Euthanasia and the Right to Die.

[kaosmark2]

Someone should put you both out of your misery

[worm]

We got into this because you gave that as *the* way to know for all living things, an answer which is patently wrong.

[eFestivals]

No I didn't. I said it was evidence of sentience, which you said didn't exist.

and you're back to making it up.

[worm]

and you're back to making it up.

[eFestivals]

My points are these....

1. thinking is only provable to itself.

2. thinking does not have to have output, and so using output to test for thinking is flawed.

3. psychology is based on prejudices and not science.

4. you need to study a dictionary.

Once you've done the relevant study to be up-to-speed you'll be in the position to start to study where you've been going so wrong.

[worm]

2. thinking does not have to have output, and so using output to test for thinking is flawed.

Edited August 28, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

2. To be proven scientifically, it does.

Which only gets to show how flawed science is at getting at such things. It's not fit for purpose, even tho it's all that we have for investigating the mind.

That's my whole point! You can prove the sentience of another being through its logical output. Through its behaviour. This is factual.

It might be factual - but that doesn't stop it being fatally flawed from all logical and rational angles, and being an incomplete methodology from all technical angles.

The fact that you buy into it as worth something only proves that you'll buy into the worthless.

You keep going back to not needing to prove thinking

no I don't, nothing like that at all.

The fact that you think that's what I'm saying just gets to show how what I've said is beyond your capability of understanding. You are so tied in to the dogma you've swallowed that you're unable to actually think.

[worm]

Which only gets to show how flawed science is at getting at such things. It's not fit for purpose, even tho it's all that we have for investigating the mind.

[worm]

It might be factual - but that doesn't stop it being fatally flawed from all logical and rational angles, and being an incomplete methodology from all technical angles.

[eFestivals]

Wrong! It is scientific. That's a fact. It's proof of independent cause. It's not proof of the thoughts we think or the words or images we think in, but it's proof of sentience.

It's exactly the same with physics. The apple dropping tells us nothing of the thoughts of physical forces, it just shows us that there are physical forces. Exactly the same for psychology.

It's not the same tho.

For physical science we work from a point where we accept what the mind tells us is correct, and where there is constant validation of all parts of the conclusions from different directions.

For looking at the mind in itself we only have the mind with which to examine it. It's no good working from outside forces backwards, because that works from our prejudices with those prejudices being ultimately applied back on the thing we're attempting to be scientific about. That ends up with the reality being made to fit the theories rather than the other way around, and all the while there can be no validation by other means.

So, for example, you end up believing that sentience is a universal thing across all species, and is displayed in a particular way by all of those species just because that's true for us humans. And the other part that humans do that could be included for precisely the same reasons as that first idea is used is ignored because of its academic inconvenience .... and so a whole new 'science' of the purely made-up is born.

Using the mind to look at the mind has all the problems of the mind. It starts with a guess and continues on with ever-weaker guesses made on ever weaker theories.

[fred quimby]

I was gonna say who thinks Neil vs Worm should be a thread?

[worm]

It's not the same tho.

For physical science we work from a point where we accept what the mind tells us is correct, and where there is constant validation of all parts of the conclusions from different directions.

Edited August 28, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

You're making shit up!

There is undeniable evidence of physical forces. There is a logic to these physical forces. This is based entirely upon observation of behaviour.

There is undeniable evidence of psychological forces. There is a logic to these psychological forces. This is based entirely upon observable behaviour.

They are exactly the same. Evidence of a physical force is dependent. Evidence of a psychological force is independent.

evidence of forces, yup.

Evidence on the same basis? One one level. But not on another.

[worm]

evidence of forces, yup.

[eFestivals]

At last you admit it.

tho I wasn't admitting to anything as you've taken it.

Psychology is the study of the logic of psychological forces, of which there is undeniable evidence.

or saying the same thing in babble-less words ....

Study of the mind is study of the mind, and is where the mind tells us there's a mind.

Some things are universal to the human condition and some are not.

Spot on.

And one of these universal things is that the mind lies.

Psychology attempts to better understand these things and looks at nothing, whatsoever, outside of logic.

Perhaps. But, in your version at least, it certainly chooses to ignore logic as much as it includes it.

It is the study of human behaviour from a prejudiced standpoint and nothing more.

corrected for you.

You seem to have very little understanding of it.

Wrong. I have very little time for it, because it is not what it claims.

[worm]

As ever you've come back with meaningless contradiction and prejudiced assertions. You've been given the facts and you've come back with mindless garbage.

It's not the study of the mind, it's the study of the logic of observable and verifiable forces independent of the physical. Are you scientifically literate at all? Do you understand these terms? Only a child would interpret these words as something as banal and meaningless as 'mind is the study of the mind' etc....

For the record, phrenology (the study of the mind) was thrown away by psychology because it was unverifiable, hoo-doo bullshit.

You haven't the first clue kid.

Edited August 28, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

It's not the study of the mind, it's the study of the logic of observable and verifiable forces independent of the physical. I made this as clear as day for you, yet you come back with inane shite unbefitting a 6 year old.

If it's just that, please tell me how the concept of the psyche is arrived at? Where can it be observed?

What really happens is that something is observed, and then a load of prejudiced guesswork happens, and then you buy and swallow the book written from that prejudiced guesswork.

What you have is the mind telling you of the mind, with all the inherent flaws that come with that method. And then the guesswork comes into play, someone is declared an expert on the basis of their guesswork and wearing the emperor's clothes, you buy the book of that guesswork, and the world becomes a little more fucked.

[worm]

If it's just that, please tell me how the concept of the psyche is arrived at? Where can it be observed?

Edited August 28, 2012 by worm

[dingbat2]

Removed post

Edited August 29, 2012 by dingbat2

[worm]

This has just become a battle of intellectual superiority between Worm and Neil.

Edited August 28, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

The physical universe is guessed at. The psyche is guessed at.

The physical universe *was* guessed at; now it is observed and measured.

Guess what makes something dark ages?

There may not be a psyche. There may not be a physical universe.

There may not be a psyche. There *IS* a physical universe.

But there are most definitely forces that depend upon the physical and forces that are independent of the physical.

Can you make up your mind please? Either things we experience - physical objects, physical forces, and physical universes - are real, or they are not.

And once you've settled on just the one fixed answer, can you then stick with that fixed answer into your psychobabble? I know it will seem daft to you (just you), but fixed concepts are slightly important when claiming science.

And once you've settled on what you'll use for your scientific constants, can you then point me at the psyche so I can observe it, so that your definition of psychobabble that you gave above is made accurate?

Or are you man enough to admit that you've been talking fantasy stuff?

[dingbat2]

Removed post

[eFestivals]

p.s. Neil is no intellectual. He's an anti-intellectual if anything.

PMSL

I certainly don't claim to be "an intellectual". I leave the grand claims to those who need to grandstand in place of substance.

Perhaps you might take a moment to consider your own part in all this, and why I rail against so much of what you say?

For example, I point you at the false definition you gave above.

[worm]

I certainly don't claim to be "an intellectual".

[eFestivals]

Just as well because you're not.

Ditto matey, ditto.