Euthanasia and the Right to Die.

[worm]

Oh, so it's just your very own stupidity that you're spouting, which has no basis in (formal) psychology then? ;lol:

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Addiction is proven. Dependency is proven and so on and so forth. You spout bullshit time and time again.

[feral chile]

To be fair the present model and treatment around addiction is mostly based around a disease model and neurophysiology. The press is sold into the idea of a biological basis for everything so it is not surprising a layman thinks psychology is hogwash.

[worm]

To be fair the present model and treatment around addiction is mostly based around a disease model and neurophysiology. The press is sold into the idea of a biological basis for everything so it is not surprising a layman thinks psychology is hogwash.

Edited August 19, 2012 by worm

[Rufus Gwertigan]

No man. I mean the concept is proven. As in, it can be qualified. 'Survival instinct' can't. It's generalised bollocks. It's like saying 'mental grip' or 'feeling down'. It's unqualifiable bollocks.

And I agree. Just listen to Neil.

[worm]

To be frank I rarely read all the discussions between you and Neil.

[eFestivals]

No man. I mean the concept is proven. As in, it can be qualified. 'Survival instinct' can't. It's generalised bollocks. It's like saying 'mental grip' or 'feeling down'. It's unqualifiable bollocks.

anything is literally quantifiable is you make up the language and/or situation to give it that quantitative element.

And yet the fact that something has been quantified in words or ideas proves nothing of substance about it. It merely gives a context of which nothing is proven.

Someone can quantify the idea of addiction. It doesn't mean that the idea of addiction is anything that's right or meaningful in real terms tho.

And the application of the idea of addiction gets to prove that it's not anything right or meaningful in real terms. This can be proven, and if you don't know that the (formal) idea of addiction can be disproven then you don't understand the idea of addiction.

Edited August 20, 2012 by eFestivals

[worm]

anything is literally quantifiable is you make up the language and/or situation to give it that quantitative element.

And yet the fact that something has been quantified in words or ideas proves nothing of substance about it.

Edited August 20, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

There is dependency in the world. That's what it's abstracted from. Moron.

there is dependency. There has been a definition of the idea of dependency, to give it a formal start and end, some lines around what is inside and outside of it.

Care to prove how the definition is correct, outside of saying "what I say fits inside it does fit inside it"?

There is no survival instinct in the world.

Perhaps not.

But there are very definitely instincts.

The problem is that we do not know and cannot know what they are and we do not know and cannot know what they influence. How could we? What we think of as 'free thought' might really be only instinct, which makes every single internal idea about the mind wrong.

Which means that we cannot start to understand anything which is influenced by instincts. Which means just about everything internalised of the human mind; it can only be tested against itself.

[dingbat2]

Anyone watch the X-Factor at the weekend?

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Anyone watch the X-Factor at the weekend?

[worm]

there is dependency.

[eFestivals]

This is a psychological concept. Something that you can't know for sure, according to you. So it's just a theory.

Nope.

It's an observation, for which no theory is being applied, because we don't have even a starting point from which to try and cook up a theory.

Spot the difference?

[eFestivals]

Glad we understand each other.

I guess we do.

I don't try and invent a fixed definition when we don't have a starting point from which to create that definition, while you do invent a fixed definition despite the absence of good knowledge from which to do so.

Edited August 21, 2012 by eFestivals

[worm]

Nope.

It's an observation, for which no theory is being applied, because we don't have even a starting point from which to try and cook up a theory.

Spot the difference?

[worm]

That's unlike dependency which is a pattern of repeated behaviour (a repeated response to stimuli or a seeking out of stimuli when it is not present).

We have evidence of dependency, but no evidence for instinct. Dependency is external and manifets physically. Instinct is a guess at the internal mechanisms, something you abhor and consider psychobabble. So try again Neil.

[eFestivals]

it's an uninitiated (or unconscious) response to stimuli. That's all that can be observed, physically speaking.

Try again Neil.

I've tried again by correcting your wrongness with rightness.

Which of course gets to mean that it's you that needs to try again. It's extremely laughable how you think you're able to knock down ideas because of verbal imprecision when you do no better yourself.

There is no theory there. There is an observable instinctive reaction to stimuli.

[eFestivals]

We have evidence of dependency

we do.

But the psychological theories of dependency ignore much of that evidence in favour of dogma and evidence-free ideas - prejudices - in reaching those theories and definitions.

Instinct is a guess at the internal mechanisms, something you abhor and consider psychobabble. So try again Neil.

If instinct is psychobabble on that basis, then so is psychology.

And so you've just demolished your own viewpoint, and proven my point that psychology is at best a guess without a shred of proof.

At no point have I tried proving any validity to the idea of instinct. I've merely been using the concept to disprove the claims of the concept of psychology.

I'm highly amused that it's ended up with you doing it for me.

[worm]

I've tried again by correcting your wrongness with rightness.

Edited August 21, 2012 by worm

[worm]

If instinct is psychobabble on that basis, then so is psychology.

[eFestivals]

You can't prove it's unconscious. The unconscious is unprovable theory. There is no evidence for it Neil. It's psychobabble. Where is this unconsciousness? Point it out.

There's only an observable response to stimuli. That's all. Anything else is just a guess I'm afraid.

The starting point for all psychology is that "we think".

One of things we think - which is of the same level of us thinking we think - is that we react to instincts. And so the concept of instinct is nothing lesser than thinking itself.

And so we cannot do any thinking on the concept of psychology without giving the same credence to other thoughts which have the same basis - such as instinct.

And yet psychology (or at least, your laughable version of it) will give no credence to the concept of instinct despite it having the same basis as every single thing of psychology.

And so the dogmatic selectivism of psychology is proven, as it the non-science basis of psychology. After all, there is no basis on which to rule out the effects of instincts, just as there is no basis to rule out instinct itself - unless we also rule out all thinking.

Edited August 21, 2012 by eFestivals

[worm]

And yet psychology (or at least, your laughable version of it) will give no credence to the concept of instinct despite it having the same basis as every single thing of psychology.

[eFestivals]

Your version, not mine, has made it that instincts are guesswork and therefore psychobabble. Because according to you, not me, we can only guess at anything that cannot be observed.

Yep - because, for the mind, that's indisputably the case. After all, we only have the mind with which to examine the mind.

You've obviously been able to grasp that the idea of instinct is guesswork (tho guesswork that has been a part of human thinking since day one). So why are you not able to realise that psychology is no less guesswork?

What we do know, without any doubt, is that we can sometimes take actions which are not consciously willed. With this self-feeling - no less a feeling than that we think - we have devised the concept of instinct.

No great leap of faith was necessary for that concept. We similarly have the tied instinctual concepts of breathing, sleeping, hunger, hydrating, fucking, shitting, and pissing (and others if I stopped to think of them). We feel all of these instinctual reactions in the same way.

Dependency can be observed, therefore it's a proven fact.

It can be observed, yep. Including many things which psychology will not accept as dependency, despite them being able to be observed too.

Instinct can only be guessed at, therefore is guesswork.

PMSL.

To observe dependency requires the feelings gained via observation. Instinct is something that is felt in the same way. They both end up as merely thoughts in the head from which we draw conclusions.

Just because one has an observation makes it no more solid a thing, because it has to fall back onto the mind.

We *ONLY* have the mind with which to process anything, and therefore something which is felt is of the same ultimate substance as something which is observed.

If we can trust ideas of dependency, we can trust ideas of instinct no less.

This is according to you Neil, not me. Wake the fuck up.

So do tell me how your thoughts about dependency free of all instinct (which is an idea you've stated as true) are more scientifically reliable than my thoughts of instinct.

I'm not trying to prove the concept of instinct. I'm using the concept of instincts to prove the unreliability of the concepts of psychology - and I have.

[worm]

What we do know, without any doubt, is that we can sometimes take actions which are not consciously willed.

[worm]

So do tell me how your thoughts about dependency free of all instinct (which is an idea you've stated as true) are more scientifically reliable than my thoughts of instinct.

Edited August 21, 2012 by worm