| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Psychology Forum » Pavlov was Right
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Thomas Jefferson |
 Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The human brain IS like a telephone switchboard. It is constantly
making new connections and letting loose of old ones - all those nerve
cells in their chemical, biological and physical environment. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Thomas Jefferson |
| Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 4:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Never making a real connection"
Come over to my place. I'll make some new connections in your brain.
One swift swat with my paddle will do the trick. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Critter |
| Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 9:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: The human brain IS like a telephone switchboard. It is constantly
making new connections and letting loose of old ones - all those nerve
cells in their chemical, biological and physical environment.
Pavlov was wrong. The human brain is more like a network of swithes and
hubs, never really making any connections, but merely routing information in
various directions along continuous connections which never disconnect.
The human brain is just a big Rube Goldberg device. Hell, humans are'nt even
human. We're all just robots !! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Critter |
| Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 10:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: "Never making a real connection"
Come over to my place. I'll make some new connections in your brain.
One swift swat with my paddle will do the trick.
Pavlov was wrong. The mind is a like a remote server, running a bot which
outputs continuous paddle swats, transmitting information via worm tunneling
to futures and pasts. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Thomas Jefferson |
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Well,if thinking like you do is good for you, great. If you ever
want to consider new ideas, try reading Pavlov. Everything is based on
experiment, so it is never "wrong". Of course new experiments may
uncover new things. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Critter |
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: Well,if thinking like you do is good for you, great. If you ever
want to consider new ideas, try reading Pavlov. Everything is based on
experiment, so it is never "wrong". Of course new experiments may
uncover new things.
Is it falsifiable ?
Is there a way to attempt to prove him wrong ? I dont think so.
Is it reproducible ?
Would others who reproduce his experiments be forced to conclude the
identical theories ? Doubtful. Just like Freud - there is absolutely nothing
which would lead someone to conclude, independently, the existence of an
"electra complex" for eg. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mark D Morin |
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:02:38 GMT, "Critter" <Barking@The.Moon> wrote:
Quote: Well,if thinking like you do is good for you, great. If you ever
want to consider new ideas, try reading Pavlov. Everything is based on
experiment, so it is never "wrong". Of course new experiments may
uncover new things.
Is it falsifiable ?
yes
Quote:
Is there a way to attempt to prove him wrong ? I dont think so.
the purpose of science is not to prove someone right or wrong.
Quote:
Is it reproducible ?
yes. and has been many times
Quote:
Would others who reproduce his experiments be forced to conclude the
identical theories ? Doubtful.
doubt all you want. read those who did reproduce his findings and see
what they concluded.
Freud is in no way "just like" pavlov
====================================================
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."
Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"
http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Critter |
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 9:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: Well,if thinking like you do is good for you, great. If you ever
want to consider new ideas, try reading Pavlov. Everything is based
on
experiment, so it is never "wrong". Of course new experiments may
uncover new things.
Is it falsifiable ?
yes
No. It is'nt.
His theories are as tangled as any other causality type of theory. Do you
also believe in predestination ?
Quote: Is there a way to attempt to prove him wrong ? I dont think so.
the purpose of science is not to prove someone right or wrong.
It is, if indeed they are wrong, and he is.
Quote:
Is it reproducible ?
yes. and has been many times
nonsense. This is impossible. They are simply imitating him, going through
motions and arriving at a preagreed conclusion. This is what psychologists
do. They decide what the conclusion should look like, and then set otu to
discover it "scientifically". Pretty funny really.
Quote:
Would others who reproduce his experiments be forced to conclude the
identical theories ? Doubtful.
doubt all you want. read those who did reproduce his findings and see
what they concluded.
This would be a waste of time. If I wanted to read falsehoods I would start
with Mein Kampf and work my way toward the Bill of Rights. Psychology is a
silly sort of pseudoscientific fiction.
Quote: Just like Freud -
Freud is in no way "just like" pavlov
There is no difference. They both said things which may or may not have been
true, none of which is provable, and they are both quacks. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mark D Morin |
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 02:25:25 GMT, "Critter" <Barking@The.Moon> wrote:
Quote: nonsense. This is impossible. They are simply imitating him, going through
motions and arriving at a preagreed conclusion. This is what psychologists
do. They decide what the conclusion should look like, and then set otu to
discover it "scientifically". Pretty funny really.
Just like Freud -
Freud is in no way "just like" pavlov
There is no difference. They both said things which may or may not have been
true, none of which is provable, and they are both quacks.
another paranoid bozo. welcome to the plonk bucket
====================================================
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."
Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"
http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Critter |
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: nonsense. This is impossible. They are simply imitating him, going
through
motions and arriving at a preagreed conclusion. This is what
psychologists
do. They decide what the conclusion should look like, and then set otu to
discover it "scientifically". Pretty funny really.
Just like Freud -
Freud is in no way "just like" pavlov
There is no difference. They both said things which may or may not have
been
true, none of which is provable, and they are both quacks.
another paranoid bozo. welcome to the plonk bucket
The question is not whether I care abotu being "plonked". The question is
whether others would independently conclude that I am "paranoid" based on
the conversation thus far. The fact is that they would not, and it is
quackery.
Like the geese who fly south for the winter, QUACK, QUACK.........QUACK. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Thomas Jefferson |
| Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2003 11:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Psychologists decide what the conclusion and then set out to discover it
"scientifically".
I sure relate to that. In my psychological establishment
experimental procedures,they always wanted a hypothesis. Then it seemed
the experiments were designed to "support" that hypothesis. The room
for fudging is enormous.
I prefer to set up experiments where I don't know the outcome. I
talked to one psychology(BETA) professor and he said it was OK. He
called it discovery phenomena. In my opinion, all of BETA sholud be
started from zero.
I have done a few good experiments with myself as the subject. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mark D Morin |
| Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2003 9:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:20:19 -0800 (PST), californiareb@webtv.net
(Thomas Jefferson) wrote:
Quote: Psychologists decide what the conclusion and then set out to discover it
"scientifically".
I sure relate to that. In my psychological establishment
experimental procedures,they always wanted a hypothesis. Then it seemed
the experiments were designed to "support" that hypothesis. The room
for fudging is enormous.
Actually, experiments are explicitly designed to refute the
hypothesis.
====================================================
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."
Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"
http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Critter |
| Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2003 11:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Mark D Morin" <mdmpsyd@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
news:n9pasvc2r7refq1tuvlq7jdfnosq550sno@4ax.com...
Quote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:20:19 -0800 (PST), californiareb@webtv.net
(Thomas Jefferson) wrote:
Psychologists decide what the conclusion and then set out to discover it
"scientifically".
I sure relate to that. In my psychological establishment
experimental procedures,they always wanted a hypothesis. Then it seemed
the experiments were designed to "support" that hypothesis. The room
for fudging is enormous.
Actually, experiments are explicitly designed to refute the
hypothesis.
Someone please post an example. I'd like to explore this. My hypothesis is
quite simply that psychology is for the most part ridiculous. I think that
there is plenty of corroborating evidence, but I need to test the null
hypothesis. Help me out here. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Thomas Jefferson |
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2003 4:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In my latest experiment, I created a "Self-Image Inventory" It is a
list of about 250 things that would be part of one's self image. The
subject rates his or her evaluation from 0=no value. 3=average.
6=superior (ie when taking test not aware of anyone higher). Then the
subject evaluates the importance of that quality on the same scedule.
The test is repeated once a month for a year.
In another experiment I have had a few subjects. I have a
collection of pictures. I ask them to pick out the 8 that are the most
"moving" and put them in order. After that's done, I ask them what they
then think they found "moving" in the picture. With a hidden camera it
may be possible to detect Lachrimula Animus responses. (The last part
could run into ethical problems) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Critter |
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2003 10:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: In my latest experiment, I created a "Self-Image Inventory" It is a
list of about 250 things that would be part of one's self image. The
subject rates his or her evaluation from 0=no value. 3=average.
6=superior (ie when taking test not aware of anyone higher). Then the
subject evaluates the importance of that quality on the same scedule.
The test is repeated once a month for a year.
So, the subject fills out the survey.
Let me ask you this, is there any way to measure whether this person is
lying and to what extent ?
Is there any way to measure if this person is simply answering inaccurately
and not even knowing it ?
Quote: In another experiment I have had a few subjects. I have a
collection of pictures. I ask them to pick out the 8 that are the most
"moving" and put them in order. After that's done, I ask them what they
then think they found "moving" in the picture. With a hidden camera it
may be possible to detect Lachrimula Animus responses. (The last part
could run into ethical problems)
How do you know that it's not just a nervous twitch or maybe a completely
unrelated orgasm ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:10 pm
|
|