' - out of nothing; it's a concept of no more solid substance than the concept that the sky might fall in. It's a thought and nothing more, and we all know (except you, as you keep proving) how unreliable human thoughts are.

As Stephen Fry so rightly pointed out, psychology is dark ages stuff. We don't have a reliable starting place to build up other concepts from. We do not know what thought is (other than our feeling of thought) and what is acting on us to create our thoughts - and until we do, everything built on top of the flaky ideas of what thought is are HUGELY unreliable ideas.

That unreliability is proven by how often psychological ideas have to be revised. It's too immature a 'science' to yet be a science in how we now think of science. Science in a modern sense are solidly tested and repeatable things, not often-unable-to-be-replicated ideas that then have to be constantly revised.

Until we're able to recognise the constants to thought processes, there is no basis for the application of science to thoughts (apart from in trying to find those constants to get a starting point for a 'proper' science of thought).

Edited August 16, 2012 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

What relevance is that? But yes we do. We become aroused. The pupils dilate. The sexual organs become enflamed. But this is physiology, not biology or psychology.

Edited August 16, 2012 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Start speaking sense and address the issues put to you. Stop trying to avoid them by turning to other things as you always do. This is a fucking discussion, you child.

I'm keeping to the subject.

It's you who avoids the issues, by a pretence of confusion over what I've said - and so you try the diversionary tactics of saying I'm talking biology or whatever. I'm not, and either you're fucking stupid beyond belief, or you're a charlatan.

And we both know which of those it is.

[worm]

How do you know that one object is seperate from another? How do you know that the apple is seperate from the tree? It's independence. Thus, we have a psyical universe.

How do you know that one person's thinking is seperate from another? How do you know that the addict is seperate from the non-addict? Their independence. Thus, we have a psyche.

[feral chile]

if you think that's science, you really are a joke.

It's not the same thing.

You don't need a theory of gravity to understand what gravity does and what it acts on; you don't even need the word gravity. The falling apple does all of that for you.

You *DO* need a theory for addiction to gain the same level of understanding of addiction. Without a theory, all you can know of is how an addicted person acts towards their addiction, not what the addiction is internally acting on.

For what addiction acts on, psychology has invented a 'psyche' - out of nothing; it's a concept of no more solid substance than the concept that the sky might fall in. It's a thought and nothing more, and we all know (except you, as you keep proving) how unreliable human thoughts are.

As Stephen Fry so rightly pointed out, psychology is dark ages stuff. We don't have a reliable starting place to build up other concepts from. We do not know what thought is (other than our feeling of thought) and what is acting on us to create our thoughts - and until we do, everything built on top of the flaky ideas of what thought is are HUGELY unreliable ideas.

That unreliability is proven by how often psychological ideas have to be revised. It's too immature a 'science' to yet be a science in how we now think of science. Science in a modern sense are solidly tested and repeatable things, not often-unable-to-be-replicated ideas that then have to be constantly revised.

Until we're able to recognise the constants to thought processes, there is no basis for the application of science to thoughts (apart from in trying to find those constants to get a starting point for a 'proper' science of thought).

Edited August 16, 2012 by feral chile

[worm]

You don't need a theory of gravity to understand what gravity does

[eFestivals]

Psychology steps in to test the link between arousal and attraction.

Some tips from science/psychology on increasing your attractiveness:

http://whywereason.c...t-with-science/

.

I'm particularly liking this line....

"all of these studies identify what unconsciously influences attraction". PMSL.

Mind you, your own choice of first words to quote are pretty good too....

"Psychology needs at least a few more decades to even begin to understand attraction".

Worm claims himself a disciple of science. So how come he won't address or accept the scientific evidence?

[worm]

I'm keeping to the subject.

Edited August 16, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

How do you know that one object is seperate from another? How do you know that the apple is seperate from the tree? It's independence. Thus, we have a psyical universe.

How do you know that one person's thinking is seperate from another? How do you know that the addict is seperate from the non-addict? Their independence. Thus, we have a psyche.

We have a physical universe we can test for the existence of (within the limits of our own existence of course).

We can similarly test the physicalness of people. We cannot test for anything for the concept you call psyche. It's made up out of nothing, an attempt at understanding, but not actually anything that is understandable.

It's just a bit of goalpost moving. We have one idea that we don't understand, so let's create another idea we don't understand and say that the first is a consequence of the second. It gives the illusion of understanding the first, but doesn't actually succeed in doing that.

[feral chile]

I'm particularly liking this line....

"all of these studies identify what unconsciously influences attraction". PMSL.

Mind you, your own choice of first words to quote are pretty good too....

"Psychology needs at least a few more decades to even begin to understand attraction".

Worm claims himself a disciple of science. So how come he won't address or accept the scientific evidence?

[worm]

We have a physical universe we can test for the existence of (within the limits of our own existence of course).

Edited August 16, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

'You don't have to have a theory of gravity to see that gravity happens'. Eh?!?!?!?!?! Of course you do. Gravity is the theory of why the apple falls to the ground, not the reality. Dependency is the theory of why the person is addicted, not the reality of them being addicted.

Dependency is what you have, a dependency on flawed language and self-sustaining ideas.

Gravity is just a word, a label. It's applied to what is indisputably there, that exists without any doubt - without need of the word, or an idea that might come to bring about a word (as it eventually did). The apples falls on your head.

The only thing which says there's a psyche is the idea of psyche itself.

Can you point at the psyche? Can you say what it influences and what it doesn't? Can you prove it actually exists at all, outside of an idea? Nope, none of these.

It's no more of a solid idea than the idea that the sky might fall in. And that of course was a concept that someone made up on day and used it to help explain the sky and the universe - but none of it was true.

The ideas of psychology have no stronger a basis in science than the idea that the sky might fall in.

[eFestivals]

I wouldn't argue with you that brain function/consciousness is still a mystery, both to scientists and psychologists. But I find it a fascinating subject, and I love reading the scientific experiments that are being conducted to try to advance our understanding.

And I appreciate your proper application of scientific method.

It's a shame that not all people round here have the same discipline towards a discipline.

[eFestivals]

Fuck me backwards! Did you listen to what I just said?

I did, once the laughter had subsided.

The entire concept of a psychological universe is based upon the fact that people are independent of each other. Psychology is about this independence. It's about the behaviours of these independent objects.

Yep, that's it. Glad to see you've got it.

So, where's this independent object called 'the psyche' then? Care to show me it (rather than showing me the concept of it)?

When you point to a rock and say that it is evidence of a physical universe, I can then point to someone's behaviour as evidence of a psychological universe. That's how this shit works.

And then when you've finished proving the idea of a psychological universe, can you actually prove much within that universe? Such as there being a psyche (rather than there being a concept of a psyche)?

It's just an idea. The sky falling in was also just an idea.

[eFestivals]

Psychology steps in to test the link between arousal and attraction.

Some tips from science/psychology on increasing your attractiveness:

http://whywereason.c...t-with-science/

.

Having just read it all, that's some psychology that doesn't stretch itself into the world of fantasy.

Worm really should take note.

[worm]

Gravity is just a word, a label. It's applied to what is indisputably there, that exists without any doubt

[eFestivals]

Right. Now we see why you're so confused. You're wrong.

Gravity is a theory of what is indisputably observed - the apple falling. I have said this a number of times like, but whatever. Get that part in your head.

the apple falls, theory or not. It's a demonstration of gravity at work, and nothing of the concept of gravity is required to understand that demonstration of gravity at work.

Now, where's the evidence for the psyche at work without someone having first invented the concept of there being a psyche?

At best it's a tautology. At worst its a nothing.

Dependency is a theory of what is indisputably observed - a person returning to an object of desire. Dependency is based upon the notion of helplessness. It is a need to return and helps to explain why we will sacrifice many things to fullfil this desire-based obligation. It ties into many other theories and, amazingly enough, actually compliments them. Just as gravity is a way of explaining why things fall to the ground. And it also ties into many other theories, which amazingly enough, compliment it.

This is how it works Neil. An apple falling to the ground is not gravity. It's observable evidence that led to the theory of gravity. Much like addiction is observable evidence that led to the theory of psychological dependence.

Do you compute yet?

nothing of that addresses the invented-from-nothing concept of the psyche. There's a reason why you're trying to swerve away from that, i'm not daft you know, no matter how many times you post that I am as diversion (just as you swerving psyche here is another).

At no point have I said there's no such thing as what we recognise as addiction. What I have said is that the concept of addiction is itself a flaky concept, because we humans have drawn lines without any evidence - just on an idea (yet again) - on what is classed as an addiction and what isn't.

For example, I might be no less 'addicted' (in all the defined ways) to my relationship with my missus as a junkie is to smack - both are thought processes that can draw me towards something whether that's my fully-free wish or not, but only one is within the definition of how we formally use the word addiction.

[AcademicPistol]

Fuck me backwards! Did you listen to read what I just said posted?

[worm]

the apple falls, theory or not. It's a demonstration of gravity at work, and nothing of the concept of gravity is required to understand that demonstration of gravity at work.

[worm]

nothing of that addresses the invented-from-nothing concept of the psyche.

[worm]

[AcademicPistol]

I'll never conform to cyber-terminology dude.

[worm]

I just fancied some pedantism. You rebel without a cause!