Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I am a Behavior Analyst (i.e. Behavioral Psychologist), behavior analysis is also referred to as learning theory, as such mentalist descriptions and similar concepts are discounted mainly due to lack of evidence for such items. Given this, and the seeming lack of understanding of the behaviorist's stance, I have included a link to what I believe is one of the best overviews of our objections to a cognitive/mentalist approach to psychology. Besides physiological psychology, Behavior Analysis is the most solid school in psychology, with research as solid as studies as solid as anything found in any of the "hard" sciences.

Why I am not a cognitive psychologist

If you have questions or comments I will attempt to respond as soon as I am able.

*turning the other cheek*

Originally posted by Mindship
*turning the other cheek* This thread was not intended as an insult to you I mainly created it due to what I believe is a general lack of understanding as to the general objections behavior analysis has to the mentalist and cognitive explanations for behavior. The need for such a response should be taken as a compliment, the mentalist and/or cognitive school of thought obviously has a much stronger presence among the non-psychological community. All the same, perhaps I did not phrase my initial post in a proper and more considerate manner with respect for the cognitive/mentalist schools of thought.

Originally posted by Mindship
*turning the other cheek*

Cognitive is good........but honestly, if you see yourself as what you really are...ie god, then you shouldn't have any problems..........all is ok......this life is just an illusion, and vacation, a stop off from the real reality.

No, I didn't smoke any pot.

Wow this thread reeks with the smell of who gives a crap

Originally posted by Regret
This thread was not intended as an insult to you
I know. I would've included a smilie to make that more clear, but at the time I posted, the computer I was using wouldn't allow me that luxury. I like to think that you and I have spoken/debated enough where we can post our views, knowing no insults are intended.

...ah...there we go.

I'd prefer a cognitive behavior thrapist.

Originally posted by Regret
This thread was not intended as an insult to you I mainly created it due to what I believe is a general lack of understanding as to the general objections behavior analysis has to the mentalist and cognitive explanations for behavior. The need for such a response should be taken as a compliment, the mentalist and/or cognitive school of thought obviously has a much stronger presence among the non-psychological community. All the same, perhaps I did not phrase my initial post in a proper and more considerate manner with respect for the cognitive/mentalist schools of thought.


So speaks the person who beleives there is no mind, but still beleives in a soul and afterlife








Despite all of your rationalizations, I am yet not convinced that your convictions of Behavioral Study are truly syncretized with your Mormon beliefs.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So speaks the person who beleives there is no mind, but still beleives in a soul and afterlife








Despite all of your rationalizations, I am yet not convinced that your convictions of Behavioral Study are truly syncretized with your Mormon beliefs. I don't really care, this thread is not directed at you in any way. There is a general lack of understanding concerning behavior analysis in the population at large. Despite this, your comments require a response, imo.

Also, I do not believe science conflicts in any manner with religious belief.

Mormons believe the soul is all there is, it is the body and spirit combination that is a living being. The body does nothing that the spirit is not a part. There is no aspect of the two that can in any manner be distinguished from the other while one is living. The idea that the spirit in some way is separate from the body is laughable from such a stance, when a person exhibits any behavior, one is seeing the soul behave, living is a state that a Mormon refers to as being a soul. This in no way infers some "mind" or any other interal reference, as a typical reference to soul or spirit infers. The body and spirit are what one sees when one looks at another, there is no supernatural "aura" or other non physical material, a living being is the body and spirit. Spirit will never be discovered and thought of as "spirit ", spirit is the energy, the spark, that causes life, or rather the functioning of cells that keeps the body living. There is absolutely no conflict between Mormon doctrine and a behavioral perspective, there is conflict between the typical Christian view, that you cannot get past, and a behavioral perspective. A behavioral perspective is, imo, more in line with Mormon theology than the cognitive. The idea of a dualistic nature, as implied by a mentalist perspective and/or belief in a "mind", reduces accountability of the individual for his actions. Statements such as, "I could not control myself", in other words "My body did it, my spirit didn't want to", gain credibility in a dualistic paradigm. Behavior Analysis denies the probability of a dualistic nature, it lays responsibility for our behavior at our feet as we respond differentially to varying events and stimuli in the environment, at least initially, once a response gains a strong history of reinforcement, the environment gains control over the individual. Given this, patterns of response become predictable.

The possibility of an afterlife is absolutely irrelevant to a study of behavior, and so I will not address it here.

If you would like to discuss religious matters with me, go ahead, but the proper place for such discussion is in the religion forum, personally I believe your post to be a flame.

If I may, I think what Regret is saying is this...

First of all, when applied to a problem a person is having, a behavioral analysis approach simplifies the "problem equation" by focusing on observable, measurable phenomena (behavior). In this context, introducing nonempirical variables (mental states) can be viewed as unnecessary and complicating. Regret is not saying that they positively don't exist, just that, at the very least, they are not necessary for addressing a problem.

Secondly, I believe his definition of spirit/soul is basically the dynamism of the living body, the interplay of energy both within the body and between the body and environment, and again, this energy, this dynamism is open to being observed and measured, so this fits in very nicely with the behavioral stance.

As a psychologist with a transpersonal-cognitive preference, I often find a behavioral analysis approach quite effective, especially if thoughts themselves are treated as behaviors. Even if I don't agree with the philosophy, behavior analysis is an excellent platform upon which a person with a problem can gain an effective/objective perspective on what's ailing them.

Regret, I hope I did your POV some justice (I'm just noticing your post above this one only now, so forgive me if I'm repeating or misstating something).

Originally posted by Mindship
If I may, I think what Regret is saying is this...

First of all, when applied to a problem a person is having, a behavioral analysis approach simplifies the "problem equation" by focusing on observable, measurable phenomena (behavior). In this context, introducing nonempirical variables (mental states) can be viewed as unnecessary and complicating. Regret is not saying that they positively don't exist, just that, at the very least, they are not necessary for addressing a problem.

Secondly, I believe his definition of spirit/soul is basically the dynamism of the living body, the interplay of energy both within the body and between the body and environment, and again, this energy, this dynamism is open to being observed and measured, so this fits in very nicely with the behavioral stance.

As a psychologist with a transpersonal-cognitive preference, I often find a behavioral analysis approach quite effective, especially if thoughts themselves are treated as behaviors. Even if I don't agree with the philosophy, behavior analysis is an excellent platform upon which a person with a problem can gain an effective/objective perspective on what's ailing them.

Regret, I hope I did your POV some justice (I'm just noticing your post above this one only now, so forgive me if I'm repeating or misstating something). You were fairly accurate. Sometimes the behavioral concepts are so ingrained in me now that description of complex aspects are difficult to articulate in a manner that is entirely understood by those without the knowledge of the simple aspects.

As to the soul concept, the body that we observe is the soul, body and spirit are in no manner separate, they are one living soul. but overall, your assessment is fairly accurate.

I do not deny the possibility that the "mind" may exist, but it may also not exist. Given that adequate information is present, such that reference to "mind" is unnecessary and there is no mandate to reference it. I do doubt the existence of a "mind" separate in any manner from the physiological neural functioning we are beginning to observe and somewhat understand.

Originally posted by Regret
I don't really care, this thread is not directed at you in any way.


Oh, I thought it was





Originally posted by Regret
There is a general lack of understanding concerning behavior analysis in the population at large. Despite this, your comments require a response, imo.





I don't see why you should have a problem explaining your knowledge to the skeptical...





Originally posted by Regret
Also, I do not believe science conflicts in any manner with religious belief.



Because you ignore the scientific fact that contradicts religion, while paying much attention to the scientific fact that supports religion. We've been through this before...




Originally posted by Regret
Mormons believe the soul is all there is, it is the body and spirit combination that is a living being. The body does nothing that the spirit is not a part.



So if there is no mind, what realm does the accumulation of thought, imagination, will, desire, and conciousness exist within ?



Originally posted by Regret
The possibility of an afterlife is absolutely irrelevant to a study of behavior, and so I will not address it here.



It is irrelevant to the study of behavior, yet you incorporate it within your realm of knowledge and belief. That's my point. Two areas of study that have nothing to do with the other, but as a scientific Mormon you willfully combine fact and fiction to support what you choose to beleive.

Yes or No ?



Originally posted by Regret
If you would like to discuss religious matters with me, go ahead, but the proper place for such discussion is in the religion forum, personally I believe your post to be a flame.



I don't care what you beleive it to be.

Answer the questions, or don't answer them. Your choice....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I don't see why you should have a problem explaining your knowledge to the skeptical... I have no issue explaining it. I have issue responding to religious questions in a thread I started to explain behavior analysis principles and views.Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Because you ignore the scientific fact that contradicts religion, while paying much attention to the scientific fact that supports religion. We've been through this before...No, there is no scientific fact that contradicts religion. I created a thread requesting some evidence of such, I received none. The closest anyone came to providing such was a statement that the absence of evidence of deity was sufficient to discount the possibility of deity existing, which is only a logical inference and not a scientific fact.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So if there is no mind, what realm does the accumulation of thought, imagination, will, desire, and Consciousness exist within ? Accumulation of thought - I am unsure as to what you are referring to here. Thought is the merely neural processing.Imagination - novel responses, there is no need for some "mind" for imagination's existence.Will - The level of probability of behavior given adversity in performing said behavior, again no need for mentalist reference.Desire - A descriptive term referring to any point in a behavioral chain, but particularly the physiological setting event that initiates the chain. leading to the possibility of attaining the "desired" reinforcer, only existent if previous exposure to the reinforcer has occurred or some form of vicarious learning has occurred.Consciousness - Simply the experience of neural activity.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
It is irrelevant to the study of behavior, yet you incorporate it within your realm of knowledge and belief. That's my point. Two areas of study that have nothing to do with the other, but as a scientific Mormon you willfully combine fact and fiction to support what you choose to beleive.

Yes or No ? I combine no fact and fiction. If you wish to attack my religious beliefs do so elsewhere.

From a behavioral perspective, if an afterlife exists, behavioral principles will exist there. It is possible, and highly probable, that what constitutes a reinforcer or punisher will differ from this existence though.

Originally posted by Regret
Accumulation of thought - I am unsure as to what you are referring to here. Thought is the merely neural processing.

I think you misunderstand what I actually asking...I tend to be unclear, so that's my own fault, not yours:


How does thought fit into Behavioral Psychology ? If you only pay attention to behavior patterns, and pretty much disregard concepts of the mind, which include thought, desire, etc. then where does thought actually fit it ?

My psychology teacher used to contradict himself back in college. He would say that actions and behaviors (along with speech) is all he pays attention to, and that thoughts, desires, motives, etc. don't mean jack sh*t....a very behavioral approach.

But at the same time he would argue that a Peadophile cannot change thier desires, the same way a standard Rapist or Serial Killer cannot change thier desires, and that we can ONLY contain them..as a method of stopping people like that from doing more damage.




Originally posted by Regret
Imagination - novel responses, there is no need for some "mind" for imagination's existence.

I imagine that there has to be something more than JUST neural impulses, physical reactions regarding chemical and electricity, responsible for:



Creativity

Passion

Dreams

Artistry

personal taste

bigotry

Etc.


A mind seems very necessary. So far, behavioral patterns being your only form of validation, seem more robotic than human. You beleive in something called Free Will, where does that apply ?

If we are simply physical beings, and the mind is nothing more than electric activity, and if only our actions count....then explain all of the above. Explain how we are any better than animals, plants, etc. if we simply are a result of physical aspects ?

And please don't say "soul" because I will start laughing....





Originally posted by Regret
Will - The level of probability of behavior given adversity in performing said behavior, again no need for mentalist reference.


I disagree AGAIN...what a surprise.

Just because i dont DO SOMETHING, doesn't mean I DON'T WANT too...

Just because i DO something, doesn't mean I WANTED TO......


I can have the will or desire to ask someone I admire out on a date...but never get to it. Does that mean I never had the will?








Originally posted by Regret
Desire - A descriptive term referring to any point in a behavioral chain, but particularly the physiological setting event that initiates the chain. leading to the possibility of attaining the "desired" reinforcer, only existent if previous exposure to the reinforcer has occurred or some form of vicarious learning has occurred.



Desire is independent of behavior, see my above example. Another example:

-Just because I sleep with women, does not mean I am heterosexual.

-Just because I never had a dog, doesn't mean I never wanted one

- Just because he never had sex, doesn't mean he never wanted to

- Just because he/she is a Virgin, doesn't mean he/she wants to be.....




Originally posted by Regret
Consciousness - Simply the experience of neural activity.



Some scientists refer to the Mind as the connection between neurons...that does not render the mind non-existant. It this is correct, it simply means the mind has a physical root (the same way X marksthespot explained how Love has a physical root)


And if Conciousness if simply the experience of neural activity, then what is the subconcious ? What is the unconcious ? Nueral activity still occurs during the sub and unconcious states...





I LOVE how we Switched roles Regret.....now it is you who is pushing scientific fact, and ME who is pushing philosophy

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I think you misunderstand what I actually asking...I tend to be unclear, so that's my own fault, not yours:

How does thought fit into Behavioral Psychology ? If you only pay attention to behavior patterns, and pretty much disregard concepts of the mind, which include thought, desire, etc. then where does thought actually fit it ?

My psychology teacher used to contradict himself back in college. He would say that actions and behaviors (along with speech) is all he pays attention to, and that thoughts, desires, motives, etc. don't mean jack sh*t....a very behavioral approach.

But at the same time he would argue that a Peadophile cannot change thier desires, the same way a standard Rapist or Serial Killer cannot change thier desires, and that we can ONLY contain them..as a method of stopping people like that from doing more damage.
Thought is the description of our perception of neural processing. "Mind" as I am referring to it is something beyond the physical, that you refer to later in your post. It is the clinging to the traditional "spirit" by those that are trying to separate from religion, imo. They have replaced "spirit", or other dualistic concept, with a "mind." I do not state that people do not think, I only state that thinking is merely the physiological process of neural activity, no more. Desires, and other mentalist concepts, are labels used, and once they are used they limit the scope of thought on the subject and possible external influence on the concepts labeled. Desires can be shifted. There are numerous studies in behavior analysis dealing with preference shift due to contingent reinforcement of other preferences.

In dealing with others, we have no means of discussing thought. There is no observable thing we can term "thought." When dealing with anyone aside from one's self thought cannot be considered because internal variables are not observable or manipulatable. Now, if I control the contingencies and the individuals behaviors change, then whatever a mentalist termed as thoughts etc. was changed, how could they prove otherwise? All that I can manipulate and alter is behavior, and behavior is the only means of assessment, so where are the assessment of some mental concept? There is none, we assessed a behavior. Where is the treatment of some mental concept? There is none, we treated a behavior. If there is a mind, there is no evidence of change in it, or even an initial state.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I imagine that there has to be something more than JUST neural impulses, physical reactions regarding chemical and electricity, responsible for:

Creativity

Passion

Dreams

Artistry

personal taste

bigotry

Etc. I doubt it. All of these are merely behaviors that have been shaped from an early age. Perhaps there was some physiological predisposition that led to one individual being more creative, passionate, artistic, etc. but the behavior was shaped. Levels of creativity has been shown to be controlled by reinforcement contingencies in the literature, the others can also be studied in a similar manner. Consider the terms you described, can any of these be observed or recognized without the behavioral component? Are they actually present with out the behavior? Are we not merely describing a behavior or the rate and propensity of a behavior?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
A mind seems very necessary. So far, behavioral patterns being your only form of validation, seem more robotic than human. You beleive in something called Free Will, where does that apply ?

If we are simply physical beings, and the mind is nothing more than electric activity, and if only our actions count....then explain all of the above. Explain how we are any better than animals, plants, etc. if we simply are a result of physical aspects ?

And please don't say "soul" because I will start laughing.... Why would you think man is in some way physiologically superior to an animal or a plant? We do have greater capability and a faster learning curve in most cases, but we are in no manner superior, only different in a manner that we hold of higher value. Free Will is a term used in error. We have the ability to act in a variety of ways at any given time, we have never been entirely "free", the environment and our history of experiences control most of the decisions we make. When two possible reinforcing behaviors are present at the same time, and both have the same degree of value to the individual, a choice is made based on preference, once that choice is made probability of the same choice being made increases, and so the environment gains control. If the choice was never presented, and only one option was available, it will gain preferential status due to that reinforcer gaining in value due to exposure. Free will is only the ability to initially choose between two behaviors that will probably result in equal reinforcers. Choice and freedom begin disappearing with the initial behaviors of the individual.


Will and wanting to do anything are not the same thing. My definition of the term will would fit with almost any cognitive psychologist's definition of the term with the absence of mentalist description added.

If you never do something, you did not desire it as much as the thing you did. If you have that initial physiological response that we term desire, the desire existed, you did do something, your neurons fired, you considered the behavior, and the chain was broken by a chain leading to something with a higher probability of reinforcement. I never stated the chain had to complete to have any portion of such a chain be considered desire.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Some scientists refer to the Mind as the connection between neurons...that does not render the mind non-existant. It this is correct, it simply means the mind has a physical root (the same way X marksthespot explained how Love has a physical root)


And if Conciousness if simply the experience of neural activity, then what is the subconcious ? What is the unconscious ? Nueral activity still occurs during the sub and unconscious states... If mind is merely the neural activity, then I can accept such a definition as accurate. Subconscious and unconscious, states that may or may not exist. It is like hypnosis, a change in brain wave pattern occurs, but does the individual do anything they do not want to do? Hypnosis requires a subject that "wants" to be hypnotized, the subject "wants" to participate in the activity that the hypnotist is suggesting. Neural activity during unconcious and subconscious states are merely aspects of neural activity in areas of the brain that do not produce what we term thought.

I believe the physical root to be all there is. Referring to the "mind" is typically a reference to something beyond the physical. I do not believe that an extra-physical "mind" exists, only the physical.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I LOVE how we Switched roles Regret.....now it is you who is pushing scientific fact, and ME who is pushing philosophy it is an odd experience

Originally posted by Regret
Thought is the description of our perception of neural processing. "Mind" as I am referring to it is something beyond the physical, that you refer to later in your post. It is the clinging to the traditional "spirit" by those that are trying to separate from religion, imo. They have replaced "spirit", or other dualistic concept, with a "mind." I do not state that people do not think, I only state that thinking is merely the physiological process of neural activity, no more. Desires, and other mentalist concepts, are labels used, and once they are used they limit the scope of thought on the subject and possible external influence on the concepts labeled. Desires can be shifted. There are numerous studies in behavior analysis dealing with preference shift due to contingent reinforcement of other preferences.


Please show me the studies where 100% success has been achieved in changing the desires/mentalities/tendencies/preferences of a peadophile, rapist, and serial killer.

IF all you can show me is a change in behavior due to containment, drugs, threats, or anything that infringes on the will and action of the patient, then I will disregard those cases as INVALID, since no sincere change in preference has been made.






Originally posted by Regret
In dealing with others, we have no means of discussing thought. There is no observable thing we can term "thought." When dealing with anyone aside from one's self thought cannot be considered because internal variables are not observable or manipulatable. Now, if I control the contingencies and the individuals behaviors change, then whatever a mentalist termed as thoughts etc. was changed, how could they prove otherwise? All that I can manipulate and alter is behavior, and behavior is the only means of assessment, so where are the assessment of some mental concept? There is none, we assessed a behavior. Where is the treatment of some mental concept? There is none, we treated a behavior. If there is a mind, there is no evidence of change in it, or even an initial state.


So because thought cannot be observed, it does not exist. And then you critisize one's argument that because God's existance cannot be proven, he doesn't exist.

You can treat a behavior yes. Anyone can. If I lock up my serial killing aunt in my basement, guess what? She wont kill no mo !

That's not exactly successful treatment in my perspective. Not to constantly bring up homosexuality again, but for the sake of this argument, excuse and regard my next example:

If a homosexual man refuses to have sex with other men because he has been threatened with death, had his penis amputated, is convinced that homosexuality will result in an eternity of torment, or anything which aims to inhibit his natural sexual desire....yet he still finds himself ATTRACTED to other men, he just doesn't engage in sex with them.....

then he was really "cured" was he ?



You may have put an end to his homosexual activity, but he is still homosexual if he has sexual or romantic attractions to other men.

That is not treatment.

Even if the methods are non-violent, or benevolent, if he is still attracted to other men...if he still undulges in homosexual fantasy...then he is not heterosexual.





Originally posted by Regret
I doubt it. All of these are merely behaviors that have been shaped from an early age. Perhaps there was some physiological predisposition that led to one individual being more creative, passionate, artistic, etc. but the behavior was shaped. Levels of creativity has been shown to be controlled by reinforcement contingencies in the literature, the others can also be studied in a similar manner. Consider the terms you described, can any of these be observed or recognized without the behavioral component? Are they actually present with out the behavior? Are we not merely describing a behavior or the rate and propensity of a behavior?


Since when is Creativity strictly a behavior ? If one thought up a masterpeice script in thier head, but never had the chance to turn it into a film production, does that render them non-creative somehow ?


Yes, any one of those things can EXIST without the behavior attached.

Again....I can have sex with all the women in the world. That does not make me "straight". The reasons behind what I did matter JUST AS MUCH as what I did itself...

Do you get it, or no ?



Another non-homo example:



Situation 1: I stab a woman to death, because I think she's ugly.

Situation 2: I stab a woman to death, because she just killed my mother.


Observable Behavior: I stabbed a woman to death.




Do the reasons or motives, desires NOT MATTER ? Are they irrelevant in the diagnosis of my mental/physiological faculties ? Does not one situation render me totally psychotic, while the other renders me temporarily insane ?






Originally posted by Regret
Why would you think man is in some way physiologically superior to an animal or a plant? We do have greater capability and a faster learning curve in most cases, but we are in no manner superior, only different in a manner that we hold of higher value. Free Will is a term used in error. We have the ability to act in a variety of ways at any given time, we have never been entirely "free", the environment and our history of experiences control most of the decisions we make. When two possible reinforcing behaviors are present at the same time, and both have the same degree of value to the individual, a choice is made based on preference, once that choice is made probability of the same choice being made increases, and so the environment gains control. If the choice was never presented, and only one option was available, it will gain preferential status due to that reinforcer gaining in value due to exposure. Free will is only the ability to initially choose between two behaviors that will probably result in equal reinforcers. Choice and freedom begin disappearing with the initial behaviors of the individual.





1) I never said we were superior. I asked you what separates us from animal and plant ? If all we have are electrical impulses, then what makes us human and them animal ?

2) You argue that Free Will is not entirely free here, but in the religion forums you argue that God gave us free will, and reward and punishment is just accordingly because what we do is entirely our own faults....

Contradicting yourself there buddy




Originally posted by Regret
Will and wanting to do anything are not the same thing. My definition of the term will would fit with almost any cognitive psychologist's definition of the term with the absence of mentalist description added.

DESIRE.....what is desire ?






Originally posted by Regret
If you never do something, you did not desire it as much as the thing you did.


Simply Untrue. I never become a professional baseball player..that doesn't mean I didn't desire it.

I never become a millionaire...that doesn't mean I didn't desire it.

I didn't become President...that doesn't mean I never desired it.


Desire is NOT just a behavior, and cannot be defined or measured through behavior...but it EXISTS.....







Originally posted by Regret
If you have that initial physiological response that we term desire, the desire existed, you did do something, your neurons fired, you considered the behavior, and the chain was broken by a chain leading to something with a higher probability of reinforcement. I never stated the chain had to complete to have any portion of such a chain be considered desire.



Just because you did not achieve does not mean you did not desire. I want to ask a guy out for example....because of my fear of his reaction, i never get to it...

The desire was still there...

No amount of Behavioral Analysis can determine whether or not I was attracted to him, or whether or not I desired relation with him (or how much or little I wanted it)










Originally posted by Regret
If mind is merely the neural activity, then I can accept such a definition as accurate. Subconscious and unconscious, states that may or may not exist. It is like hypnosis, a change in brain wave pattern occurs, but does the individual do anything they do not want to do? Hypnosis requires a subject that "wants" to be hypnotized, the subject "wants" to participate in the activity that the hypnotist is suggesting. Neural activity during unconcious and subconscious states are merely aspects of neural activity in areas of the brain that do not produce what we term thought.



Dreams come from the Subconcious. I suggest you take a course or two on that...


When you are asleep you are not concious, yet thought processes still occur...



Outer body experiences have been recorded while the person is UNCONCIOUS..... oh boy... this is a whole other ball field now, forgive me for jumping ahead.

Originally posted by Regret
I believe the physical root to be all there is. Referring to the "mind" is typically a reference to something beyond the physical. I do not believe that an extra-physical "mind" exists, only the physical.




So then there is NO SOUL....and no afterlife, and no Heaven or Hell

You can't have it both ways sonny....Either everything is ONLY physical, or there is more. According to your post, Christianity has to be false, because Christianity teaches there is much much much more than just the physical.

Ah, scientific argument (your own no less) contradicting religion....maybe i should include this in the other thread.





Originally posted by Regret
it is an odd experience


yep....

EXACTLY



Behavioralism practically equates human beings with robots...people do NOT always DO what they WANT, nor do they DO what they THINK...the mind and body are symbiotic but separate.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Please show me the studies where 100% success has been achieved in changing the desires/mentalities/tendencies/preferences of a peadophile, rapist, and serial killer.

IF all you can show me is a change in behavior due to containment, drugs, threats, or anything that infringes on the will and action of the patient, then I will disregard those cases as INVALID, since no sincere change in preference has been made.

Behavior Analysis does not use containment, drugs, threats, or anything that infringes on the will and action of the patient.

Regardless of your claim, before I need to provide evidence of "100% success has been achieved in changing the desires/mentalities/tendencies/preferences" or "sincere change in preference" in that pedophile, you must show me evidence of these internal concepts actually existing beyond the observable in said pedophile. On top of that, do it without using exhibited behaviors to show its existence.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So because thought cannot be observed, it does not exist. And then you critisize one's argument that because God's existance cannot be proven, he doesn't exist. Thought exists, it is the experience of neural activity.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You can treat a behavior yes. Anyone can. If I lock up my serial killing aunt in my basement, guess what? She wont kill no mo !

That's not exactly successful treatment in my perspective.It is effective and successful, just not the desired state of affairs. Given that the state of affairs is undesirable, a different approach should be taken. But I would not look for it myself, I am pro life imprisonment or death. I believe serial killers and murderers are at a point where the risks of failed treatment outweigh the possibility of rehabilitation. Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Not to constantly bring up homosexuality again, but for the sake of this argument, excuse and regard my next example:

If a homosexual man refuses to have sex with other men because he has been threatened with death, had his penis amputated, is convinced that homosexuality will result in an eternity of torment, or anything which aims to inhibit his natural sexual desire....yet he still finds himself ATTRACTED to other men, he just doesn't engage in sex with them.....

then he was really "cured" was he ?



You may have put an end to his homosexual activity, but he is still homosexual if he has sexual or romantic attractions to other men. Unless this man states that he still has these supposed attractions, or in the least exhibits behaviors of homosexual attraction, it makes no difference if they may or may not exist. You make statements to what this other person may or may not actually "feel", with no support for them existing. If the behaviors were considered problem behaviors, and these behaviors no longer occur, it makes no difference whether these supposed "attractions" are present or not.

Now, you have no grasp of how behavior analysis treats problem behaviors. The example you present is in no manner similar to a treatment we would suggest. A behavior analyst will use punishment only as a last resort, and as such punishment is used rarely by any properly trained behavior analyst. Behavioral treatments typically make the chosen problem behavior less desirable while making the proper behaviors more desirable. Effective treatment results in a preference shift, not in coercive force being required for change to occur, coercive force is aversive and if used often results in the behavior being coerced gaining aversive properties through respondant, or classical, conditioning.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
That is not treatment.

Even if the methods are non-violent, or benevolent, if he is still attracted to other men...if he still undulges in homosexual fantasy...then he is not heterosexual. If there are no behaviors present, how does anyone know whether or not these fantasies exist? From a treatment perspective, unless the man makes these "feelings" known, treatment was successful, how would the individuals presenting treatment know otherwise?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Since when is Creativity strictly a behavior ? If one thought up a masterpeice script in thier head, but never had the chance to turn it into a film production, does that render them non-creative somehow ?


Yes, any one of those things can EXIST without the behavior attached. Prove it.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Again....I can have sex with all the women in the world. That does not make me "straight". The reasons behind what I did matter JUST AS MUCH as what I did itself...

Do you get it, or no ? Prove it. If you never say anything leading to a belief that you have homosexual tendencies, and do not exhibit homosexual behaviors, you are unable to prove that these tendencies exist, it is only the behavior that matters when considering anyone beyond oneself. All else is merely speculation.



Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Another non-homo example:



Situation 1: I stab a woman to death, because I think she's ugly.

Situation 2: I stab a woman to death, because she just killed my mother.


Observable Behavior: I stabbed a woman to death.




Do the reasons or motives, desires NOT MATTER ? Are they irrelevant in the diagnosis of my mental/physiological faculties ? Does not one situation render me totally psychotic, while the other renders me temporarily insane ? Killing of the mother is observable and must be considered a setting event that initiated the chain of events leading to the woman's murder. Whether or not you killed her due to an ugly appearance is speculation until it is stated, then the behavior of the statement is evidence, at least of the claim.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1) I never said we were superior. I asked you what separates us from animal and plant ? If all we have are electrical impulses, then what makes us human and them animal ? You cannot tell the difference between an animal and a human? Complexity of behaviors and behavior chains separate us from other forms of life. Typical behaviors also separate us.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
2) You argue that Free Will is not entirely free here, but in the religion forums you argue that God gave us free will, and reward and punishment is just accordingly because what we do is entirely our own faults....

Contradicting yourself there buddy No, you misunderstood my use of the term free will, I have never contradicted myself.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
DESIRE.....what is desire ? I already defined it previously
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Simply Untrue. I never become a professional baseball player..that doesn't mean I didn't desire it.

I never become a millionaire...that doesn't mean I didn't desire it.

I didn't become President...that doesn't mean I never desired it.


Desire is NOT just a behavior, and cannot be defined or measured through behavior...but it EXISTS.....Prove it.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Just because you did not achieve does not mean you did not desire. I want to ask a guy out for example....because of my fear of his reaction, i never get to it...

The desire was still there...

No amount of Behavioral Analysis can determine whether or not I was attracted to him, or whether or not I desired relation with him (or how much or little I wanted it)Reread my statement on desire.Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Dreams come from the Subconcious. I suggest you take a course or two on that... Scientifically speaking dreams are nothing more than random neural firing during REM sleep. Originally posted by Lord Urizen
When you are asleep you are not concious, yet thought processes still occur...No, random neurons fire, and the associated neural path is then enacted.Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Outer body experiences have been recorded while the person is UNCONCIOUS..... oh boy... this is a whole other ball field now, forgive me for jumping ahead. Not recorded scientifically.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So then there is NO SOUL....and no afterlife, and no Heaven or Hell

You can't have it both ways sonny....Either everything is ONLY physical, or there is more. According to your post, Christianity has to be false, because Christianity teaches there is much much much more than just the physical.

Ah, scientific argument (your own no less) contradicting religion....maybe i should include this in the other thread. Mainstream Christianity does teach this, not LDS doctrine. Once again you use your understanding of mainstream Christianity and apply their errors to me, when I do not agree with much of their views. Once again reread my previously posted stance on the soul.

Cognitive = changing your take on things to make it better.........I don't find a problem with that if it works for people........cause people are all different.....some need a new point of view in which to view all the things that happened to them and then make a new reference to them when seeing or viewing/feeling what is going on here and now...It does work for many.................what I don't agree with VERY MUCH is the old philosophy of "lets talk about this and that, and you mom and dad and your friend".......oh yes it could shine some light on it, but not to make anyone get beyond it........It only makes them dwell on it all which does nothing but not move on.......At least cognitive puts things in a thought of perceptive though NOT as proactive. even if it may not be a truly a true one......but still it is good for the patient who needs this new view of themselves to move on...It is quite good, but from my studies there is a much better therapy that has been used in holistic therapy............and how I would like to get a degree in it, but as of yet, it is not quite accepted in the general views of the "mind gods" views, though here in Michigan it is now being taught so that it can be used in hospitals.........This is where I would like to get my degree, but seems at this time it doesn't pay well cause it's so new....but I believe in the future it will become the leading take on healing.............

Oh psychologists!

Do not take following as an insult or even an attempt to downplay your roles. I am a sociologist and criminologist - I am not in position to b!tch.

Howeverrrrr... Psychology as just recently become a practice which is looked at as prestigious. Up until 60 years ago, psychology was merely a fringe of psychiatry, and people who called themselves psychologists did not have as much credibility as they do today.

There is a new way of thinking, where psychologists are presented to have the knowledge psychiatrists once were merited with.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh psychologists!
Do not take following as an insult or even an attempt to downplay your roles. I am a sociologist and criminologist - I am not in position to b!tch.
Howeverrrrr... Psychology as just recently become a practice which is looked at as prestigious. Up until 60 years ago, psychology was merely a fringe of psychiatry, and people who called themselves psychologists did not have as much credibility as they do today.
There is a new way of thinking, where psychologists are presented to have the knowledge psychiatrists once were merited with.

"Modern Psychology" has gone through various "phases," many inspired by the attempt to render it as rigorous and precise as a hard science; behavioral analysis fits this description very well, as does neuropsychology. The "problem," of course, is that these are empirical attempts to deal with what is essentially a nonempirical phenomena: the mind, ie, one's subjective experience of reality.

As far as psychiatry goes: basically, a psychiatrist is trained first as a medical doctor, second as a therapist, as they generally abide by the medical model. Clinical psychologists, on the other hand, receive more extensive training not only in therapy but also in testing, and many will also strongly consider sociological context, again something psychiatrists generally do not factor into their assessments of a patient.

Our current cultural zeigeist still places psychiatrists above psychologists in the hierarchal scheme of things because the former are medical doctors, which are still held in godly esteem. For what it's worth, it has been my experience that the higher the degree, the more of a rectal orifice that person tends to be, with regard to his/her nonprofessional skills.

Originally posted by Mindship
"Modern Psychology" has gone through various "phases," many inspired by the attempt to render it as rigorous and precise as a hard science; behavioral analysis fits this description very well, as does neuropsychology. The "problem," of course, is that these are empirical attempts to deal with what is essentially a nonempirical phenomena: the mind, ie, one's subjective experience of reality.

As far as psychiatry goes: basically, a psychiatrist is trained first as a medical doctor, second as a therapist, as they generally abide by the medical model. Clinical psychologists, on the other hand, receive more extensive training not only in therapy but also in testing, and many will also strongly consider sociological context, again something psychiatrists generally do not factor into their assessments of a patient.

Our current cultural zeigeist still places psychiatrists above psychologists in the hierarchal scheme of things because the former are medical doctors, which are still held in godly esteem. For what it's worth, it has been my experience that the higher the degree, the more of a rectal orifice that person tends to be, with regard to his/her nonprofessional skills. Agreed, and I'll add:

Psychiatrist - "Here's a drug to fix your behavioral problems"

Psychoanalist - "Talk to me intensively for 3-5 years 3-5 times weekly and I'll tell you what's wrong with you that causes these behaviors"

Cognitive Psychologist - "I think, therefore, we must change the underlying thoughts if we are to change these behavioral problems."

Behavior Analyst - "You have behavior problems? Let's fix them!"

Originally posted by Mindship
"Modern Psychology" has gone through various "phases," many inspired by the attempt to render it as rigorous and precise as a hard science; behavioral analysis fits this description very well, as does neuropsychology. The "problem," of course, is that these are empirical attempts to deal with what is essentially a nonempirical phenomena: the mind, ie, one's subjective experience of reality.

As far as psychiatry goes: basically, a psychiatrist is trained first as a medical doctor, second as a therapist, as they generally abide by the medical model. Clinical psychologists, on the other hand, receive more extensive training not only in therapy but also in testing, and many will also strongly consider sociological context, again something psychiatrists generally do not factor into their assessments of a patient.

Our current cultural zeigeist still places psychiatrists above psychologists in the hierarchal scheme of things because the former are medical doctors, which are still held in godly esteem. For what it's worth, it has been my experience that the higher the degree, the more of a rectal orifice that person tends to be, with regard to his/her nonprofessional skills.

I am aware.

It is, as established already in your post, a positivist move of the psychologists which has earned them the place where they are now.

Positivist approach is the one which one cannot take in regards to sciences which are not as such, strictly scientific. ie, make an empirical investigations of things in search for results which in nature cannot be empirically obtained.

Having said this of course, today, if you look in any form of media, what one will find is a dominant, distinct and phenomenal glorification of the so called ''scientific proof'', of pretty much anything. Including sociology!! (wtf?)

As long as this view of the ''gospel'' like medical ''proof'' is being put forward as, exactly that, a gospel, psychiatrists will ALWAYS be before psychologist.

Im sure you have read the ''Toxic Psychiatry'' by Breggin. It sums up nicely what we as a society believe to be an answer.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I am aware.

It is, as established already in your post, a positivist move of the psychologists which has earned them the place where they are now.

Positivist approach is the one which one cannot take in regards to sciences which are not as such, strictly scientific. ie, make an empirical investigations of things in search for results which in nature cannot be empirically obtained.

Having said this of course, today, if you look in any form of media, what one will find is a dominant, distinct and phenomenal glorification of the so called ''scientific proof'', of pretty much anything. Including sociology!! (wtf?)

As long as this view of the ''gospel'' like medical ''proof'' is being put forward as, exactly that, a gospel, psychiatrists will ALWAYS be before psychologist.

Im sure you have read the ''Toxic Psychiatry'' by Breggin. It sums up nicely what we as a society believe to be an answer. I believe the real issue is understanding the difference between inference and fact. Inference is valuable and often likely accurate, but the issue is that 99.99999999999% does not equal 100% no matter how many nines are attached. People, even scientists, often ignore or lessen the value of this fact.

Science holds a great amount of value, as long as caution exists when in reference to any "fact" that is any less than 100% fact.

Originally posted by Regret
I believe the real issue is understanding the difference between inference and fact. Inference is valuable and often likely accurate, but the issue is that 99.99999999999% does not equal 100% no matter how many nines are attached. People, even scientists, often ignore or lessen the value of this fact.

Science holds a great amount of value, as long as caution exists when in reference to any "fact" that is any less than 100% fact.

Of course. Unfortunately, great deal of people do not see it that way, and often forget the scientific ''mistakes'' and 'miscalculations'' of the past.

Speaking in strictly psychiatric motives, one remembers the ''scientific'' removal of the piece of the skull of people believed to be clinically insane.

'Scientific empirical investigation' also told us that criminals are unevolved humans with distinct features (refer to Lambrosso), it has scientifically thought us that Irish and Black are ''biologically'' inferior...etc.

It IS important to take into account that 99.9999% is still not 100%.
Psychology sits on the fence of natural and social sciences. But just like social sciences, natural sciences evolve, and discard many things thought up in the past.

Originally posted by Regret
Agreed, and I'll add:

Psychiatrist - "Here's a drug to fix your behavioral problems"

Psychoanalist - "Talk to me intensively for 3-5 years 3-5 times weekly and I'll tell you what's wrong with you that causes these behaviors"

Cognitive Psychologist - "I think, therefore, we must change the underlying thoughts if we are to change these behavioral problems."

Behavior Analyst - "You have behavior problems? Let's fix them!"


The problem with Behavior Analysts is that Behavior is all that matters, and thought/desire does not.


The person can be in mental anguish, but as long as the person no longer performs the undesired action, the existance of mental pain matters not.

Originally posted by Regret
Behavior Analysis does not use containment, drugs, threats, or anything that infringes on the will and action of the patient.

Good

So what methods of punishment do you use ?





Originally posted by Regret
Regardless of your claim, before I need to provide evidence of "100% success has been achieved in changing the desires/mentalities/tendencies/preferences" or "sincere change in preference" in that pedophile, you must show me evidence of these internal concepts actually existing beyond the observable in said pedophile. On top of that, do it without using exhibited behaviors to show its existence.



First I want you to define what a Peadophile actually is. Then I can answer your question based on your presented knowledge.




Originally posted by Regret
Thought exists, it is the experience of neural activity.


So then what is Desire if not a type of thought/emotion ?

You earlier defined Desire as a repeated behavior, but I completely disagree. Just because you haven't acted out your desire,or achieved the object of desire, does not mean the desire does not exist.

Any human being on this Earth can vouch for that. If you cannot relate, than you must truly be disconnected from the rest of us.




Originally posted by Regret
It is effective and successful, just not the desired state of affairs. Given that the state of affairs is undesirable, a different approach should be taken. But I would not look for it myself, I am pro life imprisonment or death. I believe serial killers and murderers are at a point where the risks of failed treatment outweigh the possibility of rehabilitation. Unless this man states that he still has these supposed attractions, or in the least exhibits behaviors of homosexual attraction, it makes no difference if they may or may not exist. You make statements to what this other person may or may not actually "feel", with no support for them existing. If the behaviors were considered problem behaviors, and these behaviors no longer occur, it makes no difference whether these supposed "attractions" are present or not.



The problem is you have not truly changed the person from homosexual to heterosexual, if he still has homosexual attractions.

Whether you are aware of his attractions or not does not change the Truth to the situation.






Originally posted by Regret
Now, you have no grasp of how behavior analysis treats problem behaviors. The example you present is in no manner similar to a treatment we would suggest. A behavior analyst will use punishment only as a last resort, and as such punishment is used rarely by any properly trained behavior analyst. Behavioral treatments typically make the chosen problem behavior less desirable while making the proper behaviors more desirable. Effective treatment results in a preference shift, not in coercive force being required for change to occur, coercive force is aversive and if used often results in the behavior being coerced gaining aversive properties through respondant, or classical, conditioning.


I am curious to know more about Behavioral Treatments. How would you help a Homosexual man or woman who wants to become Heterosexual? How affective are those treatments, and how long does the result last ? Any records or links to stats that may show a success rate ?


How do you help a serial killer, with Behavioral Treatment ? What methods are used ? How successful are they, etc....

You keep claiming that I do not know as much about Psychology as you do....no sh*t Regret, I am not a psychology major.

No need to constantly bring it up, Oh holier than thou...

Just correct me on anything I happen to be wrong about.




Originally posted by Regret
If there are no behaviors present, how does anyone know whether or not these fantasies exist? From a treatment perspective, unless the man makes these "feelings" known, treatment was successful, how would the individuals presenting treatment know otherwise?


1) That's the POINT...you DONT KNOW....you cannot claim they are no longer there, just because behavior doesn't reveal it. How affective can Behavioral Treatment BE, when desires still exist, thereby allowing unwanted occurances in the future ?

2) The Treatment Perspective is Wrong then....if he cannot make his "feelings" known, and you conclude he is "cured", even if he still has those feelings, then the claim is a misdiagnosis.






Originally posted by Regret
Prove it.



Do you really want me to ?






Originally posted by Regret
Prove it. If you never say anything leading to a belief that you have homosexual tendencies, and do not exhibit homosexual behaviors, you are unable to prove that these tendencies exist, it is only the behavior that matters when considering anyone beyond oneself. All else is merely speculation.



All Else is mere speculation to a Heterosexual. You cannot fathom what it is like to BE a homosexual or bisexual, since you never dealt with those kind of attractions and emotions (I assume you haven't atleast)

We DO NOT all THINK and FEEL the way you do...please get that through your head. There is no "mental slate" that we all share. We are ALL very very different, as are our perspectives.

There are GAY VIRGINS...do you NOT know this ? There are tons of young boys who masturbate over the thought of other men...there are tons of young women who masturbate over the thought of other women.

Masturbation is a "behavior" or practice that is common and found in both Heterosexuals ANd homosexuals

How could you ever truly know what the person is thinking about when he or she masturbates ? Can you TRULY and SINCERELY conclude the sexual orienation of a VIRGIN through Behavioral means ?

Behavior will not HELP you here. That is my POINT...









Originally posted by Regret
Killing of the mother is observable and must be considered a setting event that initiated the chain of events leading to the woman's murder. Whether or not you killed her due to an ugly appearance is speculation until it is stated, then the behavior of the statement is evidence, at least of the claim.

1) Killing of the mother is not observable is there are no witnesses....

2) I think you misunderstand my point. If I kill a woman because I think she is ugly...or if I kill a woman because she killed my mother first....they are BOTH the SAME ACTIONS being done for DIFFERENT reasons.

Can you disclude the reasons behind them ? Are my ACTIONS all that matter ?Yes or No.....





Originally posted by Regret
You cannot tell the difference between an animal and a human? Complexity of behaviors and behavior chains separate us from other forms of life. Typical behaviors also separate us.



Forget this point, because you are severely misintepretting it, and I failed too word my argument properly more than once.




Originally posted by Regret
No, you misunderstood my use of the term free will, I have never contradicted myself.
I already defined it previously



You contradict yourself a LOT Regret, give me a break....

Explain to me your use of the term Free Will then....



Originally posted by Regret
Prove it.


Do you really want me too ?



Originally posted by Regret
Reread my statement on desire.Scientifically speaking dreams are nothing more than random neural firing during REM sleep. No, random neurons fire, and the associated neural path is then enacted. Not recorded scientifically.
Mainstream Christianity does teach this, not LDS doctrine. Once again you use your understanding of mainstream Christianity and apply their errors to me, when I do not agree with much of their views. Once again reread my previously posted stance on the soul.



Give me the link to your stance on the soul....

I already know your statements on desire as behavior, but I disagree, i already explained why more than once...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I am aware.

It is, as established already in your post, a positivist move of the psychologists which has earned them the place where they are now.

Positivist approach is the one which one cannot take in regards to sciences which are not as such, strictly scientific. ie, make an empirical investigations of things in search for results which in nature cannot be empirically obtained.

Having said this of course, today, if you look in any form of media, what one will find is a dominant, distinct and phenomenal glorification of the so called ''scientific proof'', of pretty much anything. Including sociology!! (wtf?)

As long as this view of the ''gospel'' like medical ''proof'' is being put forward as, exactly that, a gospel, psychiatrists will ALWAYS be before psychologist.

Im sure you have read the ''Toxic Psychiatry'' by Breggin. It sums up nicely what we as a society believe to be an answer.

True.

The scientific society likes everything to be formally justified accordingly to the empiricist definition for scientific truth, and consider just scientific knowledge only that which is falsifiable. But they forget that empirism itself is not falsiable. It is just a doctrine to be followed by its adepts, a gospel like you said.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The problem with Behavior Analysts is that Behavior is all that matters, and thought/desire does not.
Behavior is all that matters from the pure/applied treatment POV. But as one human being (the behaviorist) relating to another (the client/patient), thoughts and feelings will always be important insofar as the larger therapeutic context goes. For example, the more the client trusts the therapist (all else being equal), the more effective therapy is likely to be. At least as practiced ethically, behavior analysis still requires the client's cooperation. The results looked for, however, are purely behavioral.

The person can be in mental anguish, but as long as the person no longer performs the undesired action, the existance of mental pain matters not.
This is a blanket statement that may not be true in all cases. If the source of the client's mental anguish is, say, directly related to behavior (eg, addictive gambling), change in behavior will lead to reduction in mental anguish.

Behavioral analysis is just one approach. Personally, I think the most important factor in any therapeutic success is the efficacy of the therapist/client dyad, which does involve internal/mentalist factors. Again, from a behavioral analysis POV, they are not unimportant. They're just not the focus of the behavioral treatment. Any caring therapist will know that, ultimately, he/she is not dealing with a behavior machine, but with a human being.

(Yes: philosophically/theoretically, a strict behaviorist may think of a human being as a behavior machine, but this may not be a practical approach. A client coming in for help is not going to say, "But first, reinforce trust and cooperation in me, so the therapy focusing on my presenting problem is more effective." Preferably, this mentalist state of trust/cooperation is already present, so the therapist can go on and deal with the Problem, per se.)

Originally posted by Mindship
Behavior is all that matters from the pure/applied treatment POV. But as one human being (the behaviorist) relating to another (the client/patient), thoughts and feelings will always be important insofar as the larger therapeutic context goes. For example, the more the client trusts the therapist (all else being equal), the more effective therapy is likely to be. At least as practiced ethically, behavior analysis still requires the client's cooperation. The results looked for, however, are purely behavioral.


This is a blanket statement that may not be true in all cases. If the source of the client's mental anguish is, say, directly related to behavior (eg, addictive gambling), change in behavior will lead to reduction in mental anguish.

Behavioral analysis is just one approach. Personally, I think the most important factor in any therapeutic success is the efficacy of the therapist/client dyad, which does involve internal/mentalist factors. Again, from a behavioral analysis POV, they are not unimportant. They're just not the focus of the behavioral treatment. Any caring therapist will know that, ultimately, he/she is not dealing with a behavior machine, but with a human being.

(Yes: philosophically/theoretically, a strict behaviorist may think of a human being as a behavior machine, but this may not be a practical approach. A client coming in for help is not going to say, "But first, reinforce trust and cooperation in me, so the therapy focusing on my presenting problem is more effective." Preferably, this mentalist state of trust/cooperation is already present, so the therapist can go on and deal with the Problem, per se.)




Understood, but Regret's point is that Behaviors all that matter. He is explaining why he is not a Cognitive Psychologist, and just flat out admitted that he disregards thoughts and desire, because they mean nothing to him.

I find that approach SEVERELY flawed.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Good

So what methods of punishment do you use ? Punishment is avoided. Use of punishment has problems that are very unwelcome. These problems do not always present, but they are possible by products of the use of punishment.

Apathy - Punishment can produce apathy in the punished. Not only the punished behavior becomes suppressed, but all behavior in general becomes suppressed.

Escape - The punished will attempt to continue the behavior in a manner that will avoid the punishment, or will attempt avoid the punisher altogether.

Aggression - Aversive stimuli often elicits an aggressive response. This response is not often predictable as there are varying forms of aggression.

Imitation - The punished will punish others, most frequently inappropriately.

Abuse - Punishment by its nature is negatively reinforcing for the punisher. This means that punishment removes an aversive stimulus from the environment of the punisher, and reinforcement increases the probability of the behavior.

Punishing methods vary from subject to subject since in behavior analysis, the subject is always its own control. The typical method of punishment of problem behavior is to observe the behavior and discover the reinforcing consequences of that behavior, and then if possible removing that consequence from the behavior. This is combined with reinforcement of appropriate behaviors, typically the removed reinforcer from the problem behavior is used to reinforce the appropriate behaviors. The alternatives to punishment are very effective, and more appropriate given the fact that often the reinforcers for problem behavior are inherent in the outcome of the behavior.

So, if punishment is used, negative punishment is most effective and results in the best outcome. A better alternative is differential reinforcement of other behaviors, in other words the reinforcer obtained through the problem behavior is given for other behaviors that are appropriate.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
First I want you to define what a Peadophile actually is. Then I can answer your question based on your presented knowledge. No. The issue is that these internal states cannot be shown to actually exist, regardless of what they are prove that one exists.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So then what is Desire if not a type of thought/emotion ?

You earlier defined Desire as a repeated behavior, but I completely disagree. Just because you haven't acted out your desire,or achieved the object of desire, does not mean the desire does not exist.

Any human being on this Earth can vouch for that. If you cannot relate, than you must truly be disconnected from the rest of us. I did not state that desire was repeated behavior, but that repeated behaviors allow one to state that the reinforcement gained from such behaviors is desired. Desire is the physiological impetus for the initial link in the chain of behaviors that typically leads to the "desired" reinforcer, regardless if the chain actually starts or if the chain ends prior to attaining the reinforcer. Some response is necessary for desire to be present, even if it is minimal physiological activity, or even a single neuron firing that initiates the "desire". From anyone but the individual that supposedly is desiring's perspective, only behavior allows one to state that desire is present.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The problem is you have not truly changed the person from homosexual to heterosexual, if he still has homosexual attractions.

Whether you are aware of his attractions or not does not change the Truth to the situation. It makes no difference. If that individual never behaves in a homosexual manner, there is no means of assessing such, and holding such a belief would only be hypothetical and not supported by the evidence at hand.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I am curious to know more about Behavioral Treatments. How would you help a Homosexual man or woman who wants to become Heterosexual? How affective are those treatments, and how long does the result last ? Any records or links to stats that may show a success rate ? I would not change a homosexual's behavior. I believe it was their choice, regardless of the environmental control on that choice, and I do not interfere with choices. Although, if one were to ask me to alter their behavior and remove homosexual tendencies from their life and replace them with heterosexual tendencies, I would use a fading procedure mixed with both mild punishment and strong reinforcement. I would suggest fade a female into sexual fantasies, increasing her presence and greatly exaggerating reinforcement of behaviors towards the female. I would then, once the female was completely a part of the experience, fade the male out, mildly punishing any behaviors towards him and greatly reinforcing behaviors towards her. As the treatment came closer to the end I would present males and females in situations where choice must be used to gain perspective on the preference of the subject, as long as the males were shown preference over women, the treatment must continue or be modified to increase preferential choice towards females. I would suggest similar in sexual encounter treatment, but moral issues arise, and I would need to place much more consideration on treatment than I have here.

I am unaware of research on the subject of treating sexual tendencies with behavior analysis. Most clinical use of behavior analysis is documented in th Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. I have typically remained in the experimental and organizational areas of the field due to my profession.

Treatment typically works as long as reinforcement of replacement behaviors is available, where you would find statistics I am unsure, although to my understanding behavioral methods typically have the most consistent success rates and typically, when combined with cognitive communication, have the longest lasting impact. Although, research into behavioral momentum is leading towards a better understanding of the functional factors involved in relapse and resurgence of previously treated behaviors, and as such treatment methods are being modified to counter such possibilities.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
How do you help a serial killer, with Behavioral Treatment ? What methods are used ? How successful are they, etc.... I do not know. I am all for life of solitary imprisonment and possibly death. I do not believe that the risk of failed treatment is worth the attempt in the case of serial killers. As such, I have never researched behavioral treatment of such individuals.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You keep claiming that I do not know as much about Psychology as you do....no sh*t Regret, I am not a psychology major.

No need to constantly bring it up, Oh holier than thou...

Just correct me on anything I happen to be wrong about. Sorry, a knee jerk reaction to being told I don't know what I am talking about.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1) That's the POINT...you DONT KNOW....you cannot claim they are no longer there, just because behavior doesn't reveal it. How affective can Behavioral Treatment BE, when desires still exist, thereby allowing unwanted occurances in the future ? They may never have been there. Atheists should all pray and give to the church by the same logic. If the behavior does not exhibit these "desires", and other hypothesized internal concepts, it must be assumed the treatment worked. This is true of any form of treatment. A behavior analyst would still ask the individual question regarding the behavior and these "desires", we would only treat the behavior, how do you treat something that has no data to support or even recognize the existence of? You cannot currently treat the mental state, if it does, in fact, exist. Given this, attempts at treating it are really only treating the verbal behaviors believed to relate to this mental state.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
2) The Treatment Perspective is Wrong then....if he cannot make his "feelings" known, and you conclude he is "cured", even if he still has those feelings, then the claim is a misdiagnosis. Why can he not make these feelings known? If he does not make the feelings known, why should one assume failure? The same error and mistaken claim can occur regardless of the type of treatment, no psychologist can go off more than what the subject says and how the subject behaves.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Do you really want me to ? If you can do it without using behavior and then only inferring it, yes.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
All Else is mere speculation to a Heterosexual. You cannot fathom what it is like to BE a homosexual or bisexual, since you never dealt with those kind of attractions and emotions (I assume you haven't atleast)

We DO NOT all THINK and FEEL the way you do...please get that through your head. There is no "mental slate" that we all share. We are ALL very very different, as are our perspectives.

There are GAY VIRGINS...do you NOT know this ? There are tons of young boys who masturbate over the thought of other men...there are tons of young women who masturbate over the thought of other women.

Masturbation is a "behavior" or practice that is common and found in both Heterosexuals ANd homosexuals

How could you ever truly know what the person is thinking about when he or she masturbates ? Can you TRULY and SINCERELY conclude the sexual orienation of a VIRGIN through Behavioral means ?

Behavior will not HELP you here. That is my POINT... You make assumptions as to a mental state. These assumptions are entirely without support or evidence. Without behavior, verbal (speaking) or otherwise, there is no basis to assume anything. I also disagree with you on your stance on sexuality. You have no means of knowing how anyone not the sexuality you currently are "feels" either. You cannot claim that it is any different or in any manner the same as any other form of sexuality. You also have no monopoly on experience in the matter given that you claim there is a difference. I don't care about sexuality, and as such I won't go further into the subject.Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1) Killing of the mother is not observable is there are no witnesses....

2) I think you misunderstand my point. If I kill a woman because I think she is ugly...or if I kill a woman because she killed my mother first....they are BOTH the SAME ACTIONS being done for DIFFERENT reasons.

Can you disclude the reasons behind them ? Are my ACTIONS all that matter ?Yes or No..... Yes, I believe the action is all that should matter. I do not believe in the insanity defense, because I think the action is such that it matters not why or what state of mind the individual was in.Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You contradict yourself a LOT Regret, give me a break....

Explain to me your use of the term Free Will then....Free will is the ability for action to occur without externally imposed dictation of such action. When we act, we limit our future action by coming into contact with the consequences of that action. If the consequences were reinforcing, then the probability of it occurring again increases, and similarly if the consequence was punishing, the probability of it occurring then decreases. Each time an action is reinforced or punished the probability of that behavior being repeated alters and becomes more predictable. Free will is wholly present at birth, but our actions limit our free will by limiting our behaviors due to experience. We basically give up small amounts of free will by making choices, such is unavoidable, learning limits our ability in areas while broadening our ability in other areas. Free will is present, but we make choices that have consequences, consequences impact freedom regardless of the beneficial or harmful nature of the impact.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Do you really want me too ? Once again, if you can do so without relying on behavioral evidence and then inferring it, yes.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Give me the link to your stance on the soul....

Originally posted by Regret
Mormons believe the soul is all there is, it is the body and spirit combination that is a living being. The body does nothing that the spirit is not a part. There is no aspect of the two that can in any manner be distinguished from the other while one is living. The idea that the spirit in some way is separate from the body is laughable from such a stance, when a person exhibits any behavior, one is seeing the soul behave, living is a state that a Mormon refers to as being a soul. This in no way infers some "mind" or any other interal reference, as a typical reference to soul or spirit infers. The body and spirit are what one sees when one looks at another, there is no supernatural "aura" or other non physical material, a living being is the body and spirit. Spirit will never be discovered and thought of as "spirit", spirit is the energy, the spark, that causes life, or rather the functioning of cells that keeps the body living.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Understood, but Regret's point is that Behaviors all that matter. He is explaining why he is not a Cognitive Psychologist, and just flat out admitted that he disregards thoughts and desire, because they mean nothing to him.

I find that approach SEVERELY flawed. They do not mean "nothing" to me. All I have stated is that behavior is all that is observable and all we have evidence for. If someone says, "I feel happy", or they behave in a manner described as happy, we then have evidence and support for the assumption that they are happy, without such there is no reason to believe the person is happy. Then take this and approach all mentalism the same way, it applies to all hypothetical internal states. All that we have when speaking of any individual outside ourselves is the behaviors they exhibit and no evidence to internal states other than an assumption that since we have what we believe are mentalist items these behaviors are related to something similar in the subject we are studying.

Originally posted by Regret
Conscious experience has no proof. I do not claim it does. There is no evidence that man doesn't just associate symbols (consciousness may not be required.)

The man in the computer is not a logical proof for this concept. All interactions are merely the proper response to the proper stimuli.

I think I understand your point of view. But why do you think we cannot prove conscious experience since we experience it all the time ?

As I see, conscious experience is something that we know a priori since we are born. We know that we are alive. Thats how I see.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
I think I understand your point of view. But why do you think we cannot prove conscious experience since we experience it all the time ?

As I see, conscious experience is something that we know a priori since we are born. We know that we are alive. Thats how I see. But what makes you believe that anything that behaves similar to a man, regardless of origin and method of creation, is missing this "conscious experience"? There is no method of distinguishing organic behaving entities from inorganic behaving entities when it comes to the possibility of "conscious experience". I hesitate in stating that we have this and a man-made machine that behaves exactly as a man does not, such is not necessarily logical. From my perspective, it is possible that you and the machine are the same and neither actually has this, or both have it.

Personal experience is limited in scope to the physical, conscious experience is not necessarily what we believe it is, thus a conclusion to evidence is extremely subjective and prone to error to to the erroneous nature of human physicality. An arm is lost, yet there is ghost pain, erroneous perception of self. Various mental illness are merely erroneous perception of self. These errors lead one to be skeptical of personal experience such as this as evidence.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
We know that it exist and when this point of view ignores its existence it is ignoring evidence...

Nice and concise.

Within this odd tendency of ours is the key to God's sense of humor, I'm certain of it.

I believe we should have a party..you, Atlantis and myself, oh and shaky....He has the Buddha bush..........I'll bring omega 3, 6 and 9 food!!

Originally posted by Regret
Behavior analysis does not disbelieve or state that thoughts, consciousness, all the internal mentalist concepts do not exist, we only state that evidence does not support the concepts scientifically. The evidence is entirely subjective, without current possibility of objective evidence.

Also, the evidence present in mentalist schools of psychological thought typically has problems crossing cultural bounds, so mentalist psychology with strong support in western societies frequently fails to remain valid in eastern an mideastern societies. This casts doubt on evidence found in these schools of thought. The evidence for mentalist concepts is more credible than for religion, but the evidence is of the same nature minus an external impetus believed to be the source of the perceptual experience.

This, clinging to weak evidence, is the reason that psychology is held as a "soft" science. While not denying the possible existence of these concepts, behavior analysts recognize the lack of validity that is present in the evidence and take the proper scientific stance that the evidence neither confirms nor denies the existence of such concepts but that truly scientific study of the concepts is not possible.

Compare the stance to the topic of theism and you will find that theists claiming scientific support offer similar arguments to those claiming support for mentalist concepts.

Lack of scientific support does not mean something does not exist, it only means that silence on the subject should be held by science until such a time as the phenomenon can be properly studied. It means that the concepts are beliefs, not facts.

If we not deny the existence of mentalist concepts I agree. It is a matter of interpretation, a lot of different schools of thought with distinct stances, not any being necessarily right or wrong.


Originally posted by debbiejo
I believe we should have a party..you, Atlantis and myself, oh and shaky....He has the Buddha bush..........I'll bring omega 3, 6 and 9 food!!

If there will be gifts..........its a christimas party, right ?


Originally posted by Mindship
Nice and concise.

Within this odd tendency of ours is the key to God's sense of humor, I'm certain of it.

I know what you mean.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
If we not deny the existence of mentalist concepts I agree. It is a matter of interpretation, a lot of different schools of thought with distinct stances, not any being necessarily right or wrong. Behavioral principles are direct, observable and repeatable, they are as solid as any physics principle. On the subject of mentalist concepts, it is not a matter of interpretation of the evidence, it is a lack of evidence. The only evidence presented for mentalist concepts are behaviors used to infer the existence of internal mental concepts, not direct and observable evidence.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I believe we should have a party..you, Atlantis and myself, oh and shaky....He has the Buddha bush..........I'll bring omega 3, 6 and 9 food!!
beer kicking youpi

Originally posted by Mindship
beer kicking youpi Mithra Party, Mithra Party!!

Time to get cheery and talk about the gods..........oh, and philosophy, psychiatry, and metaphysics, anything mind stimulating and out there is welcome...spiritual talents, astral projection...and chicken wings..........Oh and how I cann't wait for 2007 cause 2006 was a *****.



newyear Yes Atlantis you get presents.........