Mike Green said...
....There are a variety of anomalous phenomena that ...seem to be somewhat dependent on the intent of the participants (and observers)....
I think this is the heart of the matter. I'd bet the human ego, or a conscious exercise of willpower, is somehow at odds with these phenomena. That is why I suggested computer science "personalities" have this conversation with artistic personalities (good ones, not posers). Artists appear to have access to perceptual "data" that is less processed, somehow less filtered than your average non-artist, and this lack of filtration is what allows them to draw and paint, for example. It's not that artists necessarily have better coordination or eyesight, it's that they can see things others can't because "their shields are down" (to use a Trekkie phrase). The shield, in this case, is the ego. Often, the mental state that allows artists to do their thing is described as self-less, ego-less, expansive, oceanic, mystical, perhaps somewhat similar to what was earlier mentioned about the states of mind experienced by people during war, sports, etc.
Personally, I suspect telepathy is possible. What really baffles me, however, is why evolution would favor the development of an ego over the development of a capability that, at first glance, would appear to give a creature an overwhelming survival advantage. Then again, perhaps we all use it to some extent but we aren't conscious of doing so. Perhaps our egos wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that there are factors involved in our daily decision making that we (our egos) don't have complete control of.
The bottom line is that we don't know how a mindless lump of matter can give rise to a sentient, self-aware lively lump of matter, so we all stand at the foot of a very large, very mysterious mountain of unknowns.
Having been involved with weird things like hypnosis and acupuncture and holistic medicine, I'm very aware of the what constitutes "a reputable peer-reviewed journal" and how they treat submissions that don't fit the established paradigm. The way the researchers were treated that proposed that ulcers could be caused by an infection is one of many glaring examples of this quality and respect for the scientific method. I'm not saying that they're always bad, just occasionally biased and usually unwilling to admit it.
Post Edited (Mike Green) : 9/6/2009 7:57:18 PM GMT
The problem with hypnosis, acupuncture and holistic medicine is that results are, generally, indistinguishable from those resulting from treatment with a placebo. No one seems to have come up with a compelling alternative explanation of how they "work".
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
My take is that we have clear evidence for "action at a distance". So, I won't rule out these things. I just qualify them as noted in my posts above. IMHO, there is as much potential for real science in this realm as there is anywhere else, including Intelligence.
Frankly, both camps are filled with nut-bag crack pot, snake oil types that make the whole affair difficult. This makes actual progress difficult, and I think there is significant progress to be made.
In my posts above, I outlined the inference approach to making progress in these kinds of things. I think that warrants some greater consideration, given we are doing exactly that in theoretical physics. There isn't a lot of difference between that and psychology, where an ego isn't any more viable than a multi-dimensional string is.
(I think we will find Wolfram's automata theories very interesting over time)
I'm going to put something else out here too. Contraversial, but why not?
There is truth and there is understanding. Some rational types are going to ask, "what's the difference?" Here is is:
With truth, we can connect the facts we know to be true back to our pool of known, established truths. We don't have very many of those, so this is difficult as all get out. Be that as it may, it then is possible to derive the fact from these things and "prove" it. So far so good. That yields understanding.
Then we have the inference and modeling approach. Here's the kicker:
Understanding only requires a model that is consistent with and predictive of the dynamics being modeled.
Is that "true"? Who knows?
It is however, "understanding".
In my life, as I contributed above, I find it very helpful to do this modeling, and re-modeling as I have new experiences. I understand a fair number of things, and am able to cope with my world and leverage what I know to my benefit. I am absolutely not in any state of denial about whether or not that understanding consists of real truths, and as such, simply operate in a fashion where unknowns boil down to probabilities and risk.
People who grok this difference can accomplish amazing things, or at the least, navigate this world with some measure of confidence and success. I believe they are some of the best researchers too, because the inhibition that comes from a strong dependence on the strictly known rational diminishes the creative force that gets us to new places and technology.
While you are all chewing on that one, I've got to mention the self-definition as an example of this in direct practice that I have found extremely effective in dealing with many people issues. Is the following model strictly "true"? I don't know the answer to that. Is it effective? Absolutely.
Enjoy:
At conception the mind is whole. The self is pure. The potential to reason is uninhibited.
Self-definitions can be internal or external.
An example of an external self-definition of self is the things you have, money you make, things you know, reputation, etc...
An example of an internal self-definition is being happy about your gender, or noting the advantages your body has for your reasons, not others.
These are connected to lies and falsehoods. A lie is a falsehood with intent.
There is also conviction. Conviction is an affirmation of will that a particular belief is true, while realizing the unknown state of it.
Minds are at risk if they base their definition of self worth off of external things, and if they confuse conviction with truth, and here is why:
Imagine the whole mind either lying to itself, or accepting something that should be expressed by conviction as truth.
Now that mind is compartmentalized. There is the whole mind, and then there is the sub-set of the mind that has to manage the falsehood or lie. For each motion of this type, the mind is further fragmented and potential to reason and realize a healthy, strong definition of self-worth is lost.
(this is how brainwashing is done, BTW)
When this mind encounters some new material for consideration, said material may or may not invoke the compartments. If it does, reason is impure, compromised and the result of analysis is not provable.
If the mind defines it's self worth in terms of these things, there is a real, personal interest in maintaining the "true" status of these things, and failure in this, or to be recognized in this breeds tension that will manifest as harmful behaviors. Fear, anger, loathing, hate, denial, etc...
So that's it. The potatohead theory of self and reason with respect to the health of the mind.
Your value is what you think it is. If you allow others to define that, your healthy mind and your potential is at risk, or diminished.
A great many things in this world are simply not known absolutely. For all those things where this is true, we make choices. Choices of faith and we balance those against our experience and establish conviction.
eg: Somebody believes in a deity, and harbors a strong belief -vs- somebody who has crossed the line on conviction into acceptance as truth.
The former will be able to rationally discuss anything, without their faith or self threatened. The latter cannot, as their self and their faith is directly threatened.
Lots of war and death has occured due to this.
So then, coming back around full circle. The psychic phenoman being discussed here is something poorly understood --as poor as the intelligence is.
I sense tension on this thread already. Some of you have made some personal investment in the idea that you are right, and it does not matter what the reasons are, only that it has happened.
Rather than go down that road, isn't it much better to simply understand the choices others have made and remain secure in your own?
I sure think so, and I've tried to detail why I think that's the right thing to do. Your very potential to reason and your health of mind is at stake.
Carry on!
Edit: I will add that as a younger person, I was subjected to some very serious dogma. Essentially brainwashing. At 17, I walked away from all of it. At sometime in my early 20's, I came upon the realization I just posted above. To test it, I challenged every single self worth definition I could think of and tracked it back to the source, then defined it as either truth, or conviction. Where there were choices, I chose and moved on. Took about 10 years, but at the end of that, I found my mind whole enough (nobody is perfect), tension gone, and my ability to consider new things very uninhibited. I have no investment in whether or not something is true or not. Where I find new truths, they get considered, and if that changes a choice I made, or causes a model to be updated, tossed, or reconsidered, then it happens. I am simply better for the discussion and new information.
I have passed along that theory of mind to others, who have been able to break the dogma, figure out who they are, and be much better for it. So, it works! I've not had anybody fail, and when I work through it with them, there is a process that is repeatable and productive. My wife and I work with problem kids. I can take this, ask them questions, do some things with them, understand some of where their self-worth problems are, then take them to a place where they can choose for their reasons, be strong in that, and grow forward normally. Have done it many, many times.
This is understanding. I have no idea whether or not the model of the mind, where it's fragmented like that is true or not. I would like to though. If / when our science gets there to a higher degree, I'll welcome that much like the craftsman welcomes technology to improve on their craft.
On the other hand, had I not been willing to model and infer, I may well have not been able to sort things out, or would have spent a lot of money on others to sort them out.
I will end with the idea that we just don't know as much as we think we know, and that can be very, very limiting as it can be very, very dangerous. It all cuts both ways, IMHO.
--->the danger is mitigated by our known science and by sharing experiences and being willing to question and by not having personal investments in the outcome of these things.
@Leon - The results from hypnosis, acupuncture, and holistic medicine (parts of that field) are indeed distinguishable from placebo, some of the time, much more than can be attributed to chance. There are objectively measurable changes in brain activation in areas believed to be involved in pain perception when specific acupuncture points are stimulated and not when adjacent areas are similarly simulated. Some of these areas are the same areas that are activated when placebos are used since they're involved in the processing of pain experience, but the research shows that some points produce this effect and other points produce a different effect.
@potatohead - Sorry for running with your comments in a different, but related direction. They resonated with a general notion that I have that we have much to learn from anomalous experiences. We can't necessarily take them at face value (as explained by those experiencing them), but we can't dismiss them nor "shoehorn" them into our existing models if they don't quite fit. It's these anomalies that teach us how the universe works or appears to work and sometimes they also "turn the world on it's ear". Quantum mechanics is one major example.
I think that there are far more properly conducted studies showing no benefits over placebo, than there are showing benefits. Most of the latter have been reported as having been very poorly designed. One widely reported one only had 14 subjects in a randomised design:
@Leon - The devil is in the details. One experiment neither proves nor disproves anything other than the very specific circumstances of the experiment. Only when there are multiple identical experiments or many similar experiments designed to tease out details can anything be definitively proven.
No worries Mike. Not an issue at all, and I think we agree on "have a lot to learn".
My personal belief is that the state of our current science is not inclusive. IMHO, we are as likely to discover we have it nearly wrapped up as we are to discover an entire branch of understanding has eluded us.
No apology necessary. This thread is just fun. Lots of stuff coming out of the ordinary wood work, and I think it's highly entertaining and educational. I posted the book I did to support you in your view on these things, BTW. It is sometimes that something works because the subject wants it to work. There are other times when some interactions we were unaware of are in play.
I read somewhere that light photons are a likely source of internal communication for our bodies! Didn't go deep into it, but I saw a headline and just wondered at that.
@leon: One drug and alcohol treatment facility, where my wife used to work, uses many different holistic disciplines to treat the symptoms of addiction, and intense one on one "discussion" to deal with the habit side of things. BTW: Those discussions fairly closely model what I posted above. The potency of one mind directly challenging another with earnest advocacy cannot be underestimated. I've got the scars and success stories to prove it both personally, and with many who I have taken the time and attention to work with. Not a professional thing for me at all, just to be clear. But, if somebody needs some raw, honest conversation, I can do that. It might hurt too, but that's all part of the process.
There exists herbal treatments for withdrawal far more effective and less damaging than most of the commercial substitutes, as another kind of example I think is very relevant these days. Often, our science is biased by our economics. The producers of some maintenance treatments, whose addiction and tolerance potential significantly exceeds the drug they seek to break the habit on, simply would lose a ton if the herbal treatment were to see wider use.
Likely result: It will be banned, or marginalized because of this. The status quo is criminal, if you ask me, yet it's established good practice to go down this road. Money drives that, and can corrupt science as sure as less than rational ideas can. You can go down the list of fairly potent natural substances and see this in action all over the place.
Given these dynamics, I think it's fair to say we don't give these methods a fair shake.
As for the acupuncture, this is one of the "if the subject says it works" then it works as far as pain relief goes. All things considered, there is some merit to that, depending on the source of the pain, and what it is indicating. Clearly one would not want to treat a cancer that way, but a recurring pain of some kind, not linked to a medical diagnosis? Absolutely.
I think I'll follow this for a bit. There have been some surprising opinions aired here, and I enjoy knowing a little about my friends here. [noparse]:)[/noparse]
I just changed the title. Let's have some robust and entertaining discussion amongst ourselves. Why not? It's a holiday weekend. Just keep it civil. The idea is to let some stuff out that you think others might see some value in --even if it's just entertainment value.
Mike Green said...
@Leon - The devil is in the details. One experiment neither proves nor disproves anything other than the very specific circumstances of the experiment. Only when there are multiple identical experiments or many similar experiments designed to tease out details can anything be definitively proven.
Have any of the studies showing favourable results for acupuncture over placebo been replicated?
Some people even stick needles in themselves - self-acupuncture. I suffer from neuritis affecting the skin at the top of my right foot, it can be very painful, but I only get it every few days. I might try sticking pins in myself when it flares up again.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter if acupuncture works via a placebo effect, if people feel better after treatment.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
Leon said...
....
Have any of the studies showing favourable results for acupuncture over placebo been replicated?....
Leon,
maybe I'm wrong about this, but to me your question seems to imply that the placebo effect by itself is something to be dismissed as mere delusion or an error in judgement of some kind, yet as I see it, the placebo effect by itself is one of those anomalous phenomena. Obviously the placebo effect does not work all the time but if it were not a "real" effect, then clinical trials would not bother to measure their drug efficacy against it. So to ask whether or not something is shown to work "over" placebo might be missing a significant point of the discussion. After all, what rational explanation is there for the placebo effect? Is it not odd that some people can sometimes be tricked into curing their own illness?
By the way, a physician friend of mine did a demo on me with acupuncture some years ago. Of course it was not a double blind experiment, but without telling me in advance what I was going to experience, he was apparently able to turn my sympathetic nervous system on and off like flicking a switch. I was highly skeptical of the whole thing at first, but I now regard acupuncture as a respectable trade. To deepen my respect, I happened to witness some rural acupuncturists doing their thing in China years ago on the side of a dirt road. Villagers lined up to have their warts, etc. sliced off with razor blades, and I was stunned to see it all happening with very little blood being spilled, nor were the people even flinching. For them, it was all in a day's work.
As for hypnosis, a very sober dentist friend of mine once described to me a surgical operation he witnessed in which a woman, who could not tolerate anesthesia, had her personal medical hypnotist (whom she had worked with for years) place her under hypnosis. The surgical dentist then removed four of her teeth without using any pain killers whatsoever. Just to show the power of the power of suggestion, the hypnotist then commanded which tooth socket she should have bleed or not bleed. This was not part of some circus act. It was not a reality TV show trying to boost ratings and sell ad time. It was just a tool being used by the surgeons.
As for evidence concerning the existence of egos.... I know it's very hard having conversations concerning inner states when the language to describe those states is not well defined or agreed upon. But my experience is this: artistic people seem to readily understand what is meant by such "things" as egos and the subconscious, etc. while computer scientists, in my opinion, seem to have the hardest darn time understanding or accepting that such "things" are real. Perhaps I would even extend my "artistic personalty types" to creative personalities in general. Intuition, whether it be in the arts or sciences, plays a major role in bringing new ideas into the world. Yet many creative people will tell you that those ideas seemed to come from outside themselves, or bubble up from deep within, or to hit them like a flash. Obviously there are parts of their minds that are processing those creative ideas, and that creative processing is happening apart from what they sense as their normal "selves". So there is some kind of mental split taking place, some kind of division or layering of the mind - ego or whatever - call it whatever you will. I mean, if the mind is only one thing, then how can you explain the phenomenon of "the creative flash" or the name of a person being "just on the tip of your tongue"?
I've had many conversations about this sort of thing throughout my life, and I must say I'm most puzzled by how difficult it is for computer science people to "get" any of this. I'm not saying this to be derogatory, it's just that I suspect that the kind of people who are strongly drawn to computers have a particular psychological structure that often makes it hard for them to sense the layered complexity within themselves. I'm not saying that computer people are not creative, I'm just saying that they can't seem to appreciate how unusual their creative process sometimes is. And this is the reason you have dudes like Marvin Minsky (circa 1970's) think they can solve "the vision problem" over their summer vacations! Minsky, et al, back in those days simply had no idea of how complex the mind really is because, I'm guessing, they could not see into the depths of their own mind. They were, in my guessimation, stuck in the realm of their rational egotism. And they choked.
Anyway, I enjoy discussing this sort of thing, so I hope other forum members jump in, too. I'm a very cynical person and highly skeptical of almost any claim made by anyone, and if I met myself, I probably wouldn't believe half of what I have to say about any of this. So I'm cool with criticism and I really would like to hear more about how computer people view this topic because to me, as I stated above, it's one of the most baffling aspects of understanding our understanding of such phenomena.
The placebo effect is real, there is a vast amount of evidence for it! The point I'm making is that acupuncture works simply because it is a placebo, nothing more. When the Melzack and Wall "gate theory" of pain was first proposed, it was thought that acupuncture might have something to do with that, but it's proponents now think that it causes the release of endogenous opiates in the brain. Placebo acupuncture seems to have the same effect. Here is a nice article debunking acupuncture:
Freud coined the terms id, ego and super-ego. His theory of behaviour was based on a mixture of ancient Jewish philosophy, the leading technology of the time - hydraulics - and his studies of neurotic middle-class ladies, with many of whom he was having affairs. No one has ever found any experimental evidence for the existence of his constructs.
The "tip of the tongue" phenomenon has been studied by psychologists. It is probably the result of a failed attempt at retrieval of a word from long-term memory with partial cues. It's easy to induce it in experimental subjects by presenting them with dictionary definitions of uncommon words.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
@Leon, @ElectricAye, I believe you are both right on in your observation that the Placebo Effect is not only not to be ignored - it may point to the most significant medical discovery we can make - if we can figure out the mechanism by which the Placebo effect works, we can cure many things with a significantly increased rate, and no side effects! I recently heard a commercial for a new stop-smoking drug, and they stated their results were (I believe) 45% cessation rate as opposed to *a 14% rate with placebo*. That means 14% of the people in the study stopped smoking simply because they *believed* they were receiving a drug that would help them stop smoking. That's a TREMENDOUSLY important fact! The placebo effect has been documented for a LONG time - I do not know how far back, but I would not be surprised if it had been documented centuries ago.
The Placebo Effect means that there is a self-corrective, or self-healing mechanism present in the body that is capable, once switched on, of successfully restoring a state of health and vitality to the body that often times, drugs cannot accomplish. The placebo effect has been observed to cure conditions ranging from purely psychological manifestations, all the way up through cancer. So it appears that there is nothing that is actually out of the reach of placebo (except possibly for things like exposed bone fragments... ) - but we don't know how to kick that function into full-tilt - yet.
As an side note to this - for "full disclosure" as it were - I am a trained hypnotist (started in NLP back in the 80s, got into Ericksonian, got certifications in everything.... the usual track in the field). My daughter was interested in what she saw and heard me do - and I don't know if it had any effect on this or not - but she now has a Masters Degree in psychology. We have some great conversations around this topic frequently, but it still remains too "fuzzy and unspecified" for the mainstream field to publically view it with the wonder and amazement that I do. It's one of those things where - since it's not reproducable with a set of pre-set procuderes, then it's not reliable as a field of study for clinicians for the most part. Fortunatley there ARE folks who devote a great deal of study to this. Andrew Weil's book "Spontaneous Healing" offers some excellent insight into the mechanism. Hopefully someday soon "modern medicine" will find how to reliably activate this effect and turn it into the primary method of care for most everything!
Just wanted to chime in on the Placebo Effect... too amazing to ignore!
To all,
I think this topic is relevant to microprocessors because there are people on this forum interested in artificial intelligence and I think perspectives on human intelligence can provide clues to how to approach the AI problem - or at least recognize its limitations and map out its vast unknowns...
To Leon,
Yes, maybe the term "ego" was popularized by Freud some time ago and he is certainly an historical figure at which much fun can be poked. But the concept of an ego as part of the structure of the mind goes back probably thousands of years. I don't really know much about the Hindu philosophies, Vedic, etc, but at a glance such eastern perspectives seem to me to have invented/disclosed these concepts long before Freud ever lit a cigar. Of course, speaking in terms of layers or hydraulics or whatever is just using metaphors, but the use of metaphors is how we understand most things. An interesting book on metaphors is Metaphors We Live By, www.amazon.com/Metaphors-We-Live-George-Lakoff/dp/0226468011. Leon, I would be interested in your thoughts on how the "creative flash" can take place without the mind having a split of some sort that allows it to do very sophisticated processing without conscious involvement.
To xanatos,
welcome to this discussion! Hypnotism is a fascinating topic. My wife, who happens to be a scientist, got sucked into a stage show at a Renaissance Fair once upon a time, and to my astonishment made an absolute fool out of herself on stage before I could stop her. Near the end of the show, the hypnotist told his "victims" they were all trapped on a cold planet, etc. and at the end of the show, though my wife claims she remembered nothing of what happened, I was dumbfounded by how cold her skin had become. It took her nearly an hour to warm up again.
@Leon:· I guess I misread your earlier comments then.. As for curing - if it releives the symptoms of a smoker (ie., smoking), for the rest of their lives...???
Milton Erickson once said something I have always loved: If a person has pain, and he can get them to pretend that their pain is gone - and they forget that they are pretending - for the rest of their lives....
@ElectricAye:· While I did learn something of the stage hypnosis aspect, I never delved that deeply into performance hypnosis beyond knowing the frame which is set that allows it to work in the manner it does.· Still, I have also seen that frame used to some amazing effect.· I've always worked in either therapeutic or enhancement modes.· Most of what I do with it now would be considered "extreme life coaching" :-)· I'm always in awe of what resources people have within them of which they are completely unconscious.· Part of the beauty of hypnosis for me is when people become aware of their own inherent·ocean of resources·through their unconscious surprising them with very powerful demonstrations that arise out of the middle of their daily lives like some sort of cosmic portal that just blows them away!· It can be a profoundly life changing event to have your unconscious "mind" establish a dialog that your conscious mind is capable of recognizing (or rather, incapable of dismissing or explaining away!)· It helps to pave the way for the normal communication pathways of the unconscious to become more conscious.· This process significantly helps to smooth out the rough spots in many people's lives.· It's a very rewarding process, for both the hypnotist and the hypnotee :-)
Leon said...
I don't think that it has ever been demonstrated that the placebo effect does anything other than relieve symptoms of disease. It can't cure anything.
Leon
Leon,
Would you classify addiction as a disease? Or would you classify addiction as being "merely" a mental thing. If addiction is "merely a mental thing" and not based on physical processes, then you fall into a trap wherein mental processes are not linked to physical ones, the dualism argument. If mental processes are linked to physical processes and if the placebo effect can cure an addiction, then the placebo effect is real in the sense that it has physical effects. Yes?
Hasn't been shown to cure anything. That's the right way to put it, IMHO.
There also is something to a person being convinced they are going to make it. When the mind surrenders, the body follows quickly. I think that's important too.
BTW: Addiction is the first thing I thought of when "not cure anything" was said. IMHO, addiction is a disease. Substances can change our chemistry creating both a mind and body dependence. (Both are physical, BTW --just thought I would clarify that) Placebos leverage the power of suggestion. For some, this power is great. For others it isn't. Depends on the level of self-awareness a given person has. Where it's high, I don't think the suggestion does any good, because they can and will vet it. For those where it's low, they can't vet it and are susceptible to suggestion. Where that's true, the suggestion can act. That's my take on it anyway.
@Dave, I know several certified Magicians. The art of it is rapidly growing clinical. Check this reference out:
My interest in psychology boils down to the childhood realization that we do not live in the moment, but just beyond it. There is a latency between when the event happens and our perception of it is realized for our consideration, which takes more time depending on our mode. Ordinary mode is the longest, the "trance" mode, where thought is action is the shortest I know of.
We employ many subtle tricks to compress reality into something we can manage a real time perception and interaction with. It's all amazing really, if the amount of information and relative short period of time are taken into consideration.
Magicians exploit that for our entertainment, of course --but their research into the how and why their exploitations work, is educational and highly technical.
Arguably, the field of physics overlaps the field of Psychology and Anthropology in that how people work, what they are, and how they behave is a fundamental thing, in a way not unlike physics is about deriving the fundamental things and modeling how they work.
One primal goal many of us have, whether or not we realize it, is transcending that latency to be, if only for a small time, in the moment where experience is perception, much like thought is action for the skilled martial arts instructor, brought to light earlier.
As a kid, I was once on the stage before a play we were building up to do. The small school I went to had a very nice grand piano sitting in a hall with great acoustics. At quiet times, a note could be played and heard to fill the room, move, fade, then be gone. The realization that the note is released and gone before I realize it, defined latency for me, and has been a topic of interest ever since.
Psychology is interesting to me, simply for the observation that people can be changed in both positive and negative ways by mere conversation. A mind challenging another mind can and does have an impact beyond mere emotion. How we think, why we think it has significant implications on our well being, as I noted above.
Some understanding of these things brings the potential to be well, and to leverage that understanding to get closer to and get along with people. It can also be used to bad effect in manipulating and exploiting people, and there is your classic good and bad, yin and yang in play.
Our psychology varies over time too. Young people exhibit a different set of elements than adults do. The need to "play" being a primary one. As I age, I feel this one slipping at time and I grow concerned and fight it. The reason why is perception and understanding. When we are kids, anything is possible and we can look at the world in wonder and "grok" it in the full definition of that word. "New" things trigger thoughts, models, images, ideas and those are valuable, if only for the musing of them. Getting older means fewer and fewer "new" things, and that part of our mind atrophies. So, I believe in "use it or lose it", and will simply play and wonder, and maybe that comes back full circle to my first coupla posts.
Inhibition is a crippling thing, if left unchecked. Once in a while, if you don't make an active effort to lower it and just experience a little, you will find you have finally aged and just can't.
There is such a thing as physical dependence on drugs, due to the long-term effects on brain function. I can't see a placebo affecting that directly, but it will obviously have an effect on withdrawal symptoms like agitation and depression. The brain produces lots of hormones that influence other parts of the body, as well as the brain itself. This can result from treatment with a placebo, of course, if the person believes that it will have an effect.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
Yes, maybe the term "ego" was popularized by Freud some time ago and he is certainly an historical figure at which much fun can be poked. But the concept of an ego as part of the structure of the mind goes back probably thousands of years. I don't really know much about the Hindu philosophies, Vedic, etc, but at a glance such eastern perspectives seem to me to have invented/disclosed these concepts long before Freud ever lit a cigar. Of course, speaking in terms of layers or hydraulics or whatever is just using metaphors, but the use of metaphors is how we understand most things. An interesting book on metaphors is Metaphors We Live By, www.amazon.com/Metaphors-We-Live-George-Lakoff/dp/0226468011. Leon, I would be interested in your thoughts on how the "creative flash" can take place without the mind having a split of some sort that allows it to do very sophisticated processing without conscious involvement.
The interesting thing about psychological metaphors is that they change over time, according to the latest technology. Freud based his theory on hydraulics, next came telephone systems, and then computers.
Your "creative flash" is probably the result of associations being made in long-term memory, which take time to develop.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
Yes, exactly. That is generally the mechanism most often seen.
"bad" is a relative term.
Withdrawls are "bad". Now comes the suggestion: Are they so bad as to be something one cannot endure, or not? There's your potential for positive treatment right there. If the subject is convinced they are getting help, then "bad" being the subjective thing it is, ends up being "not so bad", and the enhanced will that comes with the suggestion empowers the person to endure long enough for the body to do what it does to heal.
This is not a snake oil thing. It's applied psychology, and IMHO, something worth greater consideration than it's so often given.
Yes again to the metaphors. That is all we have, until we achieve a state of technology such that we can monitor a working brain in real time, much like we do a circuit today. With the tech we do have, it has been shown that people read by seeing a word, visually establishing it is a word. That gets routed through speech centers, so we "hear" the word, then we move that to the analytical part of us that deals with meaning and greater thought. Speed reading is all about changing that routing such that the association of meaning happens via a more direct path, bypassing the speech centers. The result is much higher throughput. That's one small example of the things that will be possible when we can image better.
So then, building a model, applying it, testing, then backward inferring is where the state of things is. IMHO, this qualifies it as an art as much as it is a science. Not always repeatable, due to the models being what they are. On the other hand, positive correlations are above the statistical noise. In some cases, well above it, and that's something we consider established and we build on.
One very interesting thing about the metaphors is they are necessary for two minds to interact in this way. There must be common ground, and in fact that's the first thing I seek when engaging somebody on this level. For any meaningful discussion to occur --real conversation, where the potential for change exists, is common ground where the two are "connected". The subjects "grok" one another and the game begins!
Until such time as we have direct observation of the mind, where we can incorporate nomenclature, this is all we have. The adaptation of metaphors over time is an artifact of our technical progress as people, not some indication that the study is snake oil. The whole affair is kind of a forced path.
IMHO, this gets abused too. We've got some things classified as "mental disease" that really shouldn't be, and all there is to do with that is try to avoid it.
Look at the number of kids taking what I consider to be quite potent psychotropic drugs and wonder whether or not we've crossed an ethical line. (I think we have, actually)
The interesting thing about psychological metaphors is that they change over time, according to the latest technology.... hydraulics.... telephone systems.... computers.
So true! Which is an important point for any AI student to appreciate. The metaphor of a computer or algorithm might go only so far toward real solutions to AI problems.
Leon said...
Your "creative flash" is probably the result of associations being made in long-term memory, which take time to develop.
But doesn't that beg the question: who or what is making those associations? and who or what in the mind is taking time to develop those associations? The creative flash is so bizarre because it happens without conscious awareness - there is no step-by-step long hard slog through all the rules and regulations of the universe: incredibly sophisticated ideas just pop into the creator's head. My point is that there are mental structures (layers or whatever) that have different functions, but oddly only one (which I'll call the ego here) has the property of self-awareness, a sense of who I am. I'm not sure that's evidence of an ego the way a photograph of a planet might be considered evidence, but unless you're telling me that every idea you've ever had came to you via step-by-step execution of a conscious algorithm, I think you would have to agree that the mind operates on various levels and sometimes the most sophisticated products of our minds are not products of conscious, self-aware executive functions.
But doesn't that beg the question: who or what is making those associations? and who or what in the mind is taking time to develop those associations? The creative flash is so bizarre because it happens without conscious awareness - there is no step-by-step long hard slog through all the rules and regulations of the universe: incredibly sophisticated ideas just pop into the creator's head. My point is that there are mental structures (layers or whatever) that have different functions, but oddly only one (which I'll call the ego here) has the property of self-awareness, a sense of who I am. I'm not sure that's evidence of an ego the way a photograph of a planet might be considered evidence, but unless you're telling me that every idea you've ever had came to you via step-by-step execution of a conscious algorithm, I think you would have to agree that the mind operates on various levels and sometimes the most sophisticated products of our minds are not products of conscious, self-aware executive functions.
Personally, I think we give much too much credit to "mind" and overlook the possibility that it is not "mind" at all, but the thing from which mind arises, that gives us some of these creative flashes.· Mind doesn't arise from just anything - mind arises from being.· Can it be said that what we identify as mind is actually a much smaller subset of the capabilities inherent in the totality of our being?· Of course, my bias is obvious here... :-)
@potatohead:· I am also a magician and mentalist·- have been for a long time.· So long in fact, that I'm the national webmaster for the Society of American Magicians:·http://www.magicsam.com/···· I recognize the connection between all these things here.· A great magician by the name of Eugene Burger wrote, together with Robert E. Neale, a great book entitled "Magic & Meaning" which has been my guiding philosophy in performing magic effects for people.· There's that moment when the mind witnesses the seemingly impossible, and simply stops for a second.· In that instant, the spectators themselves are in the most magical of states...·· Magic is not in teh props, or the hands of the magician - it is within the mind of the observer, as they say... :-)
@Leon - If acupuncture works solely because of the placebo effect, why is it effective on animals? This includes horses, cattle, cats, dogs, and birds. The point locations have to be adjusted for the very different anatomy involved, but that investigative work has been done.
Interestingly, one of the acupuncture channels (Bladder) parallels the spine, starts on the head near the eye and ends on the foot. There's a very nice photo presented by a veterinarian at an acupuncture conference I attended showing a horse being treated with an acupuncture point on the Bladder channel on the hind foot and there's a narrow tuft of hair standing up all along where the bladder channel is found on the horse, all the way up the leg, back and neck to where it's lost in the hair around the ears. There's no known nervous system structure that corresponds to this, yet here's a coordinated reflex action that directly corresponds to the acupuncture model. There are other published research studies showing very specific physiologic responses that correspond to the traditional use of certain acupuncture points.
@potatohead and xanatos - I've seen videos of surgery performed using hypnosis as the sole anesthesia including facial severe acne ablation (essentially taking a wire brush carefully to the face), gall bladder removal (the old way - with a big incision) and arthroscopic shoulder and knee surgery. There was a surgery team at the University of Minnesota that specialized in this (hypnotic anesthesia) for many years for patients where conventional anesthesia was contraindicated. The mind is a powerful thing.
Leon said...
There isn't any such thing as "mind", just a brain. Associations and other functions of long-term memory develop by the interconnection of neurons.
Leon
There's no such thing as a circuit, just wires.
There's no such thing as atoms, only quarks.
There's no such thing as a transistor, only N-doped silicon and P-doped silicon.
There's no such thing as Saturn's rings, only rocks.
Yeah, right.· There really are circuits, atoms, transistors, Saturn's rings, and minds.
Comments
I think this is the heart of the matter. I'd bet the human ego, or a conscious exercise of willpower, is somehow at odds with these phenomena. That is why I suggested computer science "personalities" have this conversation with artistic personalities (good ones, not posers). Artists appear to have access to perceptual "data" that is less processed, somehow less filtered than your average non-artist, and this lack of filtration is what allows them to draw and paint, for example. It's not that artists necessarily have better coordination or eyesight, it's that they can see things others can't because "their shields are down" (to use a Trekkie phrase). The shield, in this case, is the ego. Often, the mental state that allows artists to do their thing is described as self-less, ego-less, expansive, oceanic, mystical, perhaps somewhat similar to what was earlier mentioned about the states of mind experienced by people during war, sports, etc.
Personally, I suspect telepathy is possible. What really baffles me, however, is why evolution would favor the development of an ego over the development of a capability that, at first glance, would appear to give a creature an overwhelming survival advantage. Then again, perhaps we all use it to some extent but we aren't conscious of doing so. Perhaps our egos wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that there are factors involved in our daily decision making that we (our egos) don't have complete control of.
The bottom line is that we don't know how a mindless lump of matter can give rise to a sentient, self-aware lively lump of matter, so we all stand at the foot of a very large, very mysterious mountain of unknowns.
My newbie two cents worth.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
Post Edited (Leon) : 9/6/2009 7:54:57 PM GMT
Post Edited (Mike Green) : 9/6/2009 7:57:18 PM GMT
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
My take is that we have clear evidence for "action at a distance". So, I won't rule out these things. I just qualify them as noted in my posts above. IMHO, there is as much potential for real science in this realm as there is anywhere else, including Intelligence.
Frankly, both camps are filled with nut-bag crack pot, snake oil types that make the whole affair difficult. This makes actual progress difficult, and I think there is significant progress to be made.
In my posts above, I outlined the inference approach to making progress in these kinds of things. I think that warrants some greater consideration, given we are doing exactly that in theoretical physics. There isn't a lot of difference between that and psychology, where an ego isn't any more viable than a multi-dimensional string is.
(I think we will find Wolfram's automata theories very interesting over time)
I'm going to put something else out here too. Contraversial, but why not?
There is truth and there is understanding. Some rational types are going to ask, "what's the difference?" Here is is:
With truth, we can connect the facts we know to be true back to our pool of known, established truths. We don't have very many of those, so this is difficult as all get out. Be that as it may, it then is possible to derive the fact from these things and "prove" it. So far so good. That yields understanding.
Then we have the inference and modeling approach. Here's the kicker:
Understanding only requires a model that is consistent with and predictive of the dynamics being modeled.
Is that "true"? Who knows?
It is however, "understanding".
In my life, as I contributed above, I find it very helpful to do this modeling, and re-modeling as I have new experiences. I understand a fair number of things, and am able to cope with my world and leverage what I know to my benefit. I am absolutely not in any state of denial about whether or not that understanding consists of real truths, and as such, simply operate in a fashion where unknowns boil down to probabilities and risk.
People who grok this difference can accomplish amazing things, or at the least, navigate this world with some measure of confidence and success. I believe they are some of the best researchers too, because the inhibition that comes from a strong dependence on the strictly known rational diminishes the creative force that gets us to new places and technology.
While you are all chewing on that one, I've got to mention the self-definition as an example of this in direct practice that I have found extremely effective in dealing with many people issues. Is the following model strictly "true"? I don't know the answer to that. Is it effective? Absolutely.
Enjoy:
At conception the mind is whole. The self is pure. The potential to reason is uninhibited.
Self-definitions can be internal or external.
An example of an external self-definition of self is the things you have, money you make, things you know, reputation, etc...
An example of an internal self-definition is being happy about your gender, or noting the advantages your body has for your reasons, not others.
These are connected to lies and falsehoods. A lie is a falsehood with intent.
There is also conviction. Conviction is an affirmation of will that a particular belief is true, while realizing the unknown state of it.
Minds are at risk if they base their definition of self worth off of external things, and if they confuse conviction with truth, and here is why:
Imagine the whole mind either lying to itself, or accepting something that should be expressed by conviction as truth.
Now that mind is compartmentalized. There is the whole mind, and then there is the sub-set of the mind that has to manage the falsehood or lie. For each motion of this type, the mind is further fragmented and potential to reason and realize a healthy, strong definition of self-worth is lost.
(this is how brainwashing is done, BTW)
When this mind encounters some new material for consideration, said material may or may not invoke the compartments. If it does, reason is impure, compromised and the result of analysis is not provable.
If the mind defines it's self worth in terms of these things, there is a real, personal interest in maintaining the "true" status of these things, and failure in this, or to be recognized in this breeds tension that will manifest as harmful behaviors. Fear, anger, loathing, hate, denial, etc...
So that's it. The potatohead theory of self and reason with respect to the health of the mind.
Your value is what you think it is. If you allow others to define that, your healthy mind and your potential is at risk, or diminished.
A great many things in this world are simply not known absolutely. For all those things where this is true, we make choices. Choices of faith and we balance those against our experience and establish conviction.
eg: Somebody believes in a deity, and harbors a strong belief -vs- somebody who has crossed the line on conviction into acceptance as truth.
The former will be able to rationally discuss anything, without their faith or self threatened. The latter cannot, as their self and their faith is directly threatened.
Lots of war and death has occured due to this.
So then, coming back around full circle. The psychic phenoman being discussed here is something poorly understood --as poor as the intelligence is.
I sense tension on this thread already. Some of you have made some personal investment in the idea that you are right, and it does not matter what the reasons are, only that it has happened.
Rather than go down that road, isn't it much better to simply understand the choices others have made and remain secure in your own?
I sure think so, and I've tried to detail why I think that's the right thing to do. Your very potential to reason and your health of mind is at stake.
Carry on!
Edit: I will add that as a younger person, I was subjected to some very serious dogma. Essentially brainwashing. At 17, I walked away from all of it. At sometime in my early 20's, I came upon the realization I just posted above. To test it, I challenged every single self worth definition I could think of and tracked it back to the source, then defined it as either truth, or conviction. Where there were choices, I chose and moved on. Took about 10 years, but at the end of that, I found my mind whole enough (nobody is perfect), tension gone, and my ability to consider new things very uninhibited. I have no investment in whether or not something is true or not. Where I find new truths, they get considered, and if that changes a choice I made, or causes a model to be updated, tossed, or reconsidered, then it happens. I am simply better for the discussion and new information.
I have passed along that theory of mind to others, who have been able to break the dogma, figure out who they are, and be much better for it. So, it works! I've not had anybody fail, and when I work through it with them, there is a process that is repeatable and productive. My wife and I work with problem kids. I can take this, ask them questions, do some things with them, understand some of where their self-worth problems are, then take them to a place where they can choose for their reasons, be strong in that, and grow forward normally. Have done it many, many times.
This is understanding. I have no idea whether or not the model of the mind, where it's fragmented like that is true or not. I would like to though. If / when our science gets there to a higher degree, I'll welcome that much like the craftsman welcomes technology to improve on their craft.
On the other hand, had I not been willing to model and infer, I may well have not been able to sort things out, or would have spent a lot of money on others to sort them out.
I will end with the idea that we just don't know as much as we think we know, and that can be very, very limiting as it can be very, very dangerous. It all cuts both ways, IMHO.
--->the danger is mitigated by our known science and by sharing experiences and being willing to question and by not having personal investments in the outcome of these things.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Post Edited (potatohead) : 9/6/2009 8:54:03 PM GMT
@potatohead - Sorry for running with your comments in a different, but related direction. They resonated with a general notion that I have that we have much to learn from anomalous experiences. We can't necessarily take them at face value (as explained by those experiencing them), but we can't dismiss them nor "shoehorn" them into our existing models if they don't quite fit. It's these anomalies that teach us how the universe works or appears to work and sometimes they also "turn the world on it's ear". Quantum mechanics is one major example.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4508597.stm
I think that there are far more properly conducted studies showing no benefits over placebo, than there are showing benefits. Most of the latter have been reported as having been very poorly designed. One widely reported one only had 14 subjects in a randomised design:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4493011.stm
The former had over 300 subjects.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
Post Edited (Leon) : 9/6/2009 9:50:47 PM GMT
My personal belief is that the state of our current science is not inclusive. IMHO, we are as likely to discover we have it nearly wrapped up as we are to discover an entire branch of understanding has eluded us.
No apology necessary. This thread is just fun. Lots of stuff coming out of the ordinary wood work, and I think it's highly entertaining and educational. I posted the book I did to support you in your view on these things, BTW. It is sometimes that something works because the subject wants it to work. There are other times when some interactions we were unaware of are in play.
I read somewhere that light photons are a likely source of internal communication for our bodies! Didn't go deep into it, but I saw a headline and just wondered at that.
@leon: One drug and alcohol treatment facility, where my wife used to work, uses many different holistic disciplines to treat the symptoms of addiction, and intense one on one "discussion" to deal with the habit side of things. BTW: Those discussions fairly closely model what I posted above. The potency of one mind directly challenging another with earnest advocacy cannot be underestimated. I've got the scars and success stories to prove it both personally, and with many who I have taken the time and attention to work with. Not a professional thing for me at all, just to be clear. But, if somebody needs some raw, honest conversation, I can do that. It might hurt too, but that's all part of the process.
There exists herbal treatments for withdrawal far more effective and less damaging than most of the commercial substitutes, as another kind of example I think is very relevant these days. Often, our science is biased by our economics. The producers of some maintenance treatments, whose addiction and tolerance potential significantly exceeds the drug they seek to break the habit on, simply would lose a ton if the herbal treatment were to see wider use.
Likely result: It will be banned, or marginalized because of this. The status quo is criminal, if you ask me, yet it's established good practice to go down this road. Money drives that, and can corrupt science as sure as less than rational ideas can. You can go down the list of fairly potent natural substances and see this in action all over the place.
Given these dynamics, I think it's fair to say we don't give these methods a fair shake.
As for the acupuncture, this is one of the "if the subject says it works" then it works as far as pain relief goes. All things considered, there is some merit to that, depending on the source of the pain, and what it is indicating. Clearly one would not want to treat a cancer that way, but a recurring pain of some kind, not linked to a medical diagnosis? Absolutely.
I think I'll follow this for a bit. There have been some surprising opinions aired here, and I enjoy knowing a little about my friends here. [noparse]:)[/noparse]
I just changed the title. Let's have some robust and entertaining discussion amongst ourselves. Why not? It's a holiday weekend. Just keep it civil. The idea is to let some stuff out that you think others might see some value in --even if it's just entertainment value.
We have an interesting crowd it seems. Love it!
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Post Edited (potatohead) : 9/6/2009 9:53:51 PM GMT
Have any of the studies showing favourable results for acupuncture over placebo been replicated?
Some people even stick needles in themselves - self-acupuncture. I suffer from neuritis affecting the skin at the top of my right foot, it can be very painful, but I only get it every few days. I might try sticking pins in myself when it flares up again.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter if acupuncture works via a placebo effect, if people feel better after treatment.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
Post Edited (Leon) : 9/6/2009 11:19:53 PM GMT
Leon,
maybe I'm wrong about this, but to me your question seems to imply that the placebo effect by itself is something to be dismissed as mere delusion or an error in judgement of some kind, yet as I see it, the placebo effect by itself is one of those anomalous phenomena. Obviously the placebo effect does not work all the time but if it were not a "real" effect, then clinical trials would not bother to measure their drug efficacy against it. So to ask whether or not something is shown to work "over" placebo might be missing a significant point of the discussion. After all, what rational explanation is there for the placebo effect? Is it not odd that some people can sometimes be tricked into curing their own illness?
By the way, a physician friend of mine did a demo on me with acupuncture some years ago. Of course it was not a double blind experiment, but without telling me in advance what I was going to experience, he was apparently able to turn my sympathetic nervous system on and off like flicking a switch. I was highly skeptical of the whole thing at first, but I now regard acupuncture as a respectable trade. To deepen my respect, I happened to witness some rural acupuncturists doing their thing in China years ago on the side of a dirt road. Villagers lined up to have their warts, etc. sliced off with razor blades, and I was stunned to see it all happening with very little blood being spilled, nor were the people even flinching. For them, it was all in a day's work.
As for hypnosis, a very sober dentist friend of mine once described to me a surgical operation he witnessed in which a woman, who could not tolerate anesthesia, had her personal medical hypnotist (whom she had worked with for years) place her under hypnosis. The surgical dentist then removed four of her teeth without using any pain killers whatsoever. Just to show the power of the power of suggestion, the hypnotist then commanded which tooth socket she should have bleed or not bleed. This was not part of some circus act. It was not a reality TV show trying to boost ratings and sell ad time. It was just a tool being used by the surgeons.
As for evidence concerning the existence of egos.... I know it's very hard having conversations concerning inner states when the language to describe those states is not well defined or agreed upon. But my experience is this: artistic people seem to readily understand what is meant by such "things" as egos and the subconscious, etc. while computer scientists, in my opinion, seem to have the hardest darn time understanding or accepting that such "things" are real. Perhaps I would even extend my "artistic personalty types" to creative personalities in general. Intuition, whether it be in the arts or sciences, plays a major role in bringing new ideas into the world. Yet many creative people will tell you that those ideas seemed to come from outside themselves, or bubble up from deep within, or to hit them like a flash. Obviously there are parts of their minds that are processing those creative ideas, and that creative processing is happening apart from what they sense as their normal "selves". So there is some kind of mental split taking place, some kind of division or layering of the mind - ego or whatever - call it whatever you will. I mean, if the mind is only one thing, then how can you explain the phenomenon of "the creative flash" or the name of a person being "just on the tip of your tongue"?
I've had many conversations about this sort of thing throughout my life, and I must say I'm most puzzled by how difficult it is for computer science people to "get" any of this. I'm not saying this to be derogatory, it's just that I suspect that the kind of people who are strongly drawn to computers have a particular psychological structure that often makes it hard for them to sense the layered complexity within themselves. I'm not saying that computer people are not creative, I'm just saying that they can't seem to appreciate how unusual their creative process sometimes is. And this is the reason you have dudes like Marvin Minsky (circa 1970's) think they can solve "the vision problem" over their summer vacations! Minsky, et al, back in those days simply had no idea of how complex the mind really is because, I'm guessing, they could not see into the depths of their own mind. They were, in my guessimation, stuck in the realm of their rational egotism. And they choked.
Anyway, I enjoy discussing this sort of thing, so I hope other forum members jump in, too. I'm a very cynical person and highly skeptical of almost any claim made by anyone, and if I met myself, I probably wouldn't believe half of what I have to say about any of this. So I'm cool with criticism and I really would like to hear more about how computer people view this topic because to me, as I stated above, it's one of the most baffling aspects of understanding our understanding of such phenomena.
sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/acupuncture/
Freud coined the terms id, ego and super-ego. His theory of behaviour was based on a mixture of ancient Jewish philosophy, the leading technology of the time - hydraulics - and his studies of neurotic middle-class ladies, with many of whom he was having affairs. No one has ever found any experimental evidence for the existence of his constructs.
The "tip of the tongue" phenomenon has been studied by psychologists. It is probably the result of a failed attempt at retrieval of a word from long-term memory with partial cues. It's easy to induce it in experimental subjects by presenting them with dictionary definitions of uncommon words.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
Post Edited (Leon) : 9/7/2009 11:52:41 AM GMT
The Placebo Effect means that there is a self-corrective, or self-healing mechanism present in the body that is capable, once switched on, of successfully restoring a state of health and vitality to the body that often times, drugs cannot accomplish. The placebo effect has been observed to cure conditions ranging from purely psychological manifestations, all the way up through cancer. So it appears that there is nothing that is actually out of the reach of placebo (except possibly for things like exposed bone fragments...
As an side note to this - for "full disclosure" as it were - I am a trained hypnotist (started in NLP back in the 80s, got into Ericksonian, got certifications in everything.... the usual track in the field). My daughter was interested in what she saw and heard me do - and I don't know if it had any effect on this or not - but she now has a Masters Degree in psychology. We have some great conversations around this topic frequently, but it still remains too "fuzzy and unspecified" for the mainstream field to publically view it with the wonder and amazement that I do. It's one of those things where - since it's not reproducable with a set of pre-set procuderes, then it's not reliable as a field of study for clinicians for the most part. Fortunatley there ARE folks who devote a great deal of study to this. Andrew Weil's book "Spontaneous Healing" offers some excellent insight into the mechanism. Hopefully someday soon "modern medicine" will find how to reliably activate this effect and turn it into the primary method of care for most everything!
Just wanted to chime in on the Placebo Effect... too amazing to ignore!
Dave
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
I think this topic is relevant to microprocessors because there are people on this forum interested in artificial intelligence and I think perspectives on human intelligence can provide clues to how to approach the AI problem - or at least recognize its limitations and map out its vast unknowns...
To Leon,
Yes, maybe the term "ego" was popularized by Freud some time ago and he is certainly an historical figure at which much fun can be poked. But the concept of an ego as part of the structure of the mind goes back probably thousands of years. I don't really know much about the Hindu philosophies, Vedic, etc, but at a glance such eastern perspectives seem to me to have invented/disclosed these concepts long before Freud ever lit a cigar. Of course, speaking in terms of layers or hydraulics or whatever is just using metaphors, but the use of metaphors is how we understand most things. An interesting book on metaphors is Metaphors We Live By, www.amazon.com/Metaphors-We-Live-George-Lakoff/dp/0226468011. Leon, I would be interested in your thoughts on how the "creative flash" can take place without the mind having a split of some sort that allows it to do very sophisticated processing without conscious involvement.
To xanatos,
welcome to this discussion! Hypnotism is a fascinating topic. My wife, who happens to be a scientist, got sucked into a stage show at a Renaissance Fair once upon a time, and to my astonishment made an absolute fool out of herself on stage before I could stop her. Near the end of the show, the hypnotist told his "victims" they were all trapped on a cold planet, etc. and at the end of the show, though my wife claims she remembered nothing of what happened, I was dumbfounded by how cold her skin had become. It took her nearly an hour to warm up again.
Milton Erickson once said something I have always loved: If a person has pain, and he can get them to pretend that their pain is gone - and they forget that they are pretending - for the rest of their lives....
@ElectricAye:· While I did learn something of the stage hypnosis aspect, I never delved that deeply into performance hypnosis beyond knowing the frame which is set that allows it to work in the manner it does.· Still, I have also seen that frame used to some amazing effect.· I've always worked in either therapeutic or enhancement modes.· Most of what I do with it now would be considered "extreme life coaching" :-)· I'm always in awe of what resources people have within them of which they are completely unconscious.· Part of the beauty of hypnosis for me is when people become aware of their own inherent·ocean of resources·through their unconscious surprising them with very powerful demonstrations that arise out of the middle of their daily lives like some sort of cosmic portal that just blows them away!· It can be a profoundly life changing event to have your unconscious "mind" establish a dialog that your conscious mind is capable of recognizing (or rather, incapable of dismissing or explaining away!)· It helps to pave the way for the normal communication pathways of the unconscious to become more conscious.· This process significantly helps to smooth out the rough spots in many people's lives.· It's a very rewarding process, for both the hypnotist and the hypnotee :-)
Dave
Post Edited (xanatos) : 9/7/2009 4:59:46 PM GMT
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
Leon,
Would you classify addiction as a disease? Or would you classify addiction as being "merely" a mental thing. If addiction is "merely a mental thing" and not based on physical processes, then you fall into a trap wherein mental processes are not linked to physical ones, the dualism argument. If mental processes are linked to physical processes and if the placebo effect can cure an addiction, then the placebo effect is real in the sense that it has physical effects. Yes?
There also is something to a person being convinced they are going to make it. When the mind surrenders, the body follows quickly. I think that's important too.
BTW: Addiction is the first thing I thought of when "not cure anything" was said. IMHO, addiction is a disease. Substances can change our chemistry creating both a mind and body dependence. (Both are physical, BTW --just thought I would clarify that) Placebos leverage the power of suggestion. For some, this power is great. For others it isn't. Depends on the level of self-awareness a given person has. Where it's high, I don't think the suggestion does any good, because they can and will vet it. For those where it's low, they can't vet it and are susceptible to suggestion. Where that's true, the suggestion can act. That's my take on it anyway.
@Dave, I know several certified Magicians. The art of it is rapidly growing clinical. Check this reference out:
http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nrn2473.html
My interest in psychology boils down to the childhood realization that we do not live in the moment, but just beyond it. There is a latency between when the event happens and our perception of it is realized for our consideration, which takes more time depending on our mode. Ordinary mode is the longest, the "trance" mode, where thought is action is the shortest I know of.
We employ many subtle tricks to compress reality into something we can manage a real time perception and interaction with. It's all amazing really, if the amount of information and relative short period of time are taken into consideration.
Magicians exploit that for our entertainment, of course --but their research into the how and why their exploitations work, is educational and highly technical.
Arguably, the field of physics overlaps the field of Psychology and Anthropology in that how people work, what they are, and how they behave is a fundamental thing, in a way not unlike physics is about deriving the fundamental things and modeling how they work.
One primal goal many of us have, whether or not we realize it, is transcending that latency to be, if only for a small time, in the moment where experience is perception, much like thought is action for the skilled martial arts instructor, brought to light earlier.
As a kid, I was once on the stage before a play we were building up to do. The small school I went to had a very nice grand piano sitting in a hall with great acoustics. At quiet times, a note could be played and heard to fill the room, move, fade, then be gone. The realization that the note is released and gone before I realize it, defined latency for me, and has been a topic of interest ever since.
Psychology is interesting to me, simply for the observation that people can be changed in both positive and negative ways by mere conversation. A mind challenging another mind can and does have an impact beyond mere emotion. How we think, why we think it has significant implications on our well being, as I noted above.
Some understanding of these things brings the potential to be well, and to leverage that understanding to get closer to and get along with people. It can also be used to bad effect in manipulating and exploiting people, and there is your classic good and bad, yin and yang in play.
Our psychology varies over time too. Young people exhibit a different set of elements than adults do. The need to "play" being a primary one. As I age, I feel this one slipping at time and I grow concerned and fight it. The reason why is perception and understanding. When we are kids, anything is possible and we can look at the world in wonder and "grok" it in the full definition of that word. "New" things trigger thoughts, models, images, ideas and those are valuable, if only for the musing of them. Getting older means fewer and fewer "new" things, and that part of our mind atrophies. So, I believe in "use it or lose it", and will simply play and wonder, and maybe that comes back full circle to my first coupla posts.
Inhibition is a crippling thing, if left unchecked. Once in a while, if you don't make an active effort to lower it and just experience a little, you will find you have finally aged and just can't.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Post Edited (potatohead) : 9/7/2009 5:13:27 PM GMT
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
The interesting thing about psychological metaphors is that they change over time, according to the latest technology. Freud based his theory on hydraulics, next came telephone systems, and then computers.
Your "creative flash" is probably the result of associations being made in long-term memory, which take time to develop.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
"bad" is a relative term.
Withdrawls are "bad". Now comes the suggestion: Are they so bad as to be something one cannot endure, or not? There's your potential for positive treatment right there. If the subject is convinced they are getting help, then "bad" being the subjective thing it is, ends up being "not so bad", and the enhanced will that comes with the suggestion empowers the person to endure long enough for the body to do what it does to heal.
This is not a snake oil thing. It's applied psychology, and IMHO, something worth greater consideration than it's so often given.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Yes again to the metaphors. That is all we have, until we achieve a state of technology such that we can monitor a working brain in real time, much like we do a circuit today. With the tech we do have, it has been shown that people read by seeing a word, visually establishing it is a word. That gets routed through speech centers, so we "hear" the word, then we move that to the analytical part of us that deals with meaning and greater thought. Speed reading is all about changing that routing such that the association of meaning happens via a more direct path, bypassing the speech centers. The result is much higher throughput. That's one small example of the things that will be possible when we can image better.
So then, building a model, applying it, testing, then backward inferring is where the state of things is. IMHO, this qualifies it as an art as much as it is a science. Not always repeatable, due to the models being what they are. On the other hand, positive correlations are above the statistical noise. In some cases, well above it, and that's something we consider established and we build on.
One very interesting thing about the metaphors is they are necessary for two minds to interact in this way. There must be common ground, and in fact that's the first thing I seek when engaging somebody on this level. For any meaningful discussion to occur --real conversation, where the potential for change exists, is common ground where the two are "connected". The subjects "grok" one another and the game begins!
Until such time as we have direct observation of the mind, where we can incorporate nomenclature, this is all we have. The adaptation of metaphors over time is an artifact of our technical progress as people, not some indication that the study is snake oil. The whole affair is kind of a forced path.
IMHO, this gets abused too. We've got some things classified as "mental disease" that really shouldn't be, and all there is to do with that is try to avoid it.
Look at the number of kids taking what I consider to be quite potent psychotropic drugs and wonder whether or not we've crossed an ethical line. (I think we have, actually)
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Post Edited (potatohead) : 9/7/2009 5:36:18 PM GMT
So true! Which is an important point for any AI student to appreciate. The metaphor of a computer or algorithm might go only so far toward real solutions to AI problems.
But doesn't that beg the question: who or what is making those associations? and who or what in the mind is taking time to develop those associations? The creative flash is so bizarre because it happens without conscious awareness - there is no step-by-step long hard slog through all the rules and regulations of the universe: incredibly sophisticated ideas just pop into the creator's head. My point is that there are mental structures (layers or whatever) that have different functions, but oddly only one (which I'll call the ego here) has the property of self-awareness, a sense of who I am. I'm not sure that's evidence of an ego the way a photograph of a planet might be considered evidence, but unless you're telling me that every idea you've ever had came to you via step-by-step execution of a conscious algorithm, I think you would have to agree that the mind operates on various levels and sometimes the most sophisticated products of our minds are not products of conscious, self-aware executive functions.
@potatohead:· I am also a magician and mentalist·- have been for a long time.· So long in fact, that I'm the national webmaster for the Society of American Magicians:· http://www.magicsam.com/···· I recognize the connection between all these things here.· A great magician by the name of Eugene Burger wrote, together with Robert E. Neale, a great book entitled "Magic & Meaning" which has been my guiding philosophy in performing magic effects for people.· There's that moment when the mind witnesses the seemingly impossible, and simply stops for a second.· In that instant, the spectators themselves are in the most magical of states...·· Magic is not in teh props, or the hands of the magician - it is within the mind of the observer, as they say... :-)
Thanks for the link, more to look into!
Dave
·
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
Interestingly, one of the acupuncture channels (Bladder) parallels the spine, starts on the head near the eye and ends on the foot. There's a very nice photo presented by a veterinarian at an acupuncture conference I attended showing a horse being treated with an acupuncture point on the Bladder channel on the hind foot and there's a narrow tuft of hair standing up all along where the bladder channel is found on the horse, all the way up the leg, back and neck to where it's lost in the hair around the ears. There's no known nervous system structure that corresponds to this, yet here's a coordinated reflex action that directly corresponds to the acupuncture model. There are other published research studies showing very specific physiologic responses that correspond to the traditional use of certain acupuncture points.
@potatohead and xanatos - I've seen videos of surgery performed using hypnosis as the sole anesthesia including facial severe acne ablation (essentially taking a wire brush carefully to the face), gall bladder removal (the old way - with a big incision) and arthroscopic shoulder and knee surgery. There was a surgery team at the University of Minnesota that specialized in this (hypnotic anesthesia) for many years for patients where conventional anesthesia was contraindicated. The mind is a powerful thing.
There's no such thing as atoms, only quarks.
There's no such thing as a transistor, only N-doped silicon and P-doped silicon.
There's no such thing as Saturn's rings, only rocks.
Yeah, right.· There really are circuits, atoms, transistors, Saturn's rings, and minds.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
· -- Carl, nn5i@arrl.net
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
Post Edited (Leon) : 9/7/2009 7:09:09 PM GMT
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!