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 [b]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. [/b]
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 [b]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.[/b]
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.
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?
[b]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.....[/b]
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 [b]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...[/b]
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 😉