Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 157
Like Tree38Likes

Thread: Have not read Dawkins...

  1. #1 Have not read Dawkins... 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    ...Or Future of an Illusion cause I didn't want to waste so much time being miffed at religion in general. There was one query that remained, however. Since it came about in Freud's Interpretation of Dreams, not a book about religion, in the form of a footnote, yet, seemed to have such a profound relevance to theology I was wondering if the notion was repeated elsewhere. Has anyone come across some relation to belief in life after and birth?

    Note 1. It is only of late that I have learned to value the significance of fancies and unconscious thoughts about life in the womb. They contain the explanation of the curious fear felt by so many people of being buried alive, as well as the profoundest unconscious reason for the belief in a life after death which represents nothing but a projection into the future of this mysterious life before birth. The act of birth, moreover, is the first experience with fear, and is thus the source and model of the emotion of fear.



    dbirth? \Chapter V. Sex in Dreams. Sigmund Freud. 1921. Dream Psychology: Psychoanalysis for Beginners


    Last edited by Beer w/Straw; October 29th, 2013 at 07:02 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    I thought Freud just made up a load of stuff. Does anyone still pay any attention to it? Apart from, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" (thereby demolishing all his "theories") did he ever say anything of value?

    Every now and again I see a headline like "Latest neurological results show Freud was right". This is "right" in the same way that epigenetics shows that Lamarck was right; i.e. not right at all.


    KALSTER, adelady, MrMojo1 and 2 others like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Freud and B.F. Skinner influenced psychology more than anybody else.
    Last edited by Beer w/Straw; October 29th, 2013 at 07:42 AM.
    Ninja Pancakes likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Freud and B.F. Skinner influenced psychology more than else.
    The difference is B.F Skinner was a behavioural psychologist while Freud was a philosopher gone pseudoscientist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    I didn't ask a question to defend Freud.

    I asked a question pertaining to a footnote.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    ...Or Future of an Illusion cause I didn't want to waste so much time being miffed at religion in general. There was one query that remained, however. Since it came about in Freud's Interpretation of Dreams, not a book about religion, in the form of a footnote, yet, seemed to have such a profound relevance to theology I was wondering if the notion was repeated elsewhere. Has anyone come across some relation to belief in life after and birth?

    Note 1. It is only of late that I have learned to value the significance of fancies and unconscious thoughts about life in the womb. They contain the explanation of the curious fear felt by so many people of being buried alive, as well as the profoundest unconscious reason for the belief in a life after death which represents nothing but a projection into the future of this mysterious life before birth. The act of birth, moreover, is the first experience with fear, and is thus the source and model of the emotion of fear.



    dbirth? \Chapter V. Sex in Dreams. Sigmund Freud. 1921. Dream Psychology: Psychoanalysis for Beginners
    To be honest, I wondered about the same thing before and have tentatively voiced it here without reply. I didn't get it from Freud though.

    I was thinking that we are definitely aware for the last bit before birth and that the environment we experience there and being born might well have a lasting effect on our psychological development. Specifically in terms of being in complete comfort, free of struggle and filled with contentment. Then once we are born and have that shattered, it seems to me that it is not that much of a leap for that distant, vague memory to stay with us, maybe some more than others, and that it can have an influence in our lives later on.

    Many aspects of the idea of an ultimate alpha father figure that can sooth many or all of these vague drives, insecurities and struggles and then another vague idea of an afterlife where all of these struggles are removed seems to, at least superficially, fit the idea.

    I am not aware of any studies in this area though and everything is just me pondering in ignorance.
    babe, Beer w/Straw and dan hunter like this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    After natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, or building collapses, you will often hear of newborn babies who 'miraculously' survive, pulled from the rubble days later. Mexico in 1985 to Azra in Turkey, the results were the same. Tiny newborn babies who managed to survive where the majority did not, without food or water. However, nature intends for babies to be able to survive on their own, outside of the womb.

    Freud's comments, are frankly bizarre. His analysis comes from the interpretation of dreams. From the boy who spies on his mother having sex with his father from his position in the womb to the footnote where he comments that fear is first experienced at birth, Freud takes a bizarre turn. A lot of this stems from the dreams of his patients and studies. Now, babies and fear:

    Newborns are intimately familiar with cramped, quiet darkness. Unlike adults, they don’t exactly realize they’ve been buried alive. Of course, fear is a primal emotion, but experts say that newborns don’t have to struggle with the same feelings of helplessness and hopelessness when a roof caves in.
    Our fear of being buried alive or fear in general does not stem or originate from our passage into the birth canal, nor does the act of birth provide the source for the emotion of fear. If that were the case, then one would have conducted studies on children born via c-sections to see if there was any corroboration. After all, if the act of birth is the source of some of our fears, then surely being guided into the world by caring gentle hands without the horror of the squeeze of the birth canal, people born by c-sections would have a different feeling or understanding of fear itself. That fear would come from somewhere.

    For babies, dark cramped places provide a source of comfort. It is why we swaddle our newborns, so they sleep while feeling that comfort of where they were cramped for so many months.

    The only projection of life before birth would be one of instinct and survival.

    Freud's footnote speaks more of the need for human comfort and the fear of the unknown, in other words, the fear of there being nothing after death, so there are those who hope that there is something.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Given the lack of oxygenation of a foetus's brain, the idea that it has anything worthy of being called a thought is pushing things a bit. The notion that whatever mental processes there are could form the basis for memories is pushing it even further. It's probably possible, for further extremes of the range of possible, but pretty unlikely to be common or reliable.

    The most recent research suggests that it's a condition very like a coma - but not exactly and we're not really capable of doing anything much to investigate fully, presuming that we want to maintain some ethical standards in medical research. (A concept Freud certainly had no idea about. His "ethics" were pretty well non-existent.)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    There is some evidence (I don't know how strong) that some aspects of the language spoken by the parents (sounds and rhythms) might be learned before birth. That doesn't imply that memories could be formed, though.
    babe likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    There is some evidence (I don't know how strong) that some aspects of the language spoken by the parents (sounds and rhythms) might be learned before birth. That doesn't imply that memories could be formed, though.
    If some rudimentary process allows a fetus to recognize parents voice, doesn't that imply some form of memory, or at the very least some form of prebirth pattern recognition?
    Last edited by scoobydoo1; October 29th, 2013 at 09:25 AM. Reason: minor edits
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    If some rudimentary process allows a fetus to recognize parents voice, doesn't that imply some form of memory, or at the very least some form of pattern recognition prebirth?
    My understanding is that learning and memory are quite different processes. (If not it would be soooo much easier to learn a second language.)

    So, yes it is possible, as adelady says, that memories could be formed (although unlikely) the fact that some learning takes place does not necessarily support that.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Well, who knows. If it wasn't a "bizzare" footnote, I wouldn't have been so puzzled, and hence, wouldn't have asked in the first place. Since psychology is not a mathematical science in the same sense as others'... I mean, it would nice if the brain could be understood with just a set of partial differential equations. However, leisurely looking I did find this site.

    http://birthpsychology.com/free-article/prenatal-memory-and-learning

    C
    an anyone tell me if it is reputable?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Since psychology is not a mathematical science in the same sense as others'...
    Well, many people are making an effort to turn it into a rigorous science. I suppose it needs to get over the toxic legacy of people like Freud and Jung first. Unfortunately, the field seems to appeal to amateur philosophers like that.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Well, in hoping you haven't read it, this should be a treat. Whether or not people like Freud (or Jung) isn't really my concern, however.

    Freud's Lectures at Clark University:

    Sigmund Freud: 5 Lectures about Psychoanalysis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Well, who knows. If it wasn't a "bizzare" footnote, I wouldn't have been so puzzled, and hence, wouldn't have asked in the first place. Since psychology is not a mathematical science in the same sense as others'... I mean, it would nice if the brain could be understood with just a set of partial differential equations. However, leisurely looking I did find this site.

    http://birthpsychology.com/free-article/prenatal-memory-and-learning

    C
    an anyone tell me if it is reputable?
    Only if you are a Scientologist.

    It would not surprise me if David Chamberlain, the author of the study you quoted, is a Scientologist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Gross.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    I have no idea if babies can hear, in the womb. I still talked and sang to mine. It couldn't hurt them.

    Could they hear the vibrations of voice? I mean you can feel a heartbeat from inside out....could you not feel vibrations from outside in?

    Just a question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Maybe this thread should be moved to Biology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I have no idea if babies can hear, in the womb. I still talked and sang to mine. It couldn't hurt them.

    Could they hear the vibrations of voice? I mean you can feel a heartbeat from inside out....could you not feel vibrations from outside in?

    Just a question.
    The answer to that is a definitive yes. There is evidence that a fetus could possibly learn from being 'talked to' while in the womb, along with some long standing myths that playing classical music while pregnant increases brain function. Gentle vibration is about the only stimulus that a fetus can experience without being put into distress, so it does stand to reason that talking/playing music to your belly while pregnant can have some kind of affect on your fetus' development. Exactly what the affect is, is hard to say, since there are so many factors that play a part in the development of an infant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Maybe this thread should be moved to Biology.
    I would agree here. Either Bio or Psychology would be a much better place for this thread than religion.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I have no idea if babies can hear, in the womb. I still talked and sang to mine. It couldn't hurt them.

    Could they hear the vibrations of voice? I mean you can feel a heartbeat from inside out....could you not feel vibrations from outside in?

    Just a question.
    The answer to that is a definitive yes. There is evidence that a fetus could possibly learn from being 'talked to' while in the womb, along with some long standing myths that playing classical music while pregnant increases brain function. Gentle vibration is about the only stimulus that a fetus can experience without being put into distress, so it does stand to reason that talking/playing music to your belly while pregnant can have some kind of affect on your fetus' development. Exactly what the affect is, is hard to say, since there are so many factors that play a part in the development of an infant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Maybe this thread should be moved to Biology.
    I would agree here. Either Bio or Psychology would be a much better place for this thread than religion.
    I used the same song after birth.....it always soothed them...that and laughter. Another thing I did not do that most mothers I know did is be quiet when they were sleeping..I did dishes, vacuumed...whatever.....sang...played piano....I felt that in normal life there are always sounds and "hushing" wasn't necessary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Just like animals respond to soft soothing voices better than loud angry ones, I would hazzard to guess, it would be the same with the unborn child. This does not mean the animal nor the child understand the difference, it just means they have a innate preference for the softer.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    it just means they have a innate preference for the softer.
    Not too soft. It's pretty noisy in there with the mother's heart thumping day in day out, blood rushing and whooshing through the major internal arteries and her digestive tract gurgling and rumbling as it circles around the uterus.
    babe likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Given the lack of oxygenation of a foetus's brain, the idea that it has anything worthy of being called a thought is pushing things a bit. The notion that whatever mental processes there are could form the basis for memories is pushing it even further. It's probably possible, for further extremes of the range of possible, but pretty unlikely to be common or reliable.

    The most recent research suggests that it's a condition very like a coma - but not exactly and we're not really capable of doing anything much to investigate fully, presuming that we want to maintain some ethical standards in medical research. (A concept Freud certainly had no idea about. His "ethics" were pretty well non-existent.)
    I wouldn't have called them thoughts anyway though. As babies we haven't learned anything about the outside world yet, so wouldn't be able to contextualise something sufficiently to make much sense of experiences, but I we do have base emotions at that age of course and I wouldn't be surprised if we experienced base emotions while in the whom as well, like contentedness etc.
    babe likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    ...Or Future of an Illusion cause I didn't want to waste so much time being miffed at religion in general. There was one query that remained, however. Since it came about in Freud's Interpretation of Dreams, not a book about religion, in the form of a footnote, yet, seemed to have such a profound relevance to theology I was wondering if the notion was repeated elsewhere. Has anyone come across some relation to belief in life after and birth?

    Note 1. It is only of late that I have learned to value the significance of fancies and unconscious thoughts about life in the womb. They contain the explanation of the curious fear felt by so many people of being buried alive, as well as the profoundest unconscious reason for the belief in a life after death which represents nothing but a projection into the future of this mysterious life before birth. The act of birth, moreover, is the first experience with fear, and is thus the source and model of the emotion of fear.



    dbirth? \Chapter V. Sex in Dreams. Sigmund Freud. 1921. Dream Psychology: Psychoanalysis for Beginners
    I haven't had time to read the link as yet but from memory, you might recall when I was discussing instinct in animals, and later when I thought about instinct in humans, I wondered "do we have any?" The instincts in animals seemed to be genetically passed down (e.g. a bird lays an egg, it hatches in the pile of compost and never ever sees its parents but knows what to do when its turn comes to making a nest).
    So was I right thinking that this behaviour pattern is encoded in its genes?
    So what has happened to our human genetic instinct? It got me thinking Jung's idea of archetypes in dreams are the remnants of this. We dream using archetypal symbols of the Collective Unconscious for these are in our human genetic code. (Being genetically different no two people dream exactly the same but use similar symbols).
    So I am tending to believe babies will dream of suckling so when they are born they instinctively know what to do. (Obviously this will need researching)
    Now these ideas may have been developed before but to me they are my original thoughts on the subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post

    I haven't had time to read the link as yet but from memory, you might recall when I was discussing instinct in animals, and later when I thought about instinct in humans, I wondered "do we have any?" The instincts in animals seemed to be genetically passed down (e.g. a bird lays an egg, it hatches in the pile of compost and never ever sees its parents but knows what to do when its turn comes to making a nest).
    So was I right thinking that this behaviour pattern is encoded in its genes?
    So what has happened to our human genetic instinct? It got me thinking Jung's idea of archetypes in dreams are the remnants of this. We dream using archetypal symbols of the Collective Unconscious for these are in our human genetic code. (Being genetically different no two people dream exactly the same but use similar symbols).
    So I am tending to believe babies will dream of suckling so when they are born they instinctively know what to do. (Obviously this will need researching)
    Now these ideas may have been developed before but to me they are my original thoughts on the subject.
    The suckling and rooting reflex is a genetic instinct. Pretty much all mammals are born with it. It is hardwired into us when we are born. And no, it is not something we learn how to do because we dreamed about it while inutero. It's called evolution. Probably harks back to the days where if a female primate had a child, if it didn't learn to latch on quickly, it probably would not survive.

    The sucking reflex is common to all mammals and is present at birth. It is linked with the rooting reflex and breastfeeding. It causes the child to instinctively suck anything that touches the roof of their mouth, and simulates the way a child naturally eats. There are two stages of the action:

    1. Expression: activated when the nipple is placed between a child's lips and touches their palate. They will instinctively press it between their tongue and palate to draw out the milk.
    2. Milking: The tongue moves from areola to nipple, coaxing milk from the mother to be swallowed by the child.

    Primitive reflexes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The rooting reflex is present at birth and disappears around four months of age, as it gradually comes under voluntary control. The rooting reflex assists in the act of breastfeeding. A newborn infant will turn his head toward anything that strokes his cheek or mouth, searching for the object by moving his head in steadily decreasing arcs until the object is found. After becoming used to responding in this way, (if breastfed, approximately three weeks after birth), the infant will move directly to the object without searching.




    Mammalian infants have a "rooting" instinct (moving their heads so as to bring their mouths towards whatever is touching their faces) for seeking the nipple, and a "suckling" instinct for extracting milk. The offspring of domestic animals, including piglets, calves, lambs, and foals, engage in a behavior known as teat seeking, sipping, and suckling. This strong instinct occurs in most species within minutes of birth, and serves both to connect the young to the food source and to encourage bonding between mother and young. The offspring thoroughly enjoy their suckling time, and may suckle even after filling up.

    Nipple - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    All baby mammals have natural instincts which enable them to find their mother’s breast from birth with little or no help from anyone. These instinctive behaviours include the following:

    • sticking tongue out
    • turning head from side to side
    • wriggling
    • finding and grasping the nipple
    • latching-on to the breast
    • suckling.

    These instinctive behaviours are seen as early as the first 1–2 hours after birth and continue for at least 3 months after birth. So, even if a mother’s (and her baby’s) instincts are affected by drugs used in labour or by hospital policies and procedures, these instincts will be there once they are together. A mother can be sure that she doesn’t have to know it all and that her baby is born hardwired to breastfeed.

    https://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfi...achment-breast
    Babies are born with many instincts - which they share with many mammals.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post

    I haven't had time to read the link as yet but from memory, you might recall when I was discussing instinct in animals, and later when I thought about instinct in humans, I wondered "do we have any?" The instincts in animals seemed to be genetically passed down (e.g. a bird lays an egg, it hatches in the pile of compost and never ever sees its parents but knows what to do when its turn comes to making a nest).
    So was I right thinking that this behaviour pattern is encoded in its genes?
    So what has happened to our human genetic instinct? It got me thinking Jung's idea of archetypes in dreams are the remnants of this. We dream using archetypal symbols of the Collective Unconscious for these are in our human genetic code. (Being genetically different no two people dream exactly the same but use similar symbols).
    So I am tending to believe babies will dream of suckling so when they are born they instinctively know what to do. (Obviously this will need researching)
    Now these ideas may have been developed before but to me they are my original thoughts on the subject.
    The suckling and rooting reflex is a genetic instinct. Pretty much all mammals are born with it. It is hardwired into us when we are born. And no, it is not something we learn how to do because we dreamed about it while inutero. It's called evolution. Probably harks back to the days where if a female primate had a child, if it didn't learn to latch on quickly, it probably would not survive.

    The sucking reflex is common to all mammals and is present at birth. It is linked with the rooting reflex and breastfeeding. It causes the child to instinctively suck anything that touches the roof of their mouth, and simulates the way a child naturally eats. There are two stages of the action:
    1. Expression: activated when the nipple is placed between a child's lips and touches their palate. They will instinctively press it between their tongue and palate to draw out the milk.
    2. Milking: The tongue moves from areola to nipple, coaxing milk from the mother to be swallowed by the child.
    Primitive reflexes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The rooting reflex is present at birth and disappears around four months of age, as it gradually comes under voluntary control. The rooting reflex assists in the act of breastfeeding. A newborn infant will turn his head toward anything that strokes his cheek or mouth, searching for the object by moving his head in steadily decreasing arcs until the object is found. After becoming used to responding in this way, (if breastfed, approximately three weeks after birth), the infant will move directly to the object without searching.




    Mammalian infants have a "rooting" instinct (moving their heads so as to bring their mouths towards whatever is touching their faces) for seeking the nipple, and a "suckling" instinct for extracting milk. The offspring of domestic animals, including piglets, calves, lambs, and foals, engage in a behavior known as teat seeking, sipping, and suckling. This strong instinct occurs in most species within minutes of birth, and serves both to connect the young to the food source and to encourage bonding between mother and young. The offspring thoroughly enjoy their suckling time, and may suckle even after filling up.

    Nipple - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    All baby mammals have natural instincts which enable them to find their mother’s breast from birth with little or no help from anyone. These instinctive behaviours include the following:

    • sticking tongue out
    • turning head from side to side
    • wriggling
    • finding and grasping the nipple
    • latching-on to the breast
    • suckling.
    These instinctive behaviours are seen as early as the first 1–2 hours after birth and continue for at least 3 months after birth. So, even if a mother’s (and her baby’s) instincts are affected by drugs used in labour or by hospital policies and procedures, these instincts will be there once they are together. A mother can be sure that she doesn’t have to know it all and that her baby is born hardwired to breastfeed.

    https://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfi...achment-breast
    Babies are born with many instincts - which they share with many mammals.
    Yes all what you say is correct in that it is hardwired into the genes but what you haven't told us is how the genetic code produces the behavioural patterns, and that is what I am saying.
    The genes produces a memory in the brain and the brain then allows the baby to dream of doing these things even before it is born so once it is born it knows what to do and has already practiced them.

    I accept what I say is unproven but it was a pathway that I came up with for how an animal can do something instinctively. This was after thinking about animal instincts for a period.
    Have you tried to connect the genetic code to an action in a newborn? How does the code and variations of it get expressed differently to achieve evolution?

    Humour: In the future babies could be born hardwired to change their own nappies. Now that would be a good thing. A real advantage.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post

    Yes all what you say is correct in that it is hardwired into the genes but what you haven't told us is how the genetic code produces the behavioural patterns, and that is what I am saying.
    Survival instincts. It is part of the evolution of animals. Just as when you let a newborn baby fall back a bit, they instinctively reach out with their hands trying to grab onto you. Just as when you merely brush against the palm of a newborn baby, they instantly grab on. These are all survival instincts. Did you even bother to read any of the links?

    The genes produces a memory in the brain and the brain then allows the baby to dream of doing these things even before it is born so once it is born it knows what to do and has already practiced them.
    It's not a memory in the brain that is accessed by their dreaming about it while in the uterus or womb. It's exactly the same instinct that makes a jelly bean size baby kangaroo crawl it's way up its mothers stomach and wriggle into the pouch and attach itself to a teat. If it doesn't do it, it dies. They don't dream about it during their development in utero.

    I accept what I say is unproven but it was a pathway that I came up with for how an animal can do something instinctively. This was after thinking about animal instincts for a period.
    Right. Ignore science and evolutionary science and instead refer to dreams.

    Have you tried to connect the genetic code to an action in a newborn? How does the code and variations of it get expressed differently to achieve evolution?
    This doesn't even make sense?

    It is genetically hardwired into the brain. Now, think back to when our ancestors were still living in trees and you might understand why human babies are born with the instincts they are born with. If you have issues understanding that, look at videos of chimpanzees.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post

    Yes all what you say is correct in that it is hardwired into the genes but what you haven't told us is how the genetic code produces the behavioural patterns, and that is what I am saying.
    Survival instincts. It is part of the evolution of animals. Just as when you let a newborn baby fall back a bit, they instinctively reach out with their hands trying to grab onto you. Just as when you merely brush against the palm of a newborn baby, they instantly grab on. These are all survival instincts. Did you even bother to read any of the links?

    The genes produces a memory in the brain and the brain then allows the baby to dream of doing these things even before it is born so once it is born it knows what to do and has already practiced them.
    It's not a memory in the brain that is accessed by their dreaming about it while in the uterus or womb. It's exactly the same instinct that makes a jelly bean size baby kangaroo crawl it's way up its mothers stomach and wriggle into the pouch and attach itself to a teat. If it doesn't do it, it dies. They don't dream about it during their development in utero.

    I accept what I say is unproven but it was a pathway that I came up with for how an animal can do something instinctively. This was after thinking about animal instincts for a period.
    Right. Ignore science and evolutionary science and instead refer to dreams.

    Have you tried to connect the genetic code to an action in a newborn? How does the code and variations of it get expressed differently to achieve evolution?
    This doesn't even make sense?

    It is genetically hardwired into the brain. Now, think back to when our ancestors were still living in trees and you might understand why human babies are born with the instincts they are born with. If you have issues understanding that, look at videos of chimpanzees.
    It is easy to say hardwired into the brain but how is that done. You have no explanation for the connection between the genetic code and the action.

    Please explain in a stepwise fashion how the genetic code is converted to a physical action?
    (sorry I wasn't able to look at the links just yet, but it seemed like I'd agree with them in any case.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post

    It is easy to say hardwired into the brain but how is that done. You have no explanation for the connection between the genetic code and the action.

    Please explain in a stepwise fashion how the genetic code is converted to a physical action?
    (sorry I wasn't able to look at the links just yet, but it seemed like I'd agree with them in any case.)
    Have you read any books on human evolution? Or evolution in general?

    There is no step by step explanation of how a genetic code or a hardwired primative instinct that harks back to when our ancestors were hairy apes living in trees whose newborns had to either latch on or fall off and die and so adapted and evolved to latch on and hold on and not die (ie the Moro reflex), converts into action, unless you understand even the basics of human evolution. Our hairy ape ancestors evolved that way and those primal instincts can still be seen to this day, usually in our newborns for a short period of time. It isn't because babies dream about suckling and holding on. They suckle and hold on (ie Moro reflex) because that is how we evolved, that is how our hairy ape ancestors living in trees evolved - if their newborns didn't hold on and suckle, they would fall off or starve and die.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post

    Yes all what you say is correct in that it is hardwired into the genes but what you haven't told us is how the genetic code produces the behavioural patterns, and that is what I am saying.
    The genes produces a memory in the brain and the brain then allows the baby to dream of doing these things even before it is born so once it is born it knows what to do and has already practiced them.

    I accept what I say is unproven but it was a pathway that I came up with for how an animal can do something instinctively.
    You can stop with that argument. It is patently absurd. If babies dream their instincts, how do other animals get theirs? I presume not by dreaming, so why would babies be any different?

    Maybe you should start thinking more of humans and other animals as complicated organic robots and I think you'll less easily make mistakes like this.

    Maybe first think about how you'd build an autonomous robot. You'd build the body and its brain and then fill the brain with programming. When you turn it on, the robot goes about whatever business you programmed into it that it should busy itself with, maybe with an inbuilt learning capacity to help it adapt to varying environments and circumstances.

    That is basically what evolution have done to us. We are intelligent, social animals living in complicated environments. Our brains and base programming evolved to give us our basic survival toolkit and then we learn through our lives in order to survive and procreate in our environments.

    Do you see anything wrong with this picture?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    (imagines cockroach nymphs dreaming about ducking out of bright light....male beta fish dreaming about puffing out with fins extended when another male comes around, ant pupa dreaming about following a chemical path across a rain forest.... )
    KALSTER likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    [QUOTE=KALSTER;480634]
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post

    Yes all what you say is correct in that it is hardwired into the genes but what you haven't told us is how the genetic code produces the behavioural patterns, and that is what I am saying.
    The genes produces a memory in the brain and the brain then allows the baby to dream of doing these things even before it is born so once it is born it knows what to do and has already practiced them.

    I accept what I say is unproven but it was a pathway that I came up with for how an animal can do something instinctively.
    You can stop with that argument. It is patently absurd. If babies dream their instincts, how do other animals get theirs? I presume not by dreaming, so why would babies be any different?
    Well all I'll say is that cats and dogs clearly dream, other animals may also, but I wasn't really saying all animals dream their instincts but it would be similar. Foetuses have seen to suck their thumbs in utero, so it is time to stop.
    Maybe you should start thinking more of humans and other animals as complicated organic robots and I think you'll less easily make mistakes like this.
    Interesting idea.

    Maybe first think about how you'd build an autonomous robot. You'd build the body and its brain and then fill the brain with programming. When you turn it on, the robot goes about whatever business you programmed into it that it should busy itself with, maybe with an inbuilt learning capacity to help it adapt to varying environments and circumstances.
    Step missing here with the biological situation - the genes, whereas I'm saying the programming is the memory, but the transfer of the memory from generation to generation is through the genes.

    That is basically what evolution have done to us. We are intelligent, social animals living in complicated environments. Our brains and base programming evolved to give us our basic survival toolkit and then we learn through our lives in order to survive and procreate in our environments.
    Because of our complexity we are not highly instinctive. True.
    Do you see anything wrong with this picture?
    Yes - just how does the body "fill the brain with programming" starting from genetic material.

    I'll let it sit there and just see if science research confirms or denies what I'm been thinking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    What?

    The body doesn't "fill the brain with programming"!

    Your thinking is fancifull and full of magical pixiedust of dreams and whatnot. Science and evolutionary science shows exactly how and why we evolved to have the primal reflexes we have as babies and why just about all animals have the reflexes we all have.

    I'll give you a hint. It's not dreams. It has everything to do with survival.

    Your persistence with the 'dream' argument is tantamount to trolling.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    (imagines cockroach nymphs dreaming about ducking out of bright light....male beta fish dreaming about puffing out with fins extended when another male comes around, ant pupa dreaming about following a chemical path across a rain forest.... )
    Or worse. Fly eggs dreaming about becoming maggots and eating their way out of the dead flesh their mother happened to lay her eggs in...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    (imagines cockroach nymphs dreaming about ducking out of bright light....male beta fish dreaming about puffing out with fins extended when another male comes around, ant pupa dreaming about following a chemical path across a rain forest.... )
    Or worse. Fly eggs dreaming about becoming maggots and eating their way out of the dead flesh their mother happened to lay her eggs in...
    Why spoil their fun!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    What?

    The body doesn't "fill the brain with programming"!

    Your thinking is fancifull and full of magical pixiedust of dreams and whatnot. Science and evolutionary science shows exactly how and why we evolved to have the primal reflexes we have as babies and why just about all animals have the reflexes we all have.

    I'll give you a hint. It's not dreams. It has everything to do with survival.

    Your persistence with the 'dream' argument is tantamount to trolling.
    Are you thinking of all the autonomic feedback mechanisms that are also genetically programed, there are those, but you are the one determined to make me look silly so you attack me not the argument.
    Maybe attacking me has become an automatic reflex for you?
    I said I was going to stop and you carried it on - don't you think that might also be trolling?

    If you look at that post from Kalster he/she starts of saying "stop talking about it" but continues to asks questions about it, that's ambiguous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    "Yes - just how does the body "fill the brain with programming" starting from genetic material." Is always going to be a very good question. I am sure scientists around the world are trying to figure that out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Do you see anything wrong with this picture?
    Yes - just how does the body "fill the brain with programming" starting from genetic material.

    I'll let it sit there and just see if science research confirms or denies what I'm been thinking.
    The genetics provide the blue prints for the construction and upkeep of the brain and body, which includes the base instincts. The brain is just a complicated bit of organic machinary subject to the laws of physics, in other words, with the brain in a particular state and you enter some information into it, it gets processed to produce a result, just like a computer does. When it comes to instinct, the base circuitry is already in place. How memory is made and used in future operations falls back on the limitations of this basic framework. In short, instincts are hardwired into the brain, not put there through dreams, just like Monarch butterflies doesn't have to dream for it to be able to migrate vast distances to the same place each year or how spiders don't have to dream how to build their webs. It is already hardwired into their brains from birth.

    I don't think you appreciate just how many instincts we humans are still born with, many of which we don't even think about. We just do them automatically.

    I suggest you read a good book on evolutionary psychology. I think you'll find it fascinating.

    If you look at that post from Kalster he/she starts of saying "stop talking about it" but continues to asks questions about it, that's ambiguous.
    I suggested you stop now with the "instincts from dreams" nonsense, because it is obvious nonsense and you are just wasting your time with it. Sorry to say.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    but you are the one determined to make me look silly
    You don't need any help there mate, we just have to read your posts...
    And where are your posts? Other than the ones picking on me! Tranquille seems determined to make me ill.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    What?

    The body doesn't "fill the brain with programming"!

    Your thinking is fancifull and full of magical pixiedust of dreams and whatnot. Science and evolutionary science shows exactly how and why we evolved to have the primal reflexes we have as babies and why just about all animals have the reflexes we all have.

    I'll give you a hint. It's not dreams. It has everything to do with survival.

    Your persistence with the 'dream' argument is tantamount to trolling.
    Are you thinking of all the autonomic feedback mechanisms that are also genetically programed, there are those, but you are the one determined to make me look silly so you attack me not the argument.
    Maybe attacking me has become an automatic reflex for you?
    I said I was going to stop and you carried it on - don't you think that might also be trolling?

    If you look at that post from Kalster he/she starts of saying "stop talking about it" but continues to asks questions about it, that's ambiguous.
    Instead of addressing the fact that you are wrong, you resort to dishonest and disingenuous posting. You didn't stop discussing it. You kept making the same error and still kept discussing about how you are sure animals dream and how their instincts would similarly come from dreams.

    My saying your dream argument is bollocks is my attacking your argument. Just as my saying you are wrong about the body filling the brain with programming is my attacking your argument. My comparing you to a troll is based on observable fact.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    "Yes - just how does the body "fill the brain with programming" starting from genetic material." Is always going to be a very good question. I am sure scientists around the world are trying to figure that out.
    Well, scientists do have libraries full of evidence about evolution.

    All that evidence leads to the conclusion that all animals are driven by instinct to greater or lesser degree. Where does evolution come in? In its most brutal form. The individuals within a species that succeeds by performing certain behaviours that fail to perform those behaviours will either die themselves or fail to successfully reproduce - thereby reducing or removing the tendency of the general population to not perform the successful behaviours and increasing the concentration of those who do.

    As for human behaviours. We have all sorts of instinctive behaviours from newborns initiating suckling through to the disgust reaction and the withdrawal reflex when touching hot or burning things. We do not think, let alone decide, to take our hand off a hot stove, it all happens automatically. We share some or all of these instincts with animals that are very like us and with some very unlike us.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Do you see anything wrong with this picture?
    Yes - just how does the body "fill the brain with programming" starting from genetic material.

    I'll let it sit there and just see if science research confirms or denies what I'm been thinking.
    The genetics provide the blue prints for the construction and upkeep of the brain and body. The brain is just a complicated bit of organic machinary subject to the laws of physics, in other words, with the brain in a particular state and you enter some information into it, it gets processed to produce a result, just like a computer does. When it comes to instinct, the base circuitry is already in place. How memory is made and used in future operations falls back on the limitations of this basic framework. In short, instincts are hardwired into the brain, not put there through dreams, just like Monarch butterflies doesn't have to dream for it to be able to migrate vast distances to the same place each year or how spiders don't have to dream how to build their webs. It is already hardwired into their brains from birth.

    I don't think you appreciate just how many instincts we humans are still born with, many of which we don't even think about. We just do them automatically.

    I suggest you read a good book on evolutionary psychology. I think you'll find it fascinating.
    I agree with you. The genetics put the program into the brain , but that then enables an animal, especially a human baby, to dream about the event (mechanism) that is hardwired into the brain. It is not the dream that puts the memory into the brain. (Did i say that before? If I did I was wrong.)
    not put there through dreams
    I agree, but because it is there the baby can use that in a dream while in utero.

    Now is there any evidence babies dream in utero? If so what are they dreaming about?

    I think this is still within the scope of the topic in the OP isn't it?

    Now about these animals do you think a spider hasn't got a picture in its mind of what it is trying to build? They are clever little fellas I am sure spiders make basic decisions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    What?

    The body doesn't "fill the brain with programming"!

    Your thinking is fancifull and full of magical pixiedust of dreams and whatnot. Science and evolutionary science shows exactly how and why we evolved to have the primal reflexes we have as babies and why just about all animals have the reflexes we all have.

    I'll give you a hint. It's not dreams. It has everything to do with survival.

    Your persistence with the 'dream' argument is tantamount to trolling.
    Are you thinking of all the autonomic feedback mechanisms that are also genetically programed, there are those, but you are the one determined to make me look silly so you attack me not the argument.
    Maybe attacking me has become an automatic reflex for you?
    I said I was going to stop and you carried it on - don't you think that might also be trolling?

    If you look at that post from Kalster he/she starts of saying "stop talking about it" but continues to asks questions about it, that's ambiguous.
    Instead of addressing the fact that you are wrong, you resort to dishonest and disingenuous posting. You didn't stop discussing it. You kept making the same error and still kept discussing about how you are sure animals dream and how their instincts would similarly come from dreams.

    My saying your dream argument is bollocks is my attacking your argument. Just as my saying you are wrong about the body filling the brain with programming is my attacking your argument. My comparing you to a troll is based on observable fact.
    Could you get any more ridiculous?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    And again, more unsupported claims surrounded by nonsense, either you are a troll or a dimwit. I've had enough, you've reached clueless critical mass and you're going on ignore.
    well that is the second time today. Contribute nothing but criticism of me not my argument. There are some amazing arguments being proposed here and it'll take a bit of quite time to go through them. Do spiders think? What is the difference between a reflex and an instinct? What is the mechanism of genetically coding an instinct?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Is that a serious question or just you being dumb again? You seem to have a persecution complex -- if you think people are picking on you learn to filter out at least some of the dafter stuff you invent before posting.
    Well instead of picking on me find out if anyone has researched whether spiders think?
    Well tell me do spiders think? Do they make conscious decisions? Do they think about how they will build their web?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    What is the mechanism of genetically coding an instinct?
    Did you read what I wrote?

    The genetic code of an animal species is affected by which animals did successfully reproduce. They have instinctive behaviours. The instincts that promote survival and reproduction are those that continue to be expressed, any that damage survival or reproduction, or both, will not survive. Individuals within the population that don't succeed don't contribute to the genetic makeup of following generations.

    I won't go into more complex stuff about survival of genes generally, but we'll stick to the core concept for the time being.

    The "mechanism" for coding such instincts is simply death of the failures. Despite our tendencies to see patterns everywhere and to put ourselves and our own kinds of behaviours and thoughts at the centre of things, nature is not a designer and has no preferences or intentions nor is there anything kind or elegant or efficient or economical about the processes. Live. Or die.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1
    Could you get any more ridiculous?
    Your claims so far in this thread and why you are in no position to accuse anyone of pointing out the truth and fact of being ridiculous:

    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    The genes produces a memory in the brain and the brain then allows the baby to dream of doing these things even before it is born so once it is born it knows what to do and has already practiced them.
    Genes do not produce "memories". Genes do not produce dreams.

    Nor do our genes or primal instincts and reflexes come from dreams produced by our genetic make up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Yes - just how does the body "fill the brain with programming" starting from genetic material.

    I'll let it sit there and just see if science research confirms or denies what I'm been thinking.
    Our bodies do not "fill our brains with programming". Even my 6 year old knows this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    "Yes - just how does the body "fill the brain with programming" starting from genetic material." Is always going to be a very good question. I am sure scientists around the world are trying to figure that out.
    This is never a good question to ask.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    What is the mechanism of genetically coding an instinct?
    Did you read what I wrote?

    The genetic code of an animal species is affected by which animals did successfully reproduce. They have instinctive behaviours. The instincts that promote survival and reproduction are those that continue to be expressed, any that damage survival or reproduction, or both, will not survive. Individuals within the population that don't succeed don't contribute to the genetic makeup of following generations.

    I won't go into more complex stuff about survival of genes generally, but we'll stick to the core concept for the time being.

    The "mechanism" for coding such instincts is simply death of the failures. Despite our tendencies to see patterns everywhere and to put ourselves and our own kinds of behaviours and thoughts at the centre of things, nature is not a designer and has no preferences or intentions nor is there anything kind or elegant or efficient or economical about the processes. Live. Or die.
    I read it - yes it is true, so couldn't improve on it, I agreed mostly.
    The "mechanism" for coding such instincts is simply death of the failures.
    That is a bit rough scientifically. There is a real mystery there and that doesn't explain how a mutation or a variation to the genetic code results in an improved instinct.
    In fact the suppression of the instincts has been the hallmark of civilization and domestication of animals. So in some ways it has been the survival of the failures that has allowed this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138


    Genes do not produce "memories". Genes do not produce dreams.
    Have you not heard the term "Genetic memory".

    Nor do our genes or primal instincts and reflexes come from dreams produced by our genetic make up.
    I agree, I've already said this.


    Our bodies do not "fill our brains with programming". Even my 6 year old knows this.
    Well how are our brains programmed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    There is a real mystery there and that doesn't explain how a mutation or a variation to the genetic code results in an improved instinct.
    It's not a mystery at all...it's pretty basic evolutionary theory. The gene mutations, say a slight change to an instinct, that give the organism a reproductive advantage survive spread through the population. Another mutation after that goes through a similar reproductive survive test. Conceptually it's very easy to understand. Simulations modeling that concept have existed for decades (Google some). Industry uses it to improve some products because it's often more efficient than deliberate design work.

    In fact the suppression of the instincts has been the hallmark of civilization and domestication of animals. So in some ways it has been the survival of the failures that has allowed this.
    Somewhat true, though that's not usually considered evolution per say unless you consider humans the environment. Domestication of animals, plants and ourselves also involves enhanced instincts.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    In fact the suppression of the instincts has been the hallmark of civilization and domestication of animals. So in some ways it has been the survival of the failures that has allowed this.
    Whaaaat? You don't really think that the co-evolution of humans and dogs is about failure. Surely. It's about using beneficial behaviours for mutual benefit. And you have to remember that the sort of behaviour you're talking about consists of variations of basic instincts. This is not about infants that fail to attach starving to death or falling out of trees or children burning to death from failure to get out of a fire quickly enough. This is about balances between some impulses or instincts rather than others - which may or may not have direct effects on survival or reproduction.

    Example. We all have the capacity for cooperative and for competitive behaviours within and between groups. How any given group works this out into patterns of family or social or political practices cannot be determined from the fact that many of these behaviours have their origins in instincts towards competition and cooperation. Margaret Mead did some reasonable work in this area. Groups separated only by a few miles had entirely different approaches to child-raising and to village life and to dealing with others outside their groups.
    KALSTER likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    In fact the suppression of the instincts has been the hallmark of civilization and domestication of animals. So in some ways it has been the survival of the failures that has allowed this.
    Whaaaat? You don't really think that the co-evolution of humans and dogs is about failure. Surely. It's about using beneficial behaviours for mutual benefit. And you have to remember that the sort of behaviour you're talking about consists of variations of basic instincts. This is not about infants that fail to attach starving to death or falling out of trees or children burning to death from failure to get out of a fire quickly enough. This is about balances between some impulses or instincts rather than others - which may or may not have direct effects on survival or reproduction.

    Example. We all have the capacity for cooperative and for competitive behaviours within and between groups. How any given group works this out into patterns of family or social or political practices cannot be determined from the fact that many of these behaviours have their origins in instincts towards competition and cooperation. Margaret Mead did some reasonable work in this area. Groups separated only by a few miles had entirely different approaches to child-raising and to village life and to dealing with others outside their groups.
    We are on the same track really - but the survival in wolves would have normally involved aggressive behaviours but with the domestication of wolves the aggressive instincts have been bred out of most breeds of dogs.
    If they bite someone they are put down. So we are saving the ones nature would have eliminated in the wild. So that is why I said there was survival of the failures.
    Sheep have become so wooly they have become dependant on humans for their survival. Survival of a failure as well. Domesticated species have become so dependant on the survival of the human species, and humans partly dependant on them.
    So which traits lead to survival depends on the state of the planet. While humans dominate, domesticated species will do OK, but if we fail so will they.

    I see you have a good background in biology, so can I ask what you do?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post

    Have you not heard the term "Genetic memory".
    Which you are applying incorrectly.

    Yours borders on the paranormal. As though a fetus would be dreaming about surviving outside of the womb, something it would be incapable of doing as it has yet to experience life outside of the womb.

    Which is why those reflexes are referred to as primitive reflexes, that stem from the most primitive parts of the brain. It is why if you put a newborn baby on it's mother's stomach or on her chest right after it has been born, it will wriggle it's way straight to the breast and start sucking and it will try to grasp at its mother with its hands, as though trying to hold on. This isn't because it dreamed about doing it in the womb, but it is because it is a primal and primitive reflex, one that quite literally harks back through our evolutionary tree, as I have pointed out a few times now, where failure to do so would result in death.

    Well how are our brains programmed?
    How do you mean?

    It is not your body that programs your brain but your brain that "programs" your body.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    If they bite someone they are put down. So we are saving the ones nature would have eliminated in the wild. So that is why I said there was survival of the failures.
    And back in the days when there were only wolves, the wolves that were cooperative or were useful as guard dogs or hunting companions survived and thrived by getting access to the foods the humans gathered. And the humans threw stones or beat with sticks or killed the wolves that were born in the packs that lived with them so those animals were either taken out of the local gene pool or had to find other ways to survive.

    How you could possibly describe the modern variety and flourishing populations of the dog descendants of those initial wolf individuals and packs that cooperated with humans for their own benefit as any kind of failure flabbers my gast.
    KALSTER and Robittybob1 like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    While humans dominate, domesticated species will do OK, but if we fail so will they.
    Rubbish.

    They do not fail. They revert back to their wild and untamed state and usually flourish.
    Robittybob1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    There is a real mystery there and that doesn't explain how a mutation or a variation to the genetic code results in an improved instinct.
    It's not a mystery at all...it's pretty basic evolutionary theory. The gene mutations, say a slight change to an instinct, that give the organism a reproductive advantage survive spread through the population. Another mutation after that goes through a similar reproductive survive test. Conceptually it's very easy to understand. Simulations modeling that concept have existed for decades (Google some). Industry uses it to improve some products because it's often more efficient than deliberate design work.

    In fact the suppression of the instincts has been the hallmark of civilization and domestication of animals. So in some ways it has been the survival of the failures that has allowed this.
    Somewhat true, though that's not usually considered evolution per say unless you consider humans the environment. Domestication of animals, plants and ourselves also involves enhanced instincts.
    OK I understand that, but I was looking for the actual mechanism, like is it dependent on different levels of proteins. A gene can code for a protein but can a gene code for anything else? I had been looking at some YT on quantum biology and there was some very interesting ideas being put out there. Maybe they have influenced my thinking too much.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    While humans dominate, domesticated species will do OK, but if we fail so will they.
    Rubbish.

    They do not fail. They revert back to their wild and untamed state and usually flourish.
    They will revert but that transition isn't going to be easy.
    Sheep are close contemporaries and cohorts of goats in the history of domestication, but the domestic sheep is quite vulnerable to predation and injury, and thus rarely if ever is seen in a feral state. However, in places where there are few predators, they get on well, for example in the case of the Soay sheep.
    They will no longer look like the domestic breeds.
    Were on the same track for once!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    If they bite someone they are put down. So we are saving the ones nature would have eliminated in the wild. So that is why I said there was survival of the failures.
    And back in the days when there were only wolves, the wolves that were cooperative or were useful as guard dogs or hunting companions survived and thrived by getting access to the foods the humans gathered. And the humans threw stones or beat with sticks or killed the wolves that were born in the packs that lived with them so those animals were either taken out of the local gene pool or had to find other ways to survive.

    How you could possibly describe the modern variety and flourishing populations of the dog descendants of those initial wolf individuals and packs that cooperated with humans for their own benefit as any kind of failure flabbers my gast.
    You can't tell me these sort of dogs are successful! Shar Pei - History of breed (Part 1of3) - YouTube
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    The cruelties and idiocies of judging, selecting and breeding specific breeds of domestic dogs and cats for novelty or other stupid reasons is a topic for another thread. For this thread that is definitely a distraction.
    Robittybob1 likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Do you see anything wrong with this picture?
    Yes - just how does the body "fill the brain with programming" starting from genetic material.

    I'll let it sit there and just see if science research confirms or denies what I'm been thinking.
    The genetics provide the blue prints for the construction and upkeep of the brain and body. The brain is just a complicated bit of organic machinary subject to the laws of physics, in other words, with the brain in a particular state and you enter some information into it, it gets processed to produce a result, just like a computer does. When it comes to instinct, the base circuitry is already in place. How memory is made and used in future operations falls back on the limitations of this basic framework. In short, instincts are hardwired into the brain, not put there through dreams, just like Monarch butterflies doesn't have to dream for it to be able to migrate vast distances to the same place each year or how spiders don't have to dream how to build their webs. It is already hardwired into their brains from birth.

    I don't think you appreciate just how many instincts we humans are still born with, many of which we don't even think about. We just do them automatically.

    I suggest you read a good book on evolutionary psychology. I think you'll find it fascinating.
    I agree with you. The genetics put the program into the brain , but that then enables an animal, especially a human baby, to dream about the event (mechanism) that is hardwired into the brain. It is not the dream that puts the memory into the brain. (Did i say that before? If I did I was wrong.)
    not put there through dreams
    I agree, but because it is there the baby can use that in a dream while in utero.

    Now is there any evidence babies dream in utero? If so what are they dreaming about?

    I think this is still within the scope of the topic in the OP isn't it?

    Now about these animals do you think a spider hasn't got a picture in its mind of what it is trying to build? They are clever little fellas I am sure spiders make basic decisions.
    Babies have been imaged sucking their thumbs in utero.
    Robittybob1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    ...Or Future of an Illusion cause I didn't want to waste so much time being miffed at religion in general. There was one query that remained, however. Since it came about in Freud's Interpretation of Dreams, not a book about religion, in the form of a footnote, yet, seemed to have such a profound relevance to theology I was wondering if the notion was repeated elsewhere. Has anyone come across some relation to belief in life after and birth?

    Note 1. It is only of late that I have learned to value the significance of fancies and unconscious thoughts about life in the womb. They contain the explanation of the curious fear felt by so many people of being buried alive, as well as the profoundest unconscious reason for the belief in a life after death which represents nothing but a projection into the future of this mysterious life before birth. The act of birth, moreover, is the first experience with fear, and is thus the source and model of the emotion of fear.



    dbirth? \Chapter V. Sex in Dreams. Sigmund Freud. 1921. Dream Psychology: Psychoanalysis for Beginners
    Do you agree with the way Freud analyses dreams?
    It is interesting that he thinks babies are pre-warned about the birth process and given hope of life on the other side. How did he get to know a baby's unconscious thoughts?

    Now they have pictures of the unborn sucking their thumbs so I can be fairly certain that unconscious thoughts or even conscious thoughts of breast feeding were occurring. But beyond that what evidence was there for their unconscious thoughts? They are conscious after they are born so surely they are conscious before birth too. It is only during the birth process that oxygen gets a little short, so don't move and don't use it up (that seems instinctive).

    I looked into the debate about animal consciousness and it seemed to be a free for all. Pick and choose which animal or even plants you want to call conscious.
    Animal consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Babies have been imaged sucking their thumbs in utero.
    http://www.orwelltoday.com/babyub.jpg

    A
    lso the question as to whether the unborn dream.
    "
    Babies Dream Inside the Womb

    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Babies-Dream-Inside-the-Womb-109392.shtml

    S
    o without a doubt they do. But what could they dream about?
    Last edited by Robittybob1; November 2nd, 2013 at 06:23 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Babies have been imaged sucking their thumbs in utero.
    http://www.orwelltoday.com/babyub.jpg

    A
    lso the question as to whether the unborn dream.
    "
    Babies Dream Inside the Womb



    Babies Dream Inside the Wombo without a doubt they do. But what could they dream about?
    They don't dream about breastfeeding. They would dream as we dream to be honest. About what we experience and see and hear, taste, do. So if they dream, it would probably be about what they are experiencing in the womb - the sounds, feelings of being inside their mother.

    Do you agree with the way Freud analyses dreams?
    It is interesting that he thinks babies are pre-warned about the birth process and given hope of life on the other side. How did he get to know a baby's unconscious thoughts?

    Now they have pictures of the unborn sucking their thumbs so I can be fairly certain that unconscious thoughts or even conscious thoughts of breast feeding were occurring. But beyond that what evidence was there for their unconscious thoughts? They are conscious after they are born so surely they are conscious before birth too. It is only during the birth process that oxygen gets a little short, so don't move and don't use it up (that seems instinctive).
    Oh for goodness sake!

    Freud also argues that boys start desiring sex with their mother from a very young age and they would have seen their father's penis when he had sex with her while the baby boy was in her womb. Aside from the fact that Freud clearly had no idea of the human female anatomy, are you going to claim he was right about that too?

    They don't have unconscious or conscious thoughts of breastfeeding. They don't need food while in the womb, so why would they think about feeding? For your information, you could put a basketball next to their cheek and they would turn and try to suckle that too. It's not just the female breast. It's a reflex. They turn towards anything that touches their cheek and will try to suckle when they are hungry. Which is what makes it a primitive reflex and which stems from the most primitive part of the brain. You have been provided links explaining this in detail, which from this latest troll by you, it is clear you have again failed and refused to educate yourself.

    Breastfeeding and the sucking motion is not a conscious thought for newbown babies. It is a primitive reflex.

    You've been asked by a moderator and just about everyone else to stop with this claim. And you can't seem to help yourself. Which frankly, just makes you a troll.

    Just admit you don't understand primitive reflexes and move on. Continuing to claim that babies dream about breastfeeding from the womb and that these dreams stem from their thinking or thoughts about breastfeeding while in the womb... We can deal with ignorant. But this continued stupidity and persistence with stupidity is what makes you a troll.
    KALSTER and PhDemon like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Babies have been imaged sucking their thumbs in utero.
    http://www.orwelltoday.com/babyub.jpg

    A
    lso the question as to whether the unborn dream.
    "
    Babies Dream Inside the Womb



    Babies Dream Inside the Wombo without a doubt they do. But what could they dream about?
    They don't dream about breastfeeding. They would dream as we dream to be honest. About what we experience and see and hear, taste, do. So if they dream, it would probably be about what they are experiencing in the womb - the sounds, feelings of being inside their mother.

    Do you agree with the way Freud analyses dreams?
    It is interesting that he thinks babies are pre-warned about the birth process and given hope of life on the other side. How did he get to know a baby's unconscious thoughts?

    Now they have pictures of the unborn sucking their thumbs so I can be fairly certain that unconscious thoughts or even conscious thoughts of breast feeding were occurring. But beyond that what evidence was there for their unconscious thoughts? They are conscious after they are born so surely they are conscious before birth too. It is only during the birth process that oxygen gets a little short, so don't move and don't use it up (that seems instinctive).
    Oh for goodness sake!

    Freud also argues that boys start desiring sex with their mother from a very young age and they would have seen their father's penis when he had sex with her while the baby boy was in her womb. Aside from the fact that Freud clearly had no idea of the human female anatomy, are you going to claim he was right about that too?

    They don't have unconscious or conscious thoughts of breastfeeding. They don't need food while in the womb, so why would they think about feeding? For your information, you could put a basketball next to their cheek and they would turn and try to suckle that too. It's not just the female breast. It's a reflex. They turn towards anything that touches their cheek and will try to suckle when they are hungry. Which is what makes it a primitive reflex and which stems from the most primitive part of the brain. You have been provided links explaining this in detail, which from this latest troll by you, it is clear you have again failed and refused to educate yourself.

    Breastfeeding and the sucking motion is not a conscious thought for babies. It is a primitive reflex.

    You've been asked by a moderator and just about everyone else to stop with this claim. And you can't seem to help yourself. Which frankly, just makes you a troll.

    Just admit you don't understand primitive reflexes and move on. Continuing to claim that babies dream about breastfeeding from the womb and that these dreams stem from their thinking or thoughts about breastfeeding while in the womb... We can deal with ignorant. But this continued stupidity and persistence with stupidity is what makes you a troll.
    You are the only one in the last few posts mentioning breastfeeding. Who's the troll? Not me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Do you agree with the way Freud analyses dreams?
    Dreams? I'd disagree with virtually everything Freud claimed to analyse.

    Some of Freud's great contributions to psychology were
    - framing a proposal for the unconscious mind.
    But there is no such "structure" as id, ego, superego the way he described it.

    - proposing that infants and children could have sexual feelings and that sexual development was continuous.
    But there is no such sexual developmental rule as oral-anal-genital, let alone "fixation".

    - observing that adult sexual behaviour could be affected by relationships in childhood
    But there are no such things as the Oedipus or the Elektra complexes.

    - suggesting that many adult emotional and mental problems arose from sexual feelings or difficulties
    But dismissing or ignoring every other source of emotional and mental pain and confusion harmed many of his own patients at the time, and untold millions of people since. PTSD suffering war veterans are one big group and those who were neglected, abused and mistreated as children a more general category.

    - observing that women felt oppressed and depressed by the restricted roles and lack of freedoms in their society
    But there is no such thing as "penis envy".


    The one, central, unforgivable, immoral thing from my point of view was his construction of the Elektra/Oedipus complex. If you read his reports of therapy sessions with his women patients, it's absolutely clear that some had been sexually abused by their fathers or father figures. But he didn't investigate why men he knew as upright and respectable members of society might behave so badly with their own children. He turned the whole problem on its head and invented female fantasy as a get out of jail free card for abusive men and for psychotherapists to feel supreme confidence in dismissing women's reports of rape and abuse with no uncomfortable acknowledgement that their misery was based in horrible reality.
    KALSTER and Robittybob1 like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    I haven't study psychology but I think Bw/S does, but she has not come back lately to continue the conversation.
    The little I have read of Freud I would have to agree with you adelady.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Babies have been imaged sucking their thumbs in utero.
    http://www.orwelltoday.com/babyub.jpg

    A
    lso the question as to whether the unborn dream.
    "
    Babies Dream Inside the Womb




    Babies Dream Inside the Wombo without a doubt they do. But what could they dream about?
    They don't dream about breastfeeding. They would dream as we dream to be honest. About what we experience and see and hear, taste, do. So if they dream, it would probably be about what they are experiencing in the womb - the sounds, feelings of being inside their mother.

    Do you agree with the way Freud analyses dreams?
    It is interesting that he thinks babies are pre-warned about the birth process and given hope of life on the other side. How did he get to know a baby's unconscious thoughts?

    Now they have pictures of the unborn sucking their thumbs so I can be fairly certain that unconscious thoughts or even conscious thoughts of breast feeding were occurring. But beyond that what evidence was there for their unconscious thoughts? They are conscious after they are born so surely they are conscious before birth too. It is only during the birth process that oxygen gets a little short, so don't move and don't use it up (that seems instinctive).
    Oh for goodness sake!

    Freud also argues that boys start desiring sex with their mother from a very young age and they would have seen their father's penis when he had sex with her while the baby boy was in her womb. Aside from the fact that Freud clearly had no idea of the human female anatomy, are you going to claim he was right about that too?

    They don't have unconscious or conscious thoughts of breastfeeding. They don't need food while in the womb, so why would they think about feeding? For your information, you could put a basketball next to their cheek and they would turn and try to suckle that too. It's not just the female breast. It's a reflex. They turn towards anything that touches their cheek and will try to suckle when they are hungry. Which is what makes it a primitive reflex and which stems from the most primitive part of the brain. You have been provided links explaining this in detail, which from this latest troll by you, it is clear you have again failed and refused to educate yourself.

    Breastfeeding and the sucking motion is not a conscious thought for babies. It is a primitive reflex.

    You've been asked by a moderator and just about everyone else to stop with this claim. And you can't seem to help yourself. Which frankly, just makes you a troll.

    Just admit you don't understand primitive reflexes and move on. Continuing to claim that babies dream about breastfeeding from the womb and that these dreams stem from their thinking or thoughts about breastfeeding while in the womb... We can deal with ignorant. But this continued stupidity and persistence with stupidity is what makes you a troll.
    You are the only one in the last few posts mentioning breastfeeding. Who's the troll? Not me.
    I directly quote your previous post, where you distinctly again try to claim that the fetus consciously and unconsciously dreams and thinks about breastfeeding and you lie and claim that I am the only one to discuss breastfeeding in the last few posts?

    You have deliberately disregarded all links provided explaining primitive reflexes and you deliberately and disingenuously keep trying to claim that babies dream about it, after being asked to stop making such ridiculous and stupid claims. Don't try and divert your trolling by lying about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Babies have instinctive human survival instincts.

    If you have ever had a child, and holding your newborn, within minutes of that my children were "rooting" their mouths...looking for food.

    I have no idea what babies think about in utero as someone in a previous post noted, it's pretty noisy in there!!

    I would think though, they can hear the vibration of a voice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    I am not much of a Freud fan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Psychoanalysis was based on dreams.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Freud was also an equal opportunity teacher. Karen Horney was taught by Freud and came up with the notion of womb envy in response to penis envy.

    Although there were many dissidents I believe the majority of Neo Freudianism still held a tremendous amount of respect for Freud.

    Neo-Freudianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Welcome Beer w/straw...good to see you here.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Freud was also an equal opportunity teacher. Karen Horney was taught by Freud and came up with the notion of womb envy in response to penis envy.

    Although there were many dissidents I believe the majority of Neo Freudianism still held a tremendous amount of respect for Freud.

    Neo-Freudianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The whole penis envy theory is bollocks though. Horney was one of the first to voice her criticism of Freud and his Oedipal complex as she felt he was narcissistic and a misogynist because Freud's penis envy was to describe women as not being completely whole because they do not have a penis - ie, they are somehow broken because they do not have a penis. She felt it was not sexual desire that led to children clinging to one parent over the other, but anxiety in the parental relationship.

    So much so that she and Adler reworked it and out came Neo Freudianism.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Well, I still think that Freud deserved much respect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Well, I still think that Freud deserved much respect.
    But only for raising the questions.

    His answers to the questions were often, a. to the wrong question and/or b. mystical made-up messes.
    babe likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Well, I guess controversial is good.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Well, I still think that Freud deserved much respect.
    But only for raising the questions.

    His answers to the questions were often, a. to the wrong question and/or b. mystical made-up messes.

    I think people would disagree with you.

    What about The Interpretation of Dreams?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    What about The Interpretation of Dreams?
    I thought it was absolute guff the first time I read it 40ish years ago but I knew others felt differently. But many of them thought Jung was worth reading so I didn't set much store by opinions from that quarter.

    Now? With all the advances in biology, neurology and psychology, we now understand a lot more about what the function of dreaming is and how and why certain things appear in dreams.

    The Interpretation of Dreams is now an entry in the history or philosophy of science or medicine. It has nothing to offer a modern doctor or therapist. If a therapist I was thinking of consulting, or any relative or friend was interested in, and that therapist claimed proudly or admitted reluctantly that they used this as part of their approach, I'd run a mile. And I'd warn everyone I know to steer clear of them.

    (One personal anecdote. Dreams of falling. I was plagued for quite a while by nightmares with staircases disappearing out from under me and a whole lot of other terrifying stuff. Still happens from time to time. But this problem has a straightforward solution. Not a therapist, not a medication. A simple dietary supplement. Lecithin. I very much doubt a Freudian or neo-Freudian would think of nutrition as a first response to dreams of this kind.)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    ...matter and pixie dust
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,158
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    What about The Interpretation of Dreams?


    (One personal anecdote. Dreams of falling. I was plagued for quite a while by nightmares with staircases disappearing out from under me and a whole lot of other terrifying stuff. Still happens from time to time. But this problem has a straightforward solution. Not a therapist, not a medication. A simple dietary supplement. Lecithin. I very much doubt a Freudian or neo-Freudian would think of nutrition as a first response to dreams of this kind.)
    That is really something, adelady. So, a nutritional supplement helped to suppress those types of dreams? I'm intrigued.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    So was I.

    My mother had a questionnaire to fill in, basically a list of various symptoms of emotional or psychological problems. She had to change her responses because of the way the "hearing a voice" questions were worded. She'd initially ticked off 'hearing voice inside your head', and had to change it when she got to the 'hearing voice outside your head' question. (She'd had a bit of a shock one day. She and dad went out on a beautiful, warm, sunny day and they were in a little boat thing, all on their own on calm water, and she sighed deeply and said something like "this is wonderful" and she heard someone or something say in a snarky tone "No it's not." As there was no one within cooee of them, she thought she was going mad. Went to the doctor and got referred to this other (medical) doctor who was well-known for good results with patients with unusual problems.)

    She was "prescribed" some other supplementary vitamin, obviously one of the B group, but I can't recall which one. And that worked. But she had a pamphlet basically giving a list of very specific symptoms matched with appropriate nutritional remedies, mostly vitamins but I think there might have been some mineral stuff there as well. When I spotted the one about the 'falling' dreams being linked to lecithin, I thought I'd give it a shot. And it worked.

    I'm not a believer in taking supplements every day of your life, because a good diet should be enough most of the time, so I don't take it consistently just an occasional dose intermittently. But every now and again the dreams start to emerge so I take the supplements, the full recommended dose every day for a couple of weeks. The dreams go away within a day or two but I figure that either my diet has been inadequate or my metabolism has been especially needy so I "reset" the balance with a couple of weeks worth of guaranteed intake. Don't need to know the details, just that it works.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    I think I said Psychology isn't a mathematical science.

    Hence, everything can be interpreted differently.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I think I said Psychology isn't a mathematical science.

    Hence, everything can be interpreted differently.
    I'd strongly disagree.

    Granted, it is true that psychology isn't a complete or comprehensive scheme of understanding human behaviour. Partly that is a consequence of our developing, rather than comprehensive, understanding of the links between biology, neurology and behaviour. But that doesn't mean that psychology or a psychologist is free to apply "different" interpretations to anything and everything as the fancy takes them.

    There's quite a lot known now about PTSD for instance and anyone now routinely applying a Freudian analysis to the problems faced by defence force veterans should be done for malpractice.

    Same thing for survivors of child sexual abuse and adult rape and sexual assault victims. Freud might have wanted to tell the world that this was all fantasy or the secret desires of the victims. No one could now get or keep registration as a practicing psychologist if they took that approach.
    KALSTER and Tranquille like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    I'm a physics major.

    And the sum of the stuff you are saying is clearly biased. I can quote but am drunk and on valium.
    Last edited by Beer w/Straw; November 5th, 2013 at 11:19 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    I'm a physics major.

    And the sum of the stuff you are saying is clearly biased. I can quote but am drunk and on valium.
    How is it biased?

    She is correct.

    No one is saying that Freud did not have a big influence on the field of psychology. But Adelady is not wrong. Far from it. A lot of what Freud came out with would be more comfortable in pseudoscience. Analysing dreams?

    I'd sooner strip down to a loin cloth and throw some old dry bones on the fire while dancing around with my hands waving in the air. The results would be the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    pigeon guided missiles aside
    is operant conditioning the reason why there is a like button on this forum and in that social network site

    .......edit epimetheus

    long ago when i was in the army
    an officer that was just a tad too full of himself
    decided to get in my face and disturb my thought process
    so I stopped walking
    he demanded that I salute him
    standing at attention, I began to comply
    as my index finger touched my eyebrow, I paused
    a revelation was pending
    I moved my hand down to chest level, staring at the fingers and palm
    and i said
    "cub-scouts salute with 2 fingers", and saluted him with 2
    "boy-scouts salute with 3 fingers", and saluted him with 3
    "explorer scouts with 4", and saluted him with 4
    "and, in the army we salute with five", and saluted him with five
    breaking protocol by not waiting for him to return the salute,
    I lowered my hand again to chest level and stared a moment
    and then
    I proclaimed: "Oh My God, I've been programed"
    I then looked up and stared him in the eye
    he stared back for a moment, then turned and walked away

    I never noticed his name
    Had I known who he was, I'd be thanking him still.
    ................................
    we are creatures of habit
    Last edited by sculptor; November 6th, 2013 at 01:24 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Dreams can be traced to down to a childhood memory. An unperturbed person may not even remember their dream, but a mentally unhealthy one can. This is the basis of psychoanalysis -daring repressed memories into consciousness. Mentioning PTSD and saying Freud wouldn't believe people is clearly biased.

    I alluded to Maxwell's equations earlier in this thread and unless there is a rigorous logical method for interpretation misdiagnosis is always possible.

    adelady is right if you like strawman arguments, whereas I'm getting beat up for liking Freud. Thanks

    Is there an "I despise Freud thread" on this forum that I don't know about?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Mentioning PTSD and saying Freud wouldn't believe people is clearly biased.
    I'm old enough that my dad and a few of his friends had to deal with Freudian psychiatrists occasionally - mostly because of their experiences in WW2. Without fail, these "therapists" applied Freud's sexual repression and anal-oral-genital development or fixation notions to men who couldn't think straight or lost a lot of sleep because of their memories of killing people or having their friends blown to bits right beside them and similar traumatic events. These people needed someone to listen to them and instead got nagged about dragging up childhood memories of potty training or sexual fantasies.

    My dad was a good example of the Freudian obsession with sex and childhood diverting a doctor's attention away from neurology and other physical problems. The psychiatrists were trying to tell him to "loosen up" along with various other ridiculous Freudian-notions-about-sex based suggestions to make his things-crawling-on-my-skin sensations go away because they were "all in his head". But they weren't. They were caused by a genetic nerve disorder which had been well-known for years before psychotherapy - 10 years of unnecessary misery for dad.

    Freud preferred his theory to the lived reality of his own patients and the therapeutic process he designed encouraged those who followed him to do the same with their patients. Can't blame him for being wrong. Can blame him for insisting that his way was the only way.
    KALSTER likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Dreams can be traced to down to a childhood memory. An unperturbed person may not even remember their dream, but a mentally unhealthy one can. This is the basis of psychoanalysis -daring repressed memories into consciousness. Mentioning PTSD and saying Freud wouldn't believe people is clearly biased.
    Freud was too obsessed about repressed sexual desire, even in children, to believe people.

    A dream is not always a repressed memory. Sometimes and usually, a dream is just a dream. Just because I dream about a plane or a rocket, does not mean I have penis envy, nor does it mean I was conscious in the womb and have repressed memories of my father having sex with my mother while I was in the womb. My being closer to my father is not because I want to have sex with him or desire incest as a result of those repressed memories as Freud liked to find in his psychoanalysis of people. It was simply because my father worked from home while my mother worked outside of the home during my early childhood.

    I alluded to Maxwell's equations earlier in this thread and unless there is a rigorous logical method for interpretation misdiagnosis is always possible.
    No it is not.

    Freud's methodology was to coerce his patients, so frankly, his theories were based on finding what he wanted to find, not solely what was actually there:

    Traditional accounts have held that, as a result of frequent reports from his patients, in the mid-1890s Freud posited that psychoneuroses were a consequence of early childhood sexual abuse.[111] More specifically, in three papers published in 1896 he contended that unconscious memories of sexual abuse in infancy are a necessary precondition for the development of adult psychoneuroses. However, examination of Freud's original papers has revealed that his clinical claims were not based on patients' reports but were findings deriving from his analytical clinical methodology, which at that time included coercive procedures.
    In Analysis of a Phobia in a Five-year-old Boy (1909), the case study of the boy "Little Hans" (Herbert Graf, 1903–73) who was afflicted with equinophobia, the relation between Hans's fears - of horses and of father - derived from external factors such as the birth of his sister, and internal factors like the desire of the infantile id to replace father as companion to mother, as well as guilt for enjoying the masturbation normal to a boy of his age. Moreover, his admitting to wanting to procreate with mother was considered proof of the boy's sexual attraction to the opposite-sex parent; he was a heterosexual male. Yet, the boy Hans was unable to relate fearing horses to fearing his father. The psychoanalyst Freud noted that "Hans had to be told many things that he could not say himself" and that "he had to be presented with thoughts, which he had, so far, shown no signs of possessing".[17]



    Many Freud critics believe the memories and fantasies of childhood seduction Freud reported were not real memories but constructs that Freud created and forced upon his patients.[18] According to Frederick Crews, the seduction theory that Freud abandoned in the late 1890s acted as a precedent to the wave of false allegations of childhood sexual abuse in the 1980s and 1990s.[18]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosexual_development
    adelady is right if you like strawman arguments, whereas I'm getting beat up for liking Freud. Thanks
    Who is beating you up?

    There is no strawman. Just people who do not believe Freud's theories were correct. Even Karen Horney, whom you mentioned earlier in the thread, criticised and disproved Freud. Just because we do not agree with you does not mean we are beating you up about it.

    Is there an "I despise Freud thread" on this forum that I don't know about?
    No idea, is there?
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    ...
    Last edited by Beer w/Straw; November 6th, 2013 at 08:38 PM. Reason: double post
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Well, Shellshock begain to see different reasons, besides sexuallity, for its causes. I can't be blamed for crappy doctors that are not Freud.

    I specifically refered to pschoanalysis, PTSD was unheard of in Freuds time.

    Lemme get my text book...

    From Psychology Themes and variations. Second Canadian Edition.

    And when 93 psychology department chairpersons were surveyed in 1990 about the fields most important contributars.

    Rank invidual rank points
    1 B.F. SDkinner 508
    2 Freud 459
    3 William James 372
    4 Jean Piaget 237
    5 g. Stanley Hall 216
    6 Wilhem Wunt 203
    7 Carl Rogers 192
    8 John B. Watson 188
    9 Ivan Pavlov 152
    10 E. L Thorndike 124


    :EDIT: I also didn't say ALL deams are repressed memories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    10 Most Influential Psychologists

    Link similar to the text book quoue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    what?
    no Konrad Lorenz?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    And as everyone knows, Freud more often than not coerced his patients and as he put it himself:

    Hans had to be told many things that he could not say himself" and that "he had to be presented with thoughts, which he had, so far, shown no signs of possessing"
    No one would dispute that victims of abuse or that victims of certain traumatic events in their lives repress the memories. No one would.

    However Freud's technique focused more on coercing his patients. He would put the idea into their heads and let them go from there. If a child sex abuse case where the abuse was repressed made it to any courtroom, it would be thrown out if the court finds out that the child's therapist coerced or coached the victim. And this is essentially what Freud did. He coached and coerced his patients. He helped create false memories in some of his patients. And we know it is very easy to prime people into believing or seeing something they know to be false:

    One important finding in memory research that relates to false memories comes from Elizabeth Loftus's (2002, 2003) demonstration on how priming can lead to the development of false memories. Participants who went for a trip in Disneyland_were given advertisements and then instructed to answer a questionnaire. They were separated into four groups: Group 1 was given an ad with no cartoon character; group 2 was given an ad with no cartoon character, but was shown a 4-feet tall cardboard of Bugs Bunny nearby; group 3 was given an ad with Bugs Bunny as the cartoon character; and group 4 was given an ad with Bugs Bunny as the cartoon character and was shown a 4-feet tall cardboard of Bugs Bunny nearby. Results from the questionnaire reveal that less than 10% of the participants in groups 1 and 2, and around 30% to 40% of the participants in groups 3 and 4, remembered meeting Bugs Bunny at Disneyland. This research shows that despite conflicting schemas, that is, Bugs Bunny is a Warner Bros. character and not a Disneyland_character, priming can implant false memories to some people.
    Hence the dangers of Freud, even back then.

    And Freud knew of the symptoms of PTSD, that was his field of expertise. However the issue is that instead of focusing on what actually caused the symptoms, he focused instead on what he felt had to be repressed sexual memories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    I believe PTSD was formally introduced in 1980, and merely mentioned shell-shock.

    I am, however, kinda' tired of this thread. Back to Maxwell's equations, I wanted to emphasize that psychology isn't a mathematical science like physics, hence, it's a lot easier to make a mistakes. What I didn't like most was what I felt to be an over amount of cynicism about Freud. So, I'm glad to post some respectful things about him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    I believe PTSD was formally introduced in 1980, and merely mentioned shell-shock.
    Which would have been what Freud was trying to 'discover'.

    The symptoms were the same. Can you imagine telling a war veteran or somehow who witnessed something horrific that their fear and issues they are currently trying to cope with is because of repressed sexual desires from their childhood?

    I am, however, kinda' tired of this thread. Back to Maxwell's equations, I wanted to emphasize that psychology isn't a mathematical science like physics, hence, it's a lot easier to make a mistakes.
    Coercion is making a mistake?
    What I didn't like most was what I felt to be an over amount of cynicism about Freud. So, I'm glad to post some respectful things about him.
    I am not cynical of Freud. I personally think he was a hack who used patients to fulfill his own needs and desires. When the patients did not fit into the theories he was so obsessed with, he made it fit by suggestive and coercive therapy. He was certainly influential, but his path to greatness was littered with the many whose lives were ruined along the way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I am not cynical of Freud. I personally think he was a hack who used patients to fulfill his own needs and desires. When the patients did not fit into the theories he was so obsessed with, he made it fit by suggestive and coercive therapy. He was certainly influential, but his path to greatness was littered with the many whose lives were ruined along the way.
    Quoted for truth.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Just out of curiosity, you guys know the story of the Little Hans analysis was done mostly out of correspondence with the father and maybe Freud once saw Hans face to face.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Just out of curiosity, you guys know the story of the Little Hans analysis was done mostly out of correspondence with the father and maybe Freud once saw Hans face to face.
    So Freud thought that using a person in an authority relationship with a child would be the best avenue for finding out what troubled him? And for treating him. And doing it competently.

    Talk about dreams!
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Alright, I give. Freud is really the devil incarnate!

    100 years ago maybe there wasn't that many qualified analysts.

    Still psychonanalysis today seems still mainly the ground work Freud originally set down.

    i.e. Daring stuff into consciousness.

    1. besides the inherited constitution of personality, a person's development is determined by events in early childhood;
    2. human attitude, mannerism, experience, and thought is largely influenced by irrational drives;
    3. irrational drives are unconscious;
    4. attempts to bring these drives into awareness meet psychological resistance in the form of defense mechanisms;
    5. conflicts between conscious and unconscious, or repressed, material can materialise in the form of mental or emotional disturbances, for example: neurosis, neurotic traits, anxiety, depression etc.;
    6. the liberation from the effects of the unconscious material is achieved through bringing this material into the conscious mind (via e.g. skilled guidance, i.e. therapeutic intervention).[1]
    Psychoanalysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    a person's development is determined by events in early childhood;
    And there's the problem. Many things are affected by early childhood. All the neurology now being done on the differences between the brains of people who were and who weren't neglected or abused when young bear this out.

    However, anyone who seriously thinks that a person's development is determined by early childhood events is going to make some serious errors - and maybe do some damage - to many people. Firstly those with disorders that are mainly biological in origin. You can't help a suicidal depressed person by psychoanalysis when the depression arises from an underactive thyroid, they just need a little tablet every morning. Same sort of thing goes for post-partum depression or psychosis, for schizophrenia, for brain damage causing personality changes, for the depression, and sometimes anxiety, associated with other illnesses.

    Equally, regardless of how a person has or hasn't been affected by early childhood experiences, psychoanalysis focusing on that is going to fail or hurt lots of people. People whose problems arise from unresolved grief at the death of a parent or sibling when they were teenagers, or bullying at school or work, or the death or disability of their own infant child, or from traumatic events they've been part of or witnessed, or from sexual assault - or dozens of other circumstances which sometimes might, but usually don't, have any link to early childhood experience.
    babe likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. READ THIS! A MUST READ! New EARTH DISTANCE FORMULAS
    By hey_amigo in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 23rd, 2009, 07:24 PM
  2. The Problem with Dawkins
    By Golkarian in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: December 13th, 2008, 07:41 PM
  3. dawkins
    By jjg in forum Biology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 17th, 2008, 03:16 PM
  4. dawkins at aai 07
    By captaincaveman in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 3rd, 2007, 10:52 AM
  5. read books or read ur posts
    By dsvilnxwbb in forum Biology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 15th, 2006, 06:22 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
  •