Libido is an energy source—Heat is an energy source—there is potential and kinetic energy
Emotion aka instinct is an energy source—
Narcissism is a force—gravity is a force—electromagnetism is a force—within the atom there are the strong and weak forces—there are four physical forces within nature. Narcissism is a force that displays itself in--self-absorption—self-love—sense of immortality—self-esteem—cosmic significance—self-importance—feeds on symbols, on abstract ideas of my own worth
Guilt is a feeling caused by outside resistance
Feeling—the mental experience of an emotion after the body has reacted to the emotion
Neurosis is the control of anxiety by restricting experience—the humanization process is neurosis in action
Anxiety is a feeling, the penalty for becoming human, i.e. for becoming self-conscious; it is not based on instinct but is based upon individual sense of helplessness.
Ego controls responses by delaying action
Hero—the world is a stage for heroism—our main task on this earth—man’s natural yearning for organismic activity, the pleasure of incorporation and expansion, fed limitlessly in the domain of symbols—we compare one another symbolically—we are ignorant of what we want and need, we disguise it in consumption as our badges—desire to be hero is natural and to admit it is healthy—need to make me, man, nation, etc, meaningful—our need for freedom is our need to be a hero—it becomes a blind-drivenness that burns us up—we must feel that what we do is heroic—crises is when youth does not feel heroic, we have a crisis of heroism—religion is no longer a stage for heroism—heroics is a central theme of human action
Culture is a symbolic action system for heroism—to give death its due is perhaps a step back that will permit a step forward—death is reality, when we repress it what happens?—
This is how our brain works. We think with the aid of past experiences. We use linguistic metaphors to give others a direction for understanding. Our brain uses conceptual metaphors this same way; automatically using conceptual metaphors. LIFE IS A JOURNEY. Automatically our brain “copies” what we already know about journeys that help us to better comprehend the task of living.
Abstract ideas are largely metaphorical.
An infant is born and when embraced for the first time by its mother the infant experiences the sensation of warmth. In succeeding experiences the warmth is felt along with other sensations.
Empirical data verifies that there often happens a conflation of this sensation experience together with the development of a subjective (abstract) concept we can call affection. With each similar experience the infant fortifies both the sensation experience and the affection experience and a little later this conflation aspect ends and the child has these two concepts in different mental spaces.
This conflation leads us to readily recognize the metaphor ‘affection is warmth’.
Cognitive science uses metaphor in the standard usage as we are all accustomed to but it also uses a new concept that you are unfamiliar with unless you have been reading this book. This new concept is called ‘conceptual metaphor’. Conceptual metaphor is the heart of this new cognitive science and represents what will be in my opinion the new paradigm of cognitive science.
In my example I speak of two separate mental spaces; one being the experience of being held and the other is the subjective experience of affection. The theory behind the ‘conceptual metaphor’ is that the structure of the sense experience can and is often automatically without conscious intention mapped into a new mental space.
The experience structure can be mapped into a new mental space and thereby becomes part of the structure of that new mental space. In this fashion these conceptual metaphors can act somewhat like atoms that join together to make a molecule.
SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has developed new and revolutionary theories regarding how cognition works. One way that it works is through metaphor, not just linguistic but also through conceptual metaphor. You ought to give it a study. You might be surprised how many things will become clearer.
I am a retired engineer; that is why I think using physics as an aid in comprehending the world I live in.
no, it seems almost entirely insignificant in all cognitive psych I've taken or read
possibly because of the neurological "revolution" [sic: the emphasis on "revolutions" in psychology is a little silly anyways], but ya, never heard of it from anyone other than coberst
EDIT: LOL for realz, it looks like, from that abstract, SGCS is essentially some attempt to keep dualism in psychology... which is silly and almost psudoscience to begin with. sure it was published, but people publish on quantum consciousness, and that is total hogwash too
EDIT2: not to nit-pick, but Acta Psychologica isn't really known as the leading edge of the field, and this is an article that was published in their specifically Chinese journal...
EDIT3: the author's name returns 6 results on pub med, none of them are papers published by the author. I have more articles on pub med than this individual
__________________ yes, a million times yes
Last edited by tsilamini on Nov 22nd, 2011 at 02:42 AM
The phrase exists in the real world. That's all I wanted to point out.
And, I know you hate quantum physics being mixed up with psychology. Neuroscience will eventually completely subsume psychology. I'm looking forward to it.
well, fair enough. I'm just saying, for as much as it exists in the real world, it seems entirely ignored by cognitive scientists
Jealous? I'm a grad student and I'm kicking that guys ass! I have 2 citations now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :P
I'd have no problem with it if there was even the smallest shred of evidence for it or if there was anything that was explained better by applying to quantum phenomenon.
I'm sure I've told you about seeing physicists talk and try to define things that are obviously psychological in terms of bizarre theoretical physics.
maybe, it depends how you define "neuroscience". There are some things that are going to require a "neural systems" type view, and whether you consider that strict neuroscience or a new subject focused on "emergent" type phenomenon based on patterns of distributed neural firing. I'm not so keen on these "genres" of science, as I'm taking a psych of control course right now, and the prof keeps talking about social cognitive neuroscience as if that is something new rather than just applying knowledge from people with different research focus.
I hardly even differentiate between psych and neuro. At this point, I think the only relevant distinction is research and applied.
__________________ yes, a million times yes
Last edited by tsilamini on Nov 22nd, 2011 at 02:59 AM
Personally, I don't put weight on such phrases. However, in technology, your "nomenclature" is supposed to be "self-documenting". That may have been what they are going for. But, in English writing, having too many words for calling something...something...is considered "bad form." That actually has a name and it is frowned upon. Scientists don't give no **cks about proper English writing.
Yup...you're mad bro.
Know that, at this point, you'll be talking over my head. I am aware of the superficial machinations of the phenomena (how they are proposed) but I do not know exactly how it works (at least how they propose it works).
Yes, and that stuff makes "u mad bro".
I think that our future psychologists and psychiatrists will be neuroscientists, first and foremost. Instead of a sit down session where you talk about it...we'll just interface with dem shits and know wtf is up.
Do you think that if (rather, when) we can do information injection and retrieval at the neuronic level, we will truly be able to cure someone of an environmentally caused mental illness (i.e. ptsd). It seems to be the logical conclusion. We really will be able to "cure" someone of a mental illness. What about different types of schizophrenia? I sure hope so. My grandchildren had better be able to take advantage of such treatments.
WTF are you doing on KMC? You need to be researching this shit, now!!!! I want cures, damnit!
the problem now is that the brain doesn't work like a computer hard drive where there is just space to put memories and experiences, but its actual structure is built in different ways based on our experiences. Its not like someone with ptsd has a "corrupt file" in their memory, its that they have physically different neuronal connections that cause this, and to determine which specific connections are responsible for different experiences and the ability to change them seems almost like science fiction at this point
however, you might want to look up DTI (diffusion tensor imaging) that can use an MRI to image neuronal connections between various brain regions. We can't see which are active at this point, but it allows the sort of anatomical research that was only possible during autopsy previously. I remember being astounded, like literally mouth open, when I got to see it at work. To see the connections between active brain areas and other regions on an fMRI just totally blew me away. I'm skeptical of this stuff by nature, but some major jump in this technology may provide exactly what you are saying.
cures? not my field, bro. I'd be very happy if none of my research ever helped people. I care about mechanisms, not about what helps people.
lol, actually, collected some good data for the first time today, after 3 months of just intense problems with my equipment. I think I've actually invented a new filtering method in my data analysis... so that is cool... otherwise, ya, I'm for sure going to get a publication off the stuff I'm doing now, and it is REALLY interesting for the field, and the prof I'm working for is happy to let me run with my crazy ideas
I am aware of the neuronic groupings and synapse. I think I mentioned this in the other thread...but...basically, you'd target the group of neurons associated with that memory. We'd have to greatly expand our knowledge of how these groups interact with each other but we could relocate the memory to a grouping that is not accessed by the subconscious from stimuli. But, like I pointed out a while back, neuro-plasticity may make this new location accessible to processes...because it would still be accessible. So, like I pointed out to someone else not on KMC, we would argue the ethics of removing the memories entirely or placing them in "virtual space" to avoid the ethics. Are not the memories who we are? Would we just go back, over and over, and get the memories moved to a location that is not longer accessible? Or am I over-estimating neuro-plasticity? (surely there's a way you can associate these synapses in a way that makes it inaccessible to the fight or flight response but still accessible as a memory?) That would require a physical manipulation....or would it? If you can control the information actually stored (if we can figure that out) then we could just simply find a group of associated neurons that fit the bill...without having to physically manipulate axons. We could also find an alternative configuration the nets the same results or at least gives us the desired "setup".
I was aware of DTI: it is the "baby" step of how we get to reading and fitting memories/desired information in the places we want. It would require the scanning of an recognition of the neurons and axon connection to such a point that it grossly outpaces current computing technology: it still takes a large amount of time to pattern match finger prints to a database of millions..much less pattern much perfectly to a specific pattern/grouping to create a specific ensemble match. CSI is full of shit, basically....our computers are not fast enough to pattern match to anything useful on the "trillions of synapses" scale.
Your discoveries on how shit works may lead to cures. You're part of the system of cures!
Well...
1. That's awesome that you're a free agent. Keep in mind that if you make a marvelous breakthrough that makes you millions, I knew you and supported your work BEFORE the riches. Obviously, support, in this regard, is acting as a cheerleader.
2. Finding an open-minded project lead/boss/lead researcher is difficult to find, these days. You're lucky. They have their own ideas, many times. For instance, Hawking ran into trouble with his research on blackholes and his "boss" said, "Dude, this is shit science. It will never go anywhere." I bet hawking laughed about that...while droollin.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Nov 22nd, 2011 at 03:45 AM
KMC Community Forums
Mar 28th, 2009 01:51 PM
I want cures, damnit!
