| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Psychology Forum » Pavlov was Right
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| Sean Musgrave |
 Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2003 4:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
lying and inaccuracy
One thing is to be using subjects that are truly interested in exploring
the phenomena and not just paid subjects. Also, there can be some
questions repeated that would catch people not probing their true
feelings.
detection of Lachrimula Animus
One could ask the subjects if they had feelings associated with tears.
The detection apparatus could record the point at which facial movements
and tears were excited. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Critter |
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2003 11:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: lying and inaccuracy
One thing is to be using subjects that are truly interested in exploring
the phenomena and not just paid subjects. Also, there can be some
questions repeated that would catch people not probing their true
feelings.
Arguably, every measuring instrument that has ever been made has some
inherent inaccuracy. There is no such thing as a mathematically exact ruler.
This is impossible, or at least to my knowledge no such instrument can ever
be built.
Is self analysis exact ? How accurately can someone report on his own
feelings, etc ? Even if someone is trying very hard to be exact, how close
can one come to answerign a question exactly ?
If is ask - "How much do you love your wife ?", and the subject responds at
great length to describe his love as exactly as possible, I still do not
know if it is exact. And I have no idea what the margin of error might be in
that single answer.
How does psychology overcome this ?
Quote: detection of Lachrimula Animus
One could ask the subjects if they had feelings associated with tears.
The detection apparatus could record the point at which facial movements
and tears were excited.
Do some people cry from mild feelings ? Or do they cry from very intense
feelings ? Can this be distinguished quantitatively ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Critter |
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2003 11:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Not to beat a dead horse, but humans are not furniture.
Suppose you could live through an experience multiple times. Lets suppose
you witness a car crash. Further, suppose you could "magically" rewind the
experience and relive it multiple times.
Your reaction to seeing this car crash would probably depend on certain
parameters which are inherent to you and your "mind". But, would also depend
on the experiences which immediately preceeded this experience.
Suppose that you had a very calm experience prior to the event. The event
might evoke panic or crying.
Suppose that you had a very hostile fight with someone just prior to this
event. You are loaded with adrenalin, your reaction is very different.
Suppose that you are on the way home from a CPR course which you are taking.
Your reaction is different again.
Suppose that you have a hangover from the night before. Still, you react
differently.
So, the question becomes, since we are extremely dynamic biochemical beings,
and we are continuously influenced by hormones and drugs and wierd
experiences and beliefs and thoughts, what makes you think that you can
isolate the "true character" of a person or even the human mind ???
How does psychology answer this ?? How can you measure anything at all ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sean Musgrave |
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Exact, Accurate,Why?
Exact
In psychology nothing would seem to need super precision. I suspect a
ruler is sufficient.
Accurate
For twenty years now I have seen the possibility of an uncertainty
principle involved in the experience and recording of human feelings.
When I am in a super good feeling state, I seem to lose that feeling
when I even think about the possibility of observing it and writing
about it. By the time I have my exact science "tools" ready to dissectt
the experience, that super wonderful experience ifs affected. It may
never be possible to simultaaneously experience some things and also to
record aspects of it with full rigorous scientific exactness.
I won't get into the topic of the presence of scientific recording
instuments and the presence of an observer in the states of most supreme
pleasure.
Why?
I intentionally stop from answering any of the good questions posed.
I don't want to be like so many people in psychology who just write out
of their head, instead of doing experiments. Those questions could
suggest experiments that could shed some light. Some things that I
experience I am positively sure of myself, because I KNOW how I am
feeling.
At this point in psychology, we need a community of honesty and
integrity where the TRUTH reigns supreme. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sean Musgrave |
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 11:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
How can you measure anything at all?
You can measure the presence and volume of fluids. Photographic film
will detect the presence of fluids.
You can observe where the subject is going.
You can get records of what the subject is buying.
You can observe the physical objects where the subject is.
Crying orgastic states are some evidence or the lack of them.
F states have observable elements.
Chemicals can be detected.
Electromyogram can record muscle activity.
Various brain scans can be made.
But, the presence of supreme pleasure states can only be verified by the
one who experiences them. People can lie to themselves about these
things, so ultimate truth may never be known.
Still I'll be optimisitic. If we can see inside a quark, we should
someday know the exact biolgical and chemical conditions when a supreme
pleasurable state is experienced. But is it really a supreme state
being experienced? Except the subject we will knever K N O W.
And even the subject won't know because we have no way of knowing
whether that subject has really ever experienced the most pleasurable
state humanly possible.
My experience with people of top feeling states and people in
psychology is that people who have the richest feeling states don't get
psychology degrees and people who get psychology degrees certainly have
never made me feel good. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Critter |
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 9:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: At this point in psychology, we need a community of honesty and
integrity where the TRUTH reigns supreme.
This is the point of what I'm trying to say. You say that you wish to have
truth, you say that you also wish to find truth. You call yourselves
scientists, but everything I've seen so far contradicts this. I do not see
any paths to truth, just methodologies of constructing strange opinions,
opinions which are no better than the toss of a die.
Why would anyone ever consult a psychologist for any reason when their
opinions are simply pulled out of thin air ? Why do they give degrees for
this practice ? Can someone answer this question ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:23 am
|
|