Notices
Results 1 to 21 of 21
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By hyperion1is
  • 1 Post By RedPanda

Thread: Scientific Theory of the human Psyche

  1. #1 Scientific Theory of the human Psyche 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29
    I publish here a part of the theory (some elements).

    I will start (presentation of) my theory and along the way I think you will understand the title of the topic. I started this with the intention of exactly that, is not my intention of explaining the human brain. I don't think (that being only my opinion ofcourse) that the brain is the best starting point to explain human Psyche, because we don't know much about the human brain anyway (at this point) and about the human being overall, I.e. if it has a soul or not. My approach is desired to be a scientific one and not to dwell in metaphysic, and if I managed to do that you can tell me. Also, I don't know if my theory is original, and in which degree it can be considered original, because I didn't read that much on Psychology topic, to be aware of all ideas. Please take note, that I'm not claiming that this is, will be the first (scientific theory) in this area, the first probably being „Brain, a decoded enigma” by Tudor Moise. You can refer to that if you want. That theory tries to explain the brain and from my point a view is a good work in this field but doesn't explain Self-consciousness, even if the author tries to explain that as well.


    Theory about the Human being (human Psyche).

    Model: The human being = I + (Human mind + Human body + Self + Consciousness).






    Legend: H.M. = Human Mind, H.B. = Human Body, S = Self, C = Consciousness., I = the "I"; all components.

    Green line = Decision making process (abstract).



    Explanations of the terms: I will use along the way the „human being” instead of „human Psyche” for dis-ambiguity of the terms. Please take note that here we „study” the human being from a psychological point of view. Because is a model and theory associated to the model the terms here has significance only inside this theory and not outside of it. I used those terms only so that readers can make an association with some notions that we have, but I hope, not confusion also.

    The „I” term can be associated with Self-consciousness. The part of us which allows as to say „I”, and doesn't let us to say „I don't care”. Even if we say that we don't mean it. When I started this, I started from this axiom: that we care, about everything (that is relevant to us) even if some of us try to numb certain aspects. But the „I” of-course is not the same as Self-consciousness as it is understood from other areas of study.

    The „Human mind” and the „Human body” it is expressed in this way because this is a study about the human being (homo sapience) and not about the animals. I'm aware of the similarities, but what applies to animals may not apply to humans. (the intention here is actually not to be biased).

    The „Self” and „ Consciousness” are just terms that will be explained further.



    Presentation of theory, the model,its elements and relations between the elements.



    The assertion here is that the Human being is composed from a system of 5 elements/components, or expressed in another way: the Human being can be studied from this point of view, as a system of components, and the study is made by studying each component and their interactions within the system.

    There are 4 components within the system: The Human mind, the Human body, the Self and the Consciousness component. The fifth component, the „I” is an emergent of the system, within the system. Even if the „I” is an emergent is a component in itself with it's own proprieties, that can be different from all the other ones. I.e H2 + O = H2O a different substance altogether. And the I works with the other 4 elements forming a system.

    The term „component”: within the system all the „elements” can work individually and also collectively. And thus an element „behaves” as a component.

    The Human Mind (H.M) role is to find solutions, return answers to interrogations and to establish correlations between items. HM works with concepts and the basic function of the Human Mind is manipulation of concepts. It has its own way of operating that can not be changed. HM intrinsically "learns" new concepts both through its own work, independently, and through processing tasks from the decision process. Human Mind operates independently and impartial (to all the others or to all things). The HM doesn't work with moral concepts (not it's role).

    Human Body component: an interpreter of the physical human body (not the human body itself). A analogy: in It, a driver for a piece of hardware and not that piece of hardware.

    The Self : a component that is „static” and it has informations (maybe data) written into it. This data is always the same, is not changing. The component it self is not changeable; immutable. The info written into it is: "Importance" and „Self-persevering”- which is to be read: I existed always, I exist, and I will always exist. (continuity may be another term for it). „Importance” is to be read correctly just „Importance” – not in a superlative form. Outside view: if we ask our selves „I'm more important than another person or less important than another person?”. If we do that is wrong and is not attributed to the Self component. What we can say is „I'm important”.

    Consciousness: a component that is designed to check new values ​​based on (against) a value system. The value system is "placed" in Consciousness and Consciousness assess what it is to be assessed on the basis of that Value system. What is to remember: consciousness is "unbiased" to the value system. It doesn't decide on the value system in any way. This Value System can be "taken" changed, modified by the H.M and the I.

    The I: is in „charge” of the Decision making process and another role is Conflict Resolution between the system elements (the I included). The I is on the „other side” of the Decision making, meaning that the interactions between the I and the other components is realized indirectly.



    Relations between elements: components can exchange information between them. All elements have access to the same data about „External reality”. The components operate independently of each other and at the same time together. This may appear as contradiction, but, here, the assumption is that is not. Ie: in quantum physics (from what I know) there is a principle which can be expressed: a "switch" state can be: ON, OFF, ON and Off both at the same time. This applies here also. I'm also working on a concept of „apparent contradictions” which happens/appears when decision is applied to soon (before grasping a new concept that explains the contradiction/the paradox”). This explanation derives from the theory.



    Axiom 1: None of the components in the system can be eliminated (once created).

    Axiom 2: I has indirect capabilities upon other components but it can not create a conflict within the same component under the law of non-interference.

    This is the main „body” of the theory. English is not my native language and I apologies for any mistakes. If I did mistakes and it creates confusion please let me know. There is more to this (theory) but all the work was done in „my head” and not with a pencil and a paper. So I think you can understand my dilemma. Maybe you can direct me to the right approach here, what is necessary for a theory to be coherent, valid and if it applies to a „section of reality” that is to be studied. How can I work with a model, with this one, math can be applied to it?



    As a recap and wrap up: the I and the HB components are to be considered „biased”. HM, C, Self – un-biased. What is relevant to the Human being (and to this theory): Thought (process) – Decision (making process) – Action. This being a system an „effect” cannot be attributed only to a specific element, instead the system must be understood on Overall. I.e: different regions in the brain are associated with sight, hearing and so on, but what is to be said is that if that regions are affected a cognitive function is affected (from here the association) and doesn't really mean that that specific region of brain if is responsible with a cognitive function (from what I know, I hope I don't mistake). Anyway, I think that this is known about a system. That being said you can (abstractly) associate Thought to the Human Mind component, Decision to the I component and Action as an understanding of the decision taken. Thought and Decision as processes can only be attributed to the system (overall).

    Thought – Decision –Action (with Decision in the middle) work together but there are not tied (ironed) to one another. To understand the human Psyche you need to understand this processes independently. Some of us may be conditioned to tie them all together. As a religion theme: if you think of you neighbor wife, desire may appear, if desire appears Decision follows and Action (in that direction) also. So the highest you can do is to „purge” those unholy thoughts. Which is not the case, these work independently and one doesn't conditions another (like in cascade or another form).
    The system revolves around the stability of the System and not related to survival (survival of the human body). The system is more stable when there are less conflicts and more instable when there are more conflicts within the system.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29
    A simulation can be: A person wants/needs to steal something:

    The I is in charge of Decisions and takes decisions in relation to the other components (and it self) and in relation with Impartiality( I won't go into details here about the Impartiality, is enough to say that it can be expressed mathematically and Free Will also. We can associate here Impartiality with O- zero).

    A necessity is acknowledged from the HB and not only. A necessity like food (the simplest form) or a watch. The I needs to make a decision. The HM helps it to identify „all” the elements (such as risk) and also can provide a solution to that action ( to steal an object, in this case). If I interrogates HB it returns that that specific item is needed (food). If interrogates the Consciousness component a belief system is needed, such a Moral system. Checks the value (from the I) against the values present in the Value system and returns a result. In this hypothetical case (from outside) it can go either way. That such an action can be moral or immoral. There is no absolute in no field whatsoever so there is not an absolute here, like an absolute moral system- point of reference). In other words the Values system is related to the individual in cause and not with something outside of it. What is „outside” is the risk of getting caught.

    If/when the I interrogates the Self, „I always existed, I exist and I will always exist” so a piece of bread won't make much of a difference, in layman terms.

    If the I interrogates the HM about the risk HM can provide a risk assessment. Related to „If such an action is worth it” HM is impartial to that, to death (to all things) and it can go either way.

    The I also interrogates it self and a decision derives. Is hard to predict here in this hypothetical case what that decision will be, considering that is a specific/singular case, disregarding past events. A decision is made as part of a strategy. The point is: the I can make an arbitrary decision (is not conditioned by the HB); can take a „totally arbitrary” decision disregarding HB component-which will lead to system instability; or a decision which falls into a strategy or in the scope of the system. For dis-ambiguity: the I has to take into account each component when adopting a decision (as part of conflict resolution) and not to disregard an interrogation. Taking into account doesn't imply following.

    PS. Theory of Irofte Daniel: http://hyperion1is.blogspot.ro/


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29
    Opinions, feedback, questions and help about the scientific method is the theory coherent or not, what more is necessary to be coherent, valid etc, before I start working on it, is welcomed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29
    Another question for it, What it doesn't make sense in the above?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    Opinions, feedback, questions and help about the scientific method is the theory coherent or not, what more is necessary to be coherent, valid etc, before I start working on it, is welcomed.
    It is not a theory and it even lacks a coherent hypothesis. It lacks testing (Must be tested and testing must show the model to be accurate in order for it to be a theory) and the nature of the presentation is one of Abstract Philosophy, not the Scientific Method.

    You nixed the science right off the bat when you chose to avoid the Brain. That's like trying to make a hypothesis about the Sun while ignoring the Physics of it...

    A scientific approach would require defined terms used for observation of those terms as functions of the Brain, lymphatic system, etc.
    That is to say, the Mind or Consciousness is a derivative of the physical processes of the brain much the same way as the "Windows" you see on your computer screen are an effect or derivative of the physical processes of the computer, monitor, O.S., hardware, etc.
    Once defined, provide a clear hypothesis as to how the physical processes give the perceived effect and how this effect influences decision making.
    Then test that hypothesis against observation using MRI, CAT, and other direct observation techniques on subjects engaged in decision making processes.
    If your model is accurate and your tests remain accurate with repeated testing from other parties, you could consider your peer reviewed published results a "Theory."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29
    A
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    It is not a theory and it even lacks a coherent hypothesis. It lacks testing (Must be tested and testing must show the model to be accurate in order for it to be a theory) and the nature of the presentation is one of Abstract Philosophy, not the Scientific Method.

    I think I acknowledged this in a way or another. I'm currently work on revising my "theory" and the presentation of it. Could you elaborate more on " coherent hypothesis" ? Also on your view about the presentation of the theory? What it lacks? Propoer definitions of terms for instance?

    Further I believe is due to an error on my part, derived from not having the propriety of terms maybe, or we may have different views on the same subject

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    You nixed the science right off the bat when you chose to avoid the Brain. That's like trying to make a hypothesis about the Sun while ignoring the Physics of it...

    A scientific approach would require defined terms used for observation of those terms as functions of the Brain, lymphatic system, etc.
    That is to say, the Mind or Consciousness is a derivative of the physical processes of the brain much the same way as the "Windows" you see on your computer screen are an effect or derivative of the physical processes of the computer, monitor, O.S., hardware, etc.
    Once defined, provide a clear hypothesis as to how the physical processes give the perceived effect and how this effect influences decision making.
    Then test that hypothesis against observation using MRI, CAT, and other direct observation techniques on subjects engaged in decision making processes.
    " You nixed the science right off the bat when you chose to avoid the Brain". In the grand view I meant that the study of the brain is not the best place to start. There is already a field that covers that: Neuroscience. But this is not the only field in Psychology. There are many others. Should all the others be reduced to Neuroscience alone? The research in other fields should be discontinued?

    I don't believe that Neuroscience is not important. It is important but I think that this is the long way to go in finding answers and give explanations regrading the human consciousness and all it's aspects, feelings, emotions etc. How many brains Freud dissected? Or did it had scans machines and such?

    It's also true that I didn't covered "Integration" here (I have this in a Word document and when presenting things here, I wondered what is relevant and which is not, to make a short presentation)

    "The model does/wants to explain any/all aspects of the human psyche and not slices of it. Examples: Free will, decisions, feelings, emotions awareness and so on.
    With limitations to this theory (to this purpose), meaning that it's not it's role to explain Physics, Biology and related. Related to this is a question of integration."

    What do I mean by that. The Brain is not a starting point but this theory should have integration in relations with other fields.
    I don't know how Neuroscience "sees" the brain right now. A general view is that is "ironed" together in the sense that is a single overall process and even you can distinguish some sub-processes are still direct part of the Overall process. Anyway, if in the study of the Brain, 5 distinct different processes were to be found, in the way that my theory describes them then this will constitute evidence for my theory.
    The problem is when. There is already a more complex project Human Brain Project (EU) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Maybe that will shed some light into things.
    How I stated in my "theory" (I use quotes like you had), there are 4 basic processes (components), the fifth being an emergent (but also a component within the system). Being the definition of an emergent that we have today, is kind of hard to pinpoint an emergent (to actually see it). I think in this case "localization" can be the problem, and answers to this may be in relation with other fields like "quantum mechanics" or others. Anyway, even so, I being an emergent, the brain should have a "mark", a localized form of the component. I view it in the light of efficiency.

    If, this evidence (the above) is not to be found, then my theory is false (so it's falsifiable), or I will need more on "Integration" if it's possible.

    Also MRI, CAT are not the only tools available for testing this theory. Experiments can be one. Ie. Have 100 (or how many are there needed) people entering a room in twilight (light from the outside) and do a chore (moving a chair let's say). The "artificial" light is switched off . After exiting the room and filling questionnaires: "How many of them became aware of the artificial light (ON or OFF). If the percentage doesn't fall in the chance (in this case lets say 50/50) the discrepancy must be explained.
    It's a simple test, not technically laid out, but I think you got my point. The experiment can be used for observations but also for testing the theory. The theory says the the people with a higher level of anxiety (in general) have a higher chance to be aware of the artificial lighting state.


    How, I said, your feedback is very valuable. But are you saying that Neuroscience is the only way to study the human psyche? Or my poor choice of words was the issue here ?

    The answers to the human psyche lays in many fields and I can't wait for progress in each field to be done to get answers about the human psyche (considering that some advancement are done in centuries frames).

    I'm I wrong?
    Consider this, a synthesis of many fields (the hypothesis). Or at least an attempt of it. But remember "it's not it's role to explain Physics, Biology and related". It's not a Toe (Theory of everything).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    Could you elaborate more on " coherent hypothesis" ?
    First; A Theory is supported by testing and experimentation. If you're going to call it a theory, you must show what tests you've performed and what third party verification you have for those tests (Repeated tests by others.)
    If you do not have testing done, then you have a Hypothesis.
    You will want to state in One Sentence a brief synopsis of what your hypothesis is. For example, "In this presentation, I submit that the mind is an abstraction of the physical brain" or "The mind is a separate entity from the brain" or whatever it is that your basic idea conveys.

    Then detail what evidence has led you to your hypothesis. What supports your idea?
    Propose testing and experimentation to validate your hypothesis. What tests can be run to verify the accuracy of your assertion?
    It helps to make general predictions about what the tests should show. Predict your results because how accurate your predictions are can demonstrate your understanding of your model.
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    In the grand view I meant that the study of the brain is not the best place to start. There is already a field that covers that: Neuroscience. But this is not the only field in Psychology. There are many others. Should all the others be reduced to Neuroscience alone? The research in other fields should be discontinued?
    Not at all. But neuroscience is central to all the fields of study you point out. For example, Physics is central to chemistry, aeronautical engineering, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    How many brains Freud dissected? Or did it had scans machines and such?
    Freud was in error about quite a bit and he did not have access to the equipment we have today. One cannot discount the methodology because they fear it will take too long any more than an arctic explorer can discount an expedition to the arctic because it is cold or a soldier can discount entering the battlefield because bullets are painful.
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    "The model does/wants to explain any/all aspects of the human psyche and not slices of it. Examples: Free will, decisions, feelings, emotions awareness and so on.
    With limitations to this theory (to this purpose), meaning that it's not it's role to explain Physics, Biology and related. Related to this is a question of integration."
    Which makes this a philosophical topic and not one of rigorous scientific study.
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    Also MRI, CAT are not the only tools available for testing this theory.
    Agreed, they were merely suggestions.
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    Experiments can be one. Ie. Have 100 (or how many are there needed) people entering a room in twilight (light from the outside) and do a chore (moving a chair let's say). The "artificial" light is switched off . After exiting the room and filling questionnaires: "How many of them became aware of the artificial light (ON or OFF). If the percentage doesn't fall in the chance (in this case lets say 50/50) the discrepancy must be explained.
    Again, agreed. This is a Soft Science approach of Statistical Social Study. A hard scientific approach, (Which clearly is what I would prefer) would be expensive, as well. But much more accurate as to brain function in relation to behavior.
    That is merely a preference on my part and it does not invalidate your method in any way.
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    But are you saying that Neuroscience is the only way to study the human psyche? Or my poor choice of words was the issue here ?
    I think so- yes. But you made a valid point in that we still have a lot of technological advancements yet to come before we can really delve into the brain. I am optimistic, however, that they will not take as long as some people fear. I also will point out that our current level of technology is sufficient to really do some good work- but the funding for such expensive work is lacking. When you start talking about intensive scans on the large scale for research only when people are in need of scans for medical emergencies... it can really be cost prohibitive.

    In the meantime, the method you used as an example is a less expensive, less intrusive way to get into the BallPark, so to speak, even if it is not as exacting and that is still quite good for progress.
    This referes to those specific questions... I'll admit I have no idea what your hypothesis is at this time and I make no comment on it until I do understand what your hypothesis states.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29
    Neverfly thanks for your through response.
    For me to identify where I am:




    It's a picture that I found and it's quite cute. Scientific method for babies (like me).
    But for a serious approach I resort to this: Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    In the above picture it seems that I'm at the second step. "Form a hypothesis". Actually I'm at the 3'th step but I don't know what experiment to perform.

    Now, I don't know what accounts as observations (what is accepted). Introspection can be used for collecting data in this study? I think that introspection can be used but not on it's own because of the high level of subjectivity in this method. So, introspection can be used along with the data collected from other people.

    I can state about my self that "I exist", "I fell" and so on, and it's has a meaning, in the sense that I can process that information. It's not "blind"; you can describe it as a "reflexivity" if you will. If I collect data form other people they report the same thing. The collection of data can be un-biased in the sense that you don't need to ask: "Can you state about your self something?". You can observe how people include themselves in a construct: "I go to market". And that "I" has meaning to them, because if prompted to identify the "I" in that construct they can do it.
    This has been tested before, in a variety of test like "the mirror test". (if it's valid or not I don't know, but It's an interesting test.)

    If you try to find a word for that would be "Self-consciousness" (technically speaking that is an effect). So you start to find an explanation for that. Different explanations had been proposed some of them even philosophically but without validity: "Self-consciousness is an illusion". But by the definition of the "illusion", the illusion belongs to someone or something.
    Anyway:
    1. You go in circles in order to find an explanation. You can give a definition by description, but doesn't make it scientific.
    2. You go in circles even more if you try to exclude the effect "Self-consciousness". You can't find an alternate explanation of the observation so, for me this remains a fundamental.

    So, I tried a scientific approach. (not philosophical or words game etc).

    I formed an hypothesis: "There is a part of us that allows us to say I"; or if you prefer "There is a part of me that allows me to say "I". Me, being the same as other people.
    So, from here the model was formed, to explain the "I" and if that "system" that I proposed there, exists then it's interesting to study it's underlaying principles (and processes).

    Where did I go wrong here? How to I test my hypothesis?
    Last edited by hyperion1is; August 5th, 2013 at 07:48 AM. Reason: Picture wasn't displayed
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29
    I see that we I agreed on many aspects. But still, there is 2 which I can't quite understand.
    "A hard scientific approach"; do you refer by this to "Hard evidence" ? I think that you refer by this as "proof" being different from evidence.
    Regarding procession of mercury. Einstein deducted that E=mc2. (no math editor). I think that it can be state as this "Energy is matter in vice-versa" and he found correlation between them. This has been tested,not observed. The first test I think it was the atomic bomb. Not the best "moral" test but it proved Einstein hypothesis.
    So in the above case what you would have considered as hard evidence? To look at matter and see Energy, and vice-versa? There is only evidence.
    Regarding "proof" from the human brain. Shouldn't be a hypothesis about the human brain? It exists one? What do I mean by that. Without an hypothesis about the human brain when resorting to RMI you would only see lights go on and off, and what would that tell you?
    I'm I wrong?

    Me: "The model does/wants to explain any/all aspects of the human psyche and not slices of it. Examples: Free will, decisions, feelings, emotions awareness and so on.
    With limitations to this theory (to this purpose), meaning that it's not it's role to explain Physics, Biology and related. Related to this is a question of integration."


    You: "Which makes this a philosophical topic and not one of rigorous scientific study."
    I didn't understood that. It is required from me to build a Toe (Theory of everything) ? Without this my hypothesis and my theory go on the toiled? Others have tried and didn't succeed. Theory of everything - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    "There is a part of me that allows me to say "I".
    They are called "vocal chords".
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,438
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    Me: "The model does/wants to explain any/all aspects of the human psyche and not slices of it. Examples: Free will, decisions, feelings, emotions awareness and so on.
    There's a problem here.
    If you're going to explain, for example, free will you're first going to have to define it.
    And, ideally, show that it actually exists.
    See this thread for some discussion on whether or not you can do that.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    "There is a part of me that allows me to say "I".
    They are called "vocal chords".
    Very scientific.
    And the decision to "exercise" or not, these vocals cords? Or these vocals cords are suspended in aether and vibrate in an indistinguishable pattern, related to frequency time (intervals) and so on? Can you at least distinguish a pattern here?
    Anyway, funny.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    Me: "The model does/wants to explain any/all aspects of the human psyche and not slices of it. Examples: Free will, decisions, feelings, emotions awareness and so on.
    There's a problem here.
    If you're going to explain, for example, free will you're first going to have to define it.
    And, ideally, show that it actually exists.
    See this thread for some discussion on whether or not you can do that.
    "If you're going to explain, for example, free will you're first going to have to define it"


    True. But all in good time. You can't explain everything at once. If you try to do that you encounter chicken-eggs situations. You have to start somewhere, and the question is where. If you try to explain a "Super-nova" you don't start from a Super-nova most likely. You start with observations you can make, and later on you build a "Relativity theory", theory which will explain your super-nova.
    If Free will really exists, then it's stands to reason that you can study it. Through this study you can understand it and define it and determine it's "parameters".
    Discussions on that topic are philosophical like many other that I encountered. First, you make some observations, then make an hypothesis (about free will) and then test your hypothesis. And not the other way around. From the hypothesis without observations.

    Anyway if you want a definition for free will right now: "Free will is exercised by a Free Agent related to a finite, predetermined set of conditions (possibilities). But this is not a definition because you have to define the Free agent. So most likely you can't build a theory for the Free Will but you can build a theory that it would explain you Free will also (and the definition for the Free will will be interpreted in accordance with that theory).

    Don't know if this make sense. Any way, I'm at the second step right now In the picture above (scientific method).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    "There is a part of me that allows me to say "I".
    They are called "vocal chords".
    Very scientific.
    Well, definitely accurate - if not scientific.

    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    And the decision to "exercise" or not, these vocals cords?
    From the brain; you can even see the connecting nerves.

    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    Or these vocals cords are suspended in aether and vibrate in an indistinguishable pattern, related to frequency time (intervals) and so on?
    They are definitely not suspended in aether.

    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    Can you at least distinguish a pattern here?
    Yes - but I don't think you'd like me describing it.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,438
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    True. But all in good time. You can't explain everything at once. If you try to do that you encounter chicken-eggs situations.
    And this is EXACTLY what you've got.

    If Free will really exists, then it's stands to reason that you can study it. Through this study you can understand it and define it and determine it's "parameters".
    If free will doesn't exist then your work toward explaining it will all be for naught, won't it?

    You have to establish that the base on which you're constructing your hypothesis has validity.

    First, you make some observations, then make an hypothesis (about free will) and then test your hypothesis. And not the other way around. From the hypothesis without observations.
    And what observations do you have that suggest free will really exists?
    Since you do not have these observations then hypothesising is going to be pretty pointless, neh?

    Anyway if you want a definition for free will right now: "Free will is exercised by a Free Agent related to a finite, predetermined set of conditions (possibilities). But this is not a definition because you have to define the Free agent. So most likely you can't build a theory for the Free Will but you can build a theory that it would explain you Free will also (and the definition for the Free will will be interpreted in accordance with that theory).
    The definition will do. But, again, you're assuming (here at least) that it actually exists - this has yet to be shown.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29
    Dywyddyr, I tried to entertain a little Free will as a central point for you. My hypothesis described above for Neverfly is not about Free will.
    I DON'T care about Free will. Free will is not the central point of my theory. I only listed it there because it's a possibility through work on this theory to explain what is interpreted by "Free will" (our usage of the term). "Free will" exists in the sense that we make observations and the interpretations of the observations we tag them as "Free will". And are to interpreted as such for the time being.

    But the interpretation has changed after a while. Some when they think about "Free will" they think "the ability to make choices from an infinite of possibilities and un-restricted."
    Which is non-sense from many points of view; one of which: if you have infinite possibilities how wold you distinguish among them?

    So again, "Free will" has many definitions, and these definitions are not the central point of my theory. The central point being the "I". The "I" with or without "Free will" exists.
    Free will comes secondary. And if "Free will" exists or not the theory will invalidate some definitions while validating others (maybe) or that "Free will" doesn't exists in either form; conclusion the observation about it where miss-interpreted. So again, which concern of mine it is about the definitions that people gave it to "Free will" ?

    You certainly have a definition and you want to find out if is true. Can you at least give me your definition for free will? Because I sense that is not the same as mine that I stated above (for entertainment purposes only), because I sense some frustration no offense
    I thought you got that .
    Thanks!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree LuciDreaming's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    656
    Why don't you give a psychology course a go Hyperion1is - it sounds like its right up your alley. But if not, don't forget to consider the social aspects of human behaviour and its influence on individuals.....
    "And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh" Nietzsche.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,438
    No, I have no quibble whatsoever with your definition.
    Except, possibly, the word "predetermined".

    Which is non-sense from many points of view; one of which: if you have infinite possibilities how wold you distinguish among them?
    I won't argue against this, otherwise I'd drag your thread off-topic.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by LuciDreaming View Post
    Why don't you give a psychology course a go Hyperion1is - it sounds like its right up your alley. But if not, don't forget to consider the social aspects of human behaviour and its influence on individuals.....
    Regarding your first statement. You are quite right and I will stop. First off it's getting off topic, and second I'm not the one qualified to sustain a psychology course.
    Regarding your second statement. If I got it right you are pointing out that I'm starting from an Individual point of view and I will have to take into account the social aspect. And you are right. I'm aware of that.

    Related to that I made a statement (or hypothesis). "An individual (person) has an individualist side and a collective side (the social aspect) and one can't cancel the other".
    It may not be so specific but it's an abstract which will help me not to forget (what I have to do to come "full circle").
    But also this is a chicken-egg situation if you try to study both of them at once. If you want to define the individual related to society your theory won't account for all aspects. And vice-versa.

    I will start with the individual and, I will have to resort to some "tools", I will have to infer the social aspects of the individual until I can form a hypothesis about the society.
    Don't know if this makes sense, but the point is that you have to start somewhere.
    Thanks for your input.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree LuciDreaming's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    656
    I'm thinking we misunderstood each other here because I cant quite figure out your first sentence at all. I was suggesting you enrol for a psychology course to see if you like it since you seem to want to understand human psychology.

    Just a point though - you cant really form an hypothesis about society because it isn't just one thing. Anyway good luck.
    "And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh" Nietzsche.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by LuciDreaming View Post
    I'm thinking we misunderstood each other here because I cant quite figure out your first sentence at all. I was suggesting you enrol for a psychology course to see if you like it since you seem to want to understand human psychology.
    You are right, I misunderstood you. My fault. Regarding me taking a psychology course: If in this article it's a little bit of truth, I rather not. I would rather form a hypothesis on my own first and also understand the scientific method very well before taking the course. So I can appeal to scrutiny.
    Is Psychology a Science?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: November 15th, 2012, 01:07 AM
  2. HUMAN ELIMINATION FROM SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES !!!
    By Shniku in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 1st, 2011, 10:15 PM
  3. When folk theory meets scientific theory?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 27th, 2009, 07:26 AM
  4. capitalism and the human psyche
    By chicken_boy in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: March 15th, 2006, 03:36 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •