Norway: terrorist or nutter?

[eFestivals]

Well behaviourism had a good go, but humans complained that it reduced them to animals and to determined organisms.

Humans like to elevate themselves with their abstract concepts of self, free will and mind. Behaviourism takes no account of this, and that's why it failed.

PMSL. That says it all.

"because we don't like to consider ourself animals, we'll reject a proper scientific approach and make something up out of nothing instead". Yeah, that's science.

Positive reinforcement increases behaviour - this is an indisputable psychological fact.

Only for some - so not a universal fact.

But knowing how contingencies of reinforcement influence our behaviour is not enough for us - we want more, it doesn't provide enough of a meaningful explanation, unless you're a materialist who thinks we're just animals with language and therefore culture tacked on top.

We're just animals.

But they have language too, no different to how 'savages' were regarded as language-less simply on the basis that we didn't know their language.

f**k me, psychology is prehistoric.

[worm]

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?

Edited September 2, 2011 by worm

[worm]

The abstract concepts of weight and gravity are indisputable universal constants

Edited September 2, 2011 by worm

[worm]

We're just animals.

But they have language too, no different to how 'savages' were regarded as language-less simply on the basis that we didn't know their language.

f**k me, psychology is prehistoric.

[worm]

We were talking about the developmental line that has led to humans

[worm]

but you don't need to measure it at all

[eFestivals]

No, I was pointing out the fact that you were wrong. The 'substance' of evolution does not say that we were as we are before we had language.

f**k me, is there nothing you won't distort and warp in the name of your version of laughable science?

I said nothing about pre-humans being humans. I simply pointed out the evolutionary line which says that pre-humans developed into humans - meaning that the 'animal' from which we came suddenly acquired language in some manner: there was no act of god that created humans fully formed out of nothing, as you suggested.

Hiding behind the literal isn't any form of science, it's worthless and meaningless bollocks. Is that all that psychology has to offer for it's 'science'? PMSL.

There is no evidence of humans being around before language. And I'm afraid that to trace 'us' back to a one-cell organism is to deny what 'we' are and what evolution says.

There is huge evidence of what we now regard as humans were around in their pre-human form before they became human.

Do you really think that there was a click of the fingers to those pre-humans, and suddenly a whole species came into existence in the exact form of today's humans? If so you've just re-written all of the proven evolutionary theory.

There is no line between pre-human and today's exact humans that someone suddenly stepped over. Evolution works by incremental developments.

The denial of evolution theory is all yours. But I guess if you re-write all of human science into your own form then you can prove that you weren't conceived from your mothers egg but from one of her dumps. It certainly sounds like that's the case given how much laughable factually wrong shit you talk.

[eFestivals]

No they aren't. You're yet again spouting complete bullshit. The weight of an object depends entirely upon gravity and is therefore temporal. No gravity, no weight. No weight, no gravity. Talk about self-supporting evidence. The change of behaviour in the same mass INDICATES weight. And weight INDICATES a force, that we call gravity.

you really don't get the repeatable-within-the-same-conditions aspect of science do you?

Gravity is a universal constant. Weight is an abstract idea that's formed against the universal constant of gravity, making weight no less of a 'universal' (more literally, 'earth') constant within the constant of earth's gravity.

Having formed those ideas of gravity and weight, they are tested and proven as always true within the same conditions for an infinite number of things. That's called 'substance' to those ideas.

Psychology has NOTHING similar. The only constant to psychology is that there's an idea that we call thought. It cannot be measured, it cannot be tested, the only thing of substance it has is the idea that it exists if you believe it does - no different to any religion.

It's exactly the same with human behaviour. The thought-process of a person depends entirely upon their motivation. No motivation, no thought-process. No thought-process, no motivation. The change of behaviour in the person INDICATES thinking. And thinking INDICATES a force, that we call the psyche.

You are tirelessley coming back with utter rubbish.

PMSL. A person stops breathing, which is a change of behaviour.

Now please do tell me what evidence you have that that change of behaviour is due to thought.

As for "The thought-process of a person depends entirely upon their motivation", I'd love to know how a person is motivated without thought. That idea certainly contradicts feral's recent post.

And given that feral hasn't been making up ideas out of nothing during this argument, and hasn't been denying the existence of facts outside of her (his?) knowledge because she thinks there is nothing within this subject she doesn't know, then it's clear who the expert in this field is, who actually thinks, and who understands the subject. And it ain't you, you laughable fool.

[eFestivals]

In exactly the same sense as the mass of a falling brick depends upon the abstract force of gravity, so the movement of the person depends upon the abstract force of thinking.

we can test everything about the idea of mass - and apply it across any physical object, and prove it as a 'universal' constant.

('universal' in quotes only because it's earth-dependent, and not actually applicable across the whole universe. It's constant within the same conditions, as any real scientific idea is; it shouldn't need me to state that if you actually grasped what science is).

What can be tested about the movement of a person? It can be rightly said they move, nothing more. We can detect brain activity that coincides with movement but we do not know what is going on with that brain activity. We do not know, cannot know, that it is 'thinking'.

The idea of 'thinking' (as we know of it) is just an idea, a thought - just as religious ideas are, that have only blind faith as their basis. We do not know, cannot know, that thinking is as we think it to be. We think we think, nothing more. We do not KNOW we think, we only know of thinking.

Now, what isn't a self-confirming idea about that? What isn't a circular reference, with nothing extra than that circular reference?

We think we think. It's a paradox, it's not a fact.

We do not know we think, we only know of thinking.

If you can take your head out of the precise literal for just a moment then you might grasp it. It takes just a modicum of intelligence, of being able to think outside of language. But as you say we can't think outside of language (even tho I'm demonstrating it to you right now) then I guess you're short of the modicum needed.

Edited September 2, 2011 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

PMSL. That says it all.

"because we don't like to consider ourself animals, we'll reject a proper scientific approach and make something up out of nothing instead". Yeah, that's science.

Only for some - so not a universal fact.

We're just animals.

But they have language too, no different to how 'savages' were regarded as language-less simply on the basis that we didn't know their language.

f**k me, psychology is prehistoric.

[worm]

I said nothing about pre-humans being humans. I simply pointed out the evolutionary line which says that pre-humans developed into humans - meaning that the 'animal' from which we came suddenly acquired language in some manner: there was no act of god that created humans fully formed out of nothing, as you suggested.

Edited September 2, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

I think we're animals but animals with language.

Worm will have a problem with this cos he'll go with the literal every time to avoid the thinking he's unable to think about, but....

Animals have language too - just less complex language to match their less complex lives. There's certainly strong evidence for a basic language in just about every mammal.

To my mind, our more complex language has grown out of our more complex physical abilities, with both things evolving almost simultaneously - but with the abilities taking the lead.

After all, if we didn't have an ability to grip things with our hands, we'd have no need to have language for gripping things with our hands. Etc, etc. So the ability must take the lead, unless language is handed down by some sort of 'god'.

It all comes back to the logical truth that if all thought is done thru language then language could have never come about, unless we go with the god concept.

[worm]

we can test everything about the idea of mass - and apply it across any physical object, and prove it as a 'universal' constant.

('universal' in quotes only because it's earth-dependent, and not actually applicable across the whole universe. It's constant within the same conditions, as any real scientific idea is; it shouldn't need me to state that if you actually grasped what science is).

What can be tested about the movement of a person? It can be rightly said they move, nothing more. We can detect brain activity that coincides with movement but we do not know what is going on with that brain activity. We do not know, cannot know, that it is 'thinking'.

The idea of 'thinking' (as we know of it) is just an idea, a thought - just as religious ideas are, that have only blind faith as their basis. We do not know, cannot know, that thinking is as we think it to be. We think we think, nothing more. We do not KNOW we think, we only know of thinking.

Now, what isn't a self-confirming idea about that? What isn't a circular reference, with nothing extra than that circular reference?

We think we think. It's a paradox, it's not a fact.

We do not know we think, we only know of thinking.

If you can take your head out of the precise literal for just a moment then you might grasp it. It takes just a modicum of intelligence, of being able to think outside of language. But as you say we can't think outside of language (even tho I'm demonstrating it to you right now) then I guess you're short of the modicum needed.

[eFestivals]

You said this:

Which was wrong.

oh really? Then you ARE able to think outside of the literal, and you're just being a troll because you're an arse.

Either you get what I say to be able to say I'm wrong, or you don't understand what I'm saying and don't have a basis to say I'm wrong because it's beyond your understanding.

So which is it? Pick one and stick to it you goal-post moving tool.

[worm]

And as an aside to show how utterly f**king idiotic you have been, mass isn't universal either. In a black hole, it changes. So yet again, the behaviour of something that you call universal is entirely dependant on other factors.

You are such a gobshite.

[worm]

oh really? Then you ARE able to think outside of the literal, and you're just being a troll because you're an arse.

Either you get what I say to be able to say I'm wrong, or you don't understand what I'm saying and don't have a basis to say I'm wrong because it's beyond your understanding.

So which is it? Pick one and stick to it you goal-post moving tool.

[eFestivals]

Once again: Mass isn't the point, weight is. People and moving isn't the point, what is forcing them is.

I addressed both weight and mass, accurately. And your response was to ignore what I'd said and interject an irrelevance that didn't need saying, unless you think you're talking to a five year old who knows as little about science as you've displayed of yourself.

So what DOES 'force' people to move?

Answers on a postcard please to "I can only guess, made up, on the spot, out of my head".

Weight is the force that moves the mass of the object. Thought is the force that moves the mass of the person. Both are abstract, yet you'll accept the abstrat forces of physics and not humans when both have the exact same scientific merit. Why?

One is provable beyond all doubt (with the usual scientific provisos of course). It is fully tested not only within it's own concepts but within a whole range of far more complex things which all prove it true.

One is a guess, based on a guess of what thoughts are. It is not tested; it is untestable.

What's not to get?

[eFestivals]

Oh look at that, you've missed the point on purpose again. The substance of evolution does not say anything of the sort. Ergo, you were wrong.

The substance of evolution does not say what, exactly?

Feel free to quote me exactly (so I know exactly what you're referring to, to challenge it if necessary).

Do NOT feel free to put your own irrelevant words into my mouth as you've done so many times to move the goalposts.

The substance of evolution does not say what, exactly?

The substance of evolution does not much care what humans and their predecessors might be labelled as. It only cares in following the evolutionary line - which for humans DOES go back to the single cell organism.

To reject that on the basis of a label is laughable. If baked beans were renamed fart beans tomorrow they're still baked beans.

Edited September 2, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

And as an aside to show how utterly f**king idiotic you have been, mass isn't universal either. In a black hole, it changes. So yet again, the behaviour of something that you call universal is entirely dependant on other factors.

You are such a gobshite.

PMSL.

How many times will you fail to get the most basic scientific principle of "within the same conditions"?

I was of the belief that I was talking to an adult who is familiar with scientific concepts. Having realised my error in a discussion with someone who believes himself a scientist I can't stop laughing.

Edited September 2, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

I addressed both weight and mass.

[worm]

PMSL.

How many times will you fail to get the most basic scientific principle of "within the same conditions"?

I was of the belief that I was talking to an adult who is familiar with scientific concepts. Having realised my error in a discussion with someone who believes himself a scientist I can't stop laughing.

[worm]

The substance of evolution does not say what, exactly?

[worm]

We think we think, nothing more.

[worm]

With the above said, you firmly believe in narratives Neil. I too believe in narratives. The difference is that I do not believe that the narratives exist outside of thought. This is why psychology has to look at people's thought-processes so that they can assess where their narrative is at odds.

Edited September 2, 2011 by worm

[worm]

And here's one for feral, as I'm bored on a friday night:

We don't necessarily look for 'natural' drives to assess someone's state of mind. This would indicate a state of sanity. Rather, we look to their narrative and belief system on how the world is and how the laws of the world function to them. From this, we then take them through the events that they've enacted. If there is incongruence or dissonance between the two then there is a problem.

This is the difference between someone who is a rational killer with intent and someone operating from an emotional process. All emotional processes exhibit the same factors, such as psychological dissonance, whereas rationally motivated processes do not.

You could maybe say that a person will rationally kill for food or political idealism. This will be explained if there is no incongruence or dissonance between their life narrative and their depiction of the events.

A person killing under an emotional process, let's say out of the heat of passion, will undoubtedly show massive incongruence and dissonance between theoir life narrative and their depiction of the events, such as denial etc.

And a psychopath will show no rationality whatsoever for the events as they will have a fantasy rather than life narrative. It will be completely nihilistic and unmotivated.

Edited September 2, 2011 by worm