The Century Of The Self

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
941
Likes
1
Points
18
#61
Professor, can you list me down general traits of serial killers?


...financial insecurity, job loss,...
Oh God, this is way beyond absurd!
Does the term 'going postal' mean anything to you?

Sure, it probably doesnt make you a Ted Bundy, but it can certainly contribute to someone snapping and going on a killing spree. And seriously, you call this absurd, but generalizing that all serial killers have mommy issues and because of that their super ego easily breaks under a bit of pressure so they snap and kill people because they remind them of either their mom or dad isnt absurd.
 

Core

Fascinating...
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
389
Likes
0
Points
16
#62
Does the term 'going postal' mean anything to you?

Sure, it probably doesnt make you a Ted Bundy, but it can certainly contribute to someone snapping and going on a killing spree. And seriously, you call this absurd, but generalizing that all serial killers have mommy issues and because of that their super ego easily breaks under a bit of pressure so they snap and kill people because they remind them of either their mom or dad isnt absurd.

Thats funny I always thought going postal meant becoming explosive and snapping... but you are comparing it to people who didnt explode/snap before they committed their littler spree's... oh thats right they didnt snap.

Of all crimes 62% are done out of emotional/psychological convictions.

Of said crimes 75% is attributed to ego-boundaries/snapping/"going postal"

The remaining 25% is divided into: 15% imploding personality types and 10% sociopathic/psychopathic convictions(lack of shallow emotions whether its a genetic pre-disposition(sociopath) or a nurture-type/upbringing(psychopath) problem is unimportant)

SOooo No. The term going postal does not apply to the crap youve been comparing it to especially the people youve been comparing it to. Funnily enough most of your arguments these days are drastic over generalizations and over simplifications. Keep it up you might win the prize for best American debater.
 

Core

Fascinating...
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
389
Likes
0
Points
16
#63
If someone uses that argument in relation to say....God, he would be laughed at by everyone who would argue against God because its a silly argument. But, since this isnt God were talking about, but Psychology, its okay? No no no. Freudians make silly claims, so the burden of proof lays with them. Thats how science works, and psychology is nothing more then another science.

Well lets see. For starters, his whole idea is riddled with metaphysical speculation, and in science, we reject metaphysical speculation because of its pointlessness. Secondly, his ideas simply dont fly with for example neuro psychology, which is a field of psychology that does actually provide proof for what they claim. Or for that matter, with ANY field of modern psychology. There is a reason why Psychologists dont count Psychotherapists as one of them.


That whole last quote. Everything in that makes absolutely no sense as a whole, not even from a Freudian perspective. You seem to mixing the auto pilot with ego while also saying there is a 'you' while the ego is supposed to be you according to Freud. Then this system that you talk about like its some robot inside of you is growing an learning and slowely seems to be taking over if your daddy touched you at bad places when you were a kid and turns you into some kind of biological robot. What part of that is supposed to make sense?
Stateside your first paragraph holds some meaning not in the rest of the world though.

Funnily your second paragraph can be completely nullified by asking: Did you mean Neuro-Biology? Also known as Neuroscience and has absolutely 0 to do with providing proof for psychology?

What whole last quote? who is confusing what with who now?
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
941
Likes
1
Points
18
#64
Thats funny I always thought going postal meant becoming explosive and snapping... but you are comparing it to people who didnt explode/snap before they committed their littler spree's... oh thats right they didnt snap.

Of all crimes 62% are done out of emotional/psychological convictions.

Of said crimes 75% is attributed to ego-boundaries/snapping/"going postal"

The remaining 25% is divided into: 15% imploding personality types and 10% sociopathic/psychopathic convictions(lack of shallow emotions whether its a genetic pre-disposition(sociopath) or a nurture-type/upbringing(psychopath) problem is unimportant)

SOooo No. The term going postal does not apply to the crap youve been comparing it to especially the people youve been comparing it to. Funnily enough most of your arguments these days are drastic over generalizations and over simplifications. Keep it up you might win the prize for best American debater.
Hmm, Im pretty sure I didnt compare these people to actual serial killers like Ted Bundy. I just said that job loss or job insecurities could cause someone to kill a bunch of people.

But fine, Ted Bundy's arent caused by insecurities at work. They are already defect.


Stateside your first paragraph holds some meaning not in the rest of the world though.

Funnily your second paragraph can be completely nullified by asking: Did you mean Neuro-Biology?

What whole last quote? who is confusing what with who now?
What, you mean that in the rest of the world Psychology is not a science? In Europe Psychology is a science, in any sufficiently developed country its a science and everywhere else, it doesnt really exist. In either case, the argument 'it hasnt been proven or disproven' is an invalid argument. Refer to the famous tea pot in orbit example.

No, I did mean Neuro Psychology, though that is very closely related to Neuro Biology.
 

Core

Fascinating...
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
389
Likes
0
Points
16
#65
Hmm, Im pretty sure I didnt compare these people to actual serial killers like Ted Bundy. I just said that job loss or job insecurities could cause someone to kill a bunch of people.

But fine, Ted Bundy's arent caused by insecurities at work. They are already defect.



What, you mean that in the rest of the world Psychology is not a science? In Europe Psychology is a science, in any sufficiently developed country its a science and everywhere else, it doesnt really exist. In either case, the argument 'it hasnt been proven or disproven' is an invalid argument. Refer to the famous tea pot in orbit example.

No, I did mean Neuro Psychology, though that is very closely related to Neuro Biology.

I think you mean neuro psych is a tiny part of Neuro Bio in fact, the only part of the psych used in neuro bio is to name the conditions, not actually prove anything :p
I am sorry in this particular topic of Neuroscience where 9 different subjects besides psych make up the elements, psych is just a very tiny part. Not big enough to prove anything substantial for the field of psychology.
Besides Neuroscience is still largely hokum... its like String-theory at the moment, without a grand unifying theory(to prove string theory) or neuroscience as a whole(tiny things can be explained and proven but in neuroscience the goal has always been to find what controls everything) it hasnt been proven yet :p

Lastly: The rest of the world when it comes to psychology does not view it as: Absolute science. Please confer this with anyone that has worked in the field awhile because its not wrong. European psychologists whilst trying to maintain it is a science are not taught in schools that they require absolute proof to fix a problem, whereas american psychologists are not allowed to fix a problem without knowing exactly what is factually wrong.

The problem with both approaches is that applying a fix before the problem has been 'proven' could lead to complications. The problem with the american approach is that it can take certain conditions months or even years to diagnose whilst the patient suffers.
Because of this drastically different approach to science the philosophy in both continents is different NOT MUCH but still different.

America: Absolute science
Europe: 99% science
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
941
Likes
1
Points
18
#66
I think you mean neuro psych is a tiny part of Neuro Bio in fact, the only part of the psych used in neuro bio is to name the conditions, not actually prove anything :p
I am sorry in this particular topic of Neuroscience where 9 different subjects besides psych make up the elements, psych is just a very tiny part. Not big enough to prove anything substantial for the field of psychology.
Besides Neuroscience is still largely hokum... its like String-theory at the moment, without a grand unifying theory(to prove string theory) or neuroscience as a whole(tiny things can be explained and proven but in neuroscience the goal has always been to find what controls everything) it hasnt been proven yet :p
Im sorry but thats just nonsense. Neuro science is big within Psychology. Not proving anything, no absolutely not. Mental illnesses can be traced back to chemical imbalances within the brain, or even whole parts of the brain that arent working like they are supposed too. Its vital to Psychology and its only going to get bigger.

Lastly: The rest of the world when it comes to psychology does not view it as: Absolute science. Please confer this with anyone that has worked in the field awhile because its not wrong. European psychologists whilst trying to maintain it is a science are not taught in schools that they require absolute proof to fix a problem, whereas american psychologists are not allowed to fix a problem without knowing exactly what is factually wrong.

The problem with both approaches is that applying a fix before the problem has been 'proven' could lead to complications. The problem with the american approach is that it can take certain conditions months or even years to diagnose whilst the patient suffers.
Because of this drastically different approach to science the philosophy in both continents is different NOT MUCH but still different.

America: Absolute science
Europe: 99% science
I get where you get this idea from. Its true, the Psychologists working in the field, helping patients, they dont treat it as an absolute science, but neither do the Americans, judging by the rate of false diagnosis. But both treat the theoretical part of Psychology as an absolute science.
 

Core

Fascinating...
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
389
Likes
0
Points
16
#67
Im sorry but thats just nonsense. Neuro science is big within Psychology. Not proving anything, no absolutely not. Mental illnesses can be traced back to chemical imbalances within the brain, or even whole parts of the brain that arent working like they are supposed too. Its vital to Psychology and its only going to get bigger.


I get where you get this idea from. Its true, the Psychologists working in the field, helping patients, they dont treat it as an absolute science, but neither do the Americans, judging by the rate of false diagnosis. But both treat the theoretical part of Psychology as an absolute science.

String theory is big in science as a whole but nothing has proven it. Everyone knows the implications if it were proven to be true but is an extrapolation of existing information which if proven true changes man's understanding of all the information we dont yet possess.(All you can rightfully say in neuroscience or in string theory is: Look my theory has a sequential logical consistancy!)

Like I said you can explain tiny parts of the entire science/theory but without the full picture most of the speculation is just conjecture.

And SURE there are parts that have been proven but the entirety of neuroscience has not, if tiny parts werent already true and proven to have a logical consistency the whole study of neuroscience wouldnt exist.

In the netherlands and as far as I know the rest of europe there are a few kinds of educations when it comes to psychology, over here a psychologist is a shrink dealing with practical application(in the field) and a Theoretical scientist(sorry its simply the term they use) is used to justify/prove the theory. But when it comes right down to it sometimes proving the problem has absolutely no use for treating it. However that is a completely different issue but im glad we somehow see eye-to-eye on that one :p
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
941
Likes
1
Points
18
#68
String theory is big in science as a whole but nothing has proven it. Everyone knows the implications if it were proven to be true but is an extrapolation of existing information which if proven true changes man's understanding of all the information we dont yet possess.(All you can rightfully say in neuroscience or in string theory is: Look my theory has a sequential logical consistancy!)

Like I said you can explain tiny parts of the entire science/theory but without the full picture most of the speculation is just conjecture.

And SURE there are parts that have been proven but the entirety of neuroscience has not, if tiny parts werent already true and proven to have a logical consistency the whole study of neuroscience wouldnt exist.
You are comparing an entire field of research (the study of the brain) to one theory, which is big but simply not entirely the same. String theory goes out from a specific hypothesis, while neuroscience doesnt. They are just studying the brain and everything that is related to it. Out of those studies a huge number of hypothesis and theories can be developed that deal with human behavior. Neuroscience isnt trying to prove a specific theory or a big overall theory, its just working on the valid assumption that since humans have a brain it serves of some use and we should know exactly what that use is.

And look at the huge number of things they have already discovered. Brain abnormalities causing abnormal behavior, chemical imbalances causing abnormal behavior, specific areas of the brain that deal with specific behavior and parts of the brain where data is stored. The way data is stored. The way remembering works. Hell they even discovered that if you destroy certain parts of the brain, your personality will change, implying that even what you think is 'you' is nothing more then something that is created by your brain.
 

Core

Fascinating...
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
389
Likes
0
Points
16
#69
String theory/ M-Theory/ Grand Unifying Theory.

Yes 1 theory that affects everything due to the law of internal logical consistency. If proven true it becomes the damn field and you should know that.

Anyway, Huge number of small things sure, but we already knew what part of the brain to cut into to find out alot of things before it became modern science. So its not like anything new really has been discovered over the last 50 years.

"created by your brain" Not sure I can fully agree with that. If a single cell organism without a brain and only a few synapses can follow a simple impulse... then the bigger and smarter this thing becomes it requires muscles to move, larger storage for memories, actions, impulses and most importantly synapses.

Unfortunately for you, you're entire argument falls dead here. Too little about the synapses is known to argue or even prove any of your points or mine. So are we done here?
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
941
Likes
1
Points
18
#70
String theory/ M-Theory/ Grand Unifying Theory.

Yes 1 theory that affects everything due to the law of internal logical consistency. If proven true it becomes the damn field and you should know that.

Anyway, Huge number of small things sure, but we already knew what part of the brain to cut into to find out alot of things before it became modern science. So its not like anything new really has been discovered over the last 50 years.
Well, Neuroscience as it is now is relatively new. We knew a few basic things about our brains before, sure. But we lacked the machines to accurately measure brain activity. All that scanning equipment didnt exist 50 years ago.

And again, comparing the Grand Unifying Theory with Neuroscience just doesnt fly. String theory may become its own field once its proven, but in that case, Neuroscience already had its string theory proven loooong ago. Namely that brains play a role in human behavior. This is a simple and undeniable fact. Now Neuroscientists are looking to what extend the brain plays a role compared to other factors.

"created by your brain" Not sure I can fully agree with that. If a single cell organism without a brain and only a few synapses can follow a simple impulse... then the bigger and smarter this thing becomes it requires muscles to move, larger storage for memories, actions, impulses and most importantly synapses.

Unfortunately for you, you're entire argument falls dead here. Too little about the synapses is known to argue or even prove any of your points or mine. So are we done here?
What does this have to do with anything? Dude, if I whack you on the head hard enough to cause brain damage, it can alter your entire personality. Thats an observed and proven fact. What does the evolution of single celled organisms and their brains have to do with that?
 

Core

Fascinating...
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
389
Likes
0
Points
16
#71
Did you seriously just say that Neuroscience had its string theory proven -.- I will just ignore the amount of fail in that statement :p

Most of the facts that you call "a few basic things" were all discovered in mental hospitals in the 1900 till the 1960's.

And holy shit are you arguing that YOU ARE YOUR PERSONALITY now? or do you just want desperately cling on to this subject? because humanity knows absolutely nothing about synapses its impossible to tell.

But I want to know right here right now, and if you say no, please realize that YOU JUST ARGUED IT.

Is the personality that describes and defines you, the actual decisionmaker you in your head?

Because if you can answer that, please you'll save neuroscience ALOT OF TIME BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO FIND OUT :/


Damnit we went from calm and reasonable to heated and insulting.
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
941
Likes
1
Points
18
#72
Did you seriously just say that Neuroscience had its string theory proven -.- I will just ignore the amount of fail in that statement :p
Well then, are you saying that brains arent involved in behavior? Or is their string theory that brains are the sole actor when it comes to behavior?

And holy shit are you arguing that YOU ARE YOUR PERSONALITY now? or do you just want desperately cling on to this subject? because humanity knows absolutely nothing about synapses its impossible to tell.
We know nothing about Synapses? Hmm, proves what you know about it. Actually, we do know about synapses. We know all about synapses, their purpose, how they grow, how they work etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapses

Basic biology, I had it in Highschool.

But I want to know right here right now, and if you say no, please realize that YOU JUST ARGUED IT.

Is the personality that describes and defines you, the actual decisionmaker you in your head?

Because if you can answer that, please you'll save neuroscience ALOT OF TIME BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO FIND OUT :/
No, I didnt argue that, read closely please. I said that your personality are wired into your brain, and that if that part of the brain gets damaged, your personality changes. Never heard of that railway worker that got his head impaled on a metal beam, survived it, but his personality changed.

Also, if Neuroscientist paid a little attention, they would know thats not the case. Personality is part of the decision making process, Im sure, but its not the sole decision maker. Environment, other parts of your brain, genes, nurture are all part of the decision making process as well. Im quite sure they did pay attention though, since the combined approach is getting the more popular approach in Psychology.
 

Core

Fascinating...
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
389
Likes
0
Points
16
#73
Well then, are you saying that brains arent involved in behavior? Or is their string theory that brains are the sole actor when it comes to behavior?

We know nothing about Synapses? Hmm, proves what you know about it. Actually, we do know about synapses. We know all about synapses, their purpose, how they grow, how they work etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapses

Basic biology, I had it in Highschool.

No, I didnt argue that, read closely please. I said that your personality are wired into your brain, and that if that part of the brain gets damaged, your personality changes. Never heard of that railway worker that got his head impaled on a metal beam, survived it, but his personality changed.

Also, if Neuroscientist paid a little attention, they would know thats not the case. Personality is part of the decision making process, Im sure, but its not the sole decision maker. Environment, other parts of your brain, genes, nurture are all part of the decision making process as well. Im quite sure they did pay attention though, since the combined approach is getting the more popular approach in Psychology.
Sigh. No, you said "THE STRING THEORY OF NEUROSCIENCE HAS BEEN PROVEN!" albeit less dramatically that was what you said. Just the inherent statement is wrong on so many levels if you had left out "string" you would have been fine. But since Neuroscience IS the string theory of biological psychology it hasnt been proven yet or it would have been a closed chapter, its an open field because it still requires absolute proof that unifies all the "basic facts" you were talking about.

Excellent! youve pointed out how little YOU know, yes synapses as a whole can be explained, their purpose, their origin, their execution. Now tell me what each individual synapse represents.(Which is what I was getting at)
And also can you point out which series of synapses makes you... you? Since you had it in highschool.

No i've heard of it, but we arent arguing personalty here are we? we are arguing YOU.

You are correct they are all factors in what can lead you to making a decision but these things CANNOT make the decision. Its like poker, Knowing all the rules, knowing all the players, knowing all the tells can only HELP or AID a player. Not make one.
The reference is because: Whilst all these things are factors and INFLUENCE the decision it is not what cuts the cord and finally decides. Agree?
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
941
Likes
1
Points
18
#74
Sigh. No, you said "THE STRING THEORY OF NEUROSCIENCE HAS BEEN PROVEN!" albeit less dramatically that was what you said. Just the inherent statement is wrong on so many levels if you had left out "string" you would have been fine. But since Neuroscience IS the string theory of biological psychology it hasnt been proven yet or it would have been a closed chapter, its an open field because it still requires absolute proof that unifies all the "basic facts" you were talking about.
Right....

Excellent! youve pointed out how little YOU know, yes synapses as a whole can be explained, their purpose, their origin, their execution. Now tell me what each individual synapse represents.(Which is what I was getting at)
A synapse is just the messenger. An individual synapse doesnt really represent anything, it just gives out some chemical when activated.

I suppose youre talking about Neurons in your brain. True, they dont know a lot about those. At least, not how they exactly work.

No i've heard of it, but we arent arguing personalty here are we? we are arguing YOU.
I cant answer that. I personally dont think so.

You are correct they are all factors in what can lead you to making a decision but these things CANNOT make the decision. Its like poker, Knowing all the rules, knowing all the players, knowing all the tells can only HELP or AID a player. Not make one.
The reference is because: Whilst all these things are factors and INFLUENCE the decision it is not what cuts the cord and finally decides. Agree?
No, disagree. Thats the point, its not like poker. You dont know all the rules, all the players or all the tells. At best youre only aware of a few of them, but you dont even scratch the surface of it. Those unknown rules, players and tells, they are the ones that are important and they are the ones that decide for you.
 

Core

Fascinating...
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
389
Likes
0
Points
16
#75
Right....


A synapse is just the messenger. An individual synapse doesnt really represent anything, it just gives out some chemical when activated.

I suppose youre talking about Neurons in your brain. True, they dont know a lot about those. At least, not how they exactly work.


I cant answer that. I personally dont think so.


No, disagree. Thats the point, its not like poker. You dont know all the rules, all the players or all the tells. At best youre only aware of a few of them, but you dont even scratch the surface of it. Those unknown rules, players and tells, they are the ones that are important and they are the ones that decide for you.
Ahuh.

Synapse is not simply the messenger because it also has the ability to cluster connections and ignore its command. Anyway, I'll settle for neurons being unexplained, since without neurons there are no synapses.

Apologies I phrased it wrong It was supposed to be "knowing all the rules, people and tells can only help or aid a player, not make one" in reference to the decisionmaker. Since you were listing all the things that influence the decision, IE factors. But not the actual thing that made the decision.

Take someone with no information, no pre-disposition and no bias. Is it possible for them to make a decision?
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
941
Likes
1
Points
18
#76
Apologies I phrased it wrong It was supposed to be "knowing all the rules, people and tells can only help or aid a player, not make one" in reference to the decisionmaker. Since you were listing all the things that influence the decision, IE factors. But not the actual thing that made the decision.

Take someone with no information, no pre-disposition and no bias. Is it possible for them to make a decision?
I listed a few possible sources I am aware off. But there are countless of others and nobody knows them all. And even if they do, they dont know to what extend, or even what exactly of that source is relevant to their current decision. Anyways, what Im trying to say is that your manipulated into a decision and that you simply cant deviate from it. The other options may seem like options, but they never really were options.

Such a person doesnt exist, and cannot exist. But if he would, no, he wouldnt be able to take a decision. He would be as alive as a concrete pillar.
 

Core

Fascinating...
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
389
Likes
0
Points
16
#77
Freedom isnt free huh? ;)

Heres my issue with your stance on the matter, if you have all the information or you have none of the information, there are people or instances that CAN NOT make a decision on the matter.

Read the little part at the bottom of this link... and then goto the next one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_making


Now goto this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Any friggin idea what Libets experiment implies if you combine it with freud's theory of the ego, super-ego and the id?

Thats why I wont shut up about freud(And the only thing he was ever really respected for...), it constantly comes back to the subconscious. Anyway. thoughts?
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
941
Likes
1
Points
18
#78
Hmmm, I kind of lost track of the whole discussion.

Anyways, I suppose you mean that its the super ego or ID that tells you to move your finger. Thats all nice, but there isnt proof for that, besides, I see absolutely no reason why you would combine both other then the subconscious part. Meh, I dont even think it would fit Freud's ideas.
 

Core

Fascinating...
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
389
Likes
0
Points
16
#79
Well ill re-educate you then! :) My point was that you cant prove the opposite due to lack of information. The Neuroscience of free will was only to counteract your decision to say: THE CHOICE HAS BEEN MADE! despite being a controversial field. My personal opinion on the matter is and has been irrelevant
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
941
Likes
1
Points
18
#80
Prove the opposite of what?

As for the Neuroscience of free will, its unprovable, thus an inherently pointless field of science. I admit though, it was a nice distraction.