Do you smoke?

[feral chile]

Oh, I think it is tabula rasa. There's no sense at all in priori knowledge as you need experience to have knowledge.

I'm convinced that we require experience, but for it to be converted into knowledge the experience must fit a narrative. The brain is simply the biological mechanism that exists beneath.

Genetics is another label. The etymology of the 'gene' is rather interesting. It's like the atom, in that it was used to denote an abstract concept meaning small and so refers to whatever is the smallest particle. That's until modern science got a hold of it, made it a static definition for an actual entity and then found something smaller than it.

Just as the brain fails to explain meaning, so the the gene fails to explain our motivation.

Split brain research is in the main rubbish though. Well, the theory associated with it is, the research findings aren't. It's mainly the left-overs of phrenological theory, which is ridiculous.

[worm]

you both appear to acknowledge that a lot, if not most, of it is still a mystery, yet you both give very definite answers to my thoughts...

[feral chile]

you both appear to acknowledge that a lot, if not most, of it is still a mystery, yet you both give very definite answers to my thoughts...

[worm]

I liked the bit about a baby being the music ... the whole concept of being at one with something, everything, where language is irrelevant. It feels like the more we try to understand things (and label/categorise them), the further away we get from what we might actually want

[worm]

After that, our paths diverge quite a bit. I'm a materialist, and culty's not.

[worm]

sounds about right

I don't want much... that (^) would do

possibly

Edited March 8, 2011 by worm

[feral chile]

Want (or desire) is the cause of all human suffering, according to Chaung Tzu. Rather pessimistic, as Shopenhaur pointed out. But then as Nietzsche saw, we have the ability to label our own desires, thus being able to overcome them. We are not our desires but the exprience of them, learning something about ourselves by the choices we make on the basis of them. Do you give in to hate? Do you deny that you have hate? Or do you create something out of your hate?

As you probably know already, I'm very much in the existentialist camp. Labels help you to overcome the pain of desire and identify yourself as a type of being. I'm no materialist.

So to return to the point with the above in mind:

It's not the material actuality of smoking that makes you a smoker, it's the desire to smoke. Therefore, you choose to give in to your desire to smoke (the label provider), thus labelling yourself a smoker. To give up the material actuality of smoking, you must first overcome the desire to smoke (the label provider) by creating a new label for what you are, such as a 'strong-willed' person. So the desire to smoke is a test to one's sense of self, as one who has been labelled strong-willed.

Edited March 9, 2011 by feral chile

[worm]

Whereas I'd be worrying that if you give in to smoking, you'd then label yourself as weak willed and lose motivation. So I'd be wanting to look at the schedules of reinforcement - the conditions under which you smoke more often, and be altering something there - either by changing the antecedent or the consequence. So, if you always want to smoke when you've had a drink, maybe stay away from the pub for a bit (yeah, i know!). Or if you have a smoke as a reward, or as a stress reliever, find an alternative.

Edited March 8, 2011 by worm

[worm]

With smoking, these would obviously be cpmlementary for most smokers - they would need to break the physical addiction as well as the psychological one.

[feral chile]

Yeah, but if that is the case then you actually are weak willed. This in itself leads to further problems, such as those that you're trying to sweep under the carpet. The only way to take control over desire is to create a stronger identity, not to compensate for a weak one - you're allowing the environment to dictate.

Driving's all motor-nueron control. Basically, keep repeating until the sub-conscious absorbs it. Long term memory store etc.

Edited March 9, 2011 by feral chile

[feral chile]

We've been here before and I got put on moderation. Nevertheless, it's still the case so I'll say it again - there's no such thing as a physical addiction.

All there can ever be is a physical response to stimuli. This may well lead to a desire, but the thing we're calling addiction is the desire, not the physical response.

[worm]

Trial and error learning leading to conditioned behaviour. No need to bring in the subconscious - Occam's Razor and all that.

Edited March 9, 2011 by worm

[worm]

Sh then.

But having seen the results of someone being excessive with their nicotine patches and then still smoking as much as ever, I'd say there are pretty dramatic physical effects. They turned a bear with a sore head into a purring pussycat.

[worm]

it starts as a desire

what do you mean about there being no such thing as a physical addiction? It starts as a desire, but some addictions do become physical

[Kopparberg]

I've casually smoked when out drinking a few times in the past but i don't smoke.

[feral chile]

I've casually smoked when out drinking a few times in the past but i don't smoke.

[feral chile]

Yeah.

Feeding an addiction is a physical response to addiction. It's not the addiction itself. The addiction is the desire to respond in that way. That's all I mean.

[worm]

I don't know if being desperate to avoid the pain of withdrawal counts as desire.

[feral chile]

Semantics.

The urge, desire, longing, whatever. Or here's a good one - the addiction Just as long as we don't mistake it for need, because the moment we do we stop talking about addiction.

[5co77ie]

There is a difference between physical addiction and psychological addiction though, isn't there? Alcohol and tobacco being physically addictive while, for instance, magic mushrooms are psychologically addictive?

[worm]

There is a difference between physical addiction and psychological addiction though, isn't there? Alcohol and tobacco being physically addictive while, for instance, magic mushrooms are psychologically addictive?

[amfy]

Psychological addiction is worse anyway. Everyone goes on like it's not as bad, but you are over pretty much any physical addiction in a couple of weeks, psychological addiction can pull you back after years!

[worm]

Psychological addiction is worse anyway. Everyone goes on like it's not as bad, but you are over pretty much any physical addiction in a couple of weeks, psychological addiction can pull you back after years!

[feral chile]

the way I always understood it was that some drugs don't cause a physical addiction, meaning that the body doesn't go through physical withdrawl symptoms, like it would for say alcohol or heroin (and nicotine?).

[worm]

the way I always understood it was that some drugs don't cause a physical addiction, meaning that the body doesn't go through physical withdrawl symptoms, like it would for say alcohol or heroin (and nicotine?).

Edited March 11, 2011 by worm