### Apollo BBS Archive - March 7 - 10, 1990

    Message: 63714
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: reading
    Date: 03/08/90  Time: 06:10:00

     I cannot, nor do I attempt to speak for anyone else, but personally, if I
    want to read a book on psychology, neurology or any other ology, I will go
    to a library or bookstore and obtain the book.
     I log onto Apollo to read some thoghts and opinions of other users, not
    some misguided professor who has to publish something to maintain his status
    around the campus.
     Just my 2 cents worth. Aimed at no-one in particular, just those whose
    thoughts are apparently so barren that they have to use 3-6 messages
    actually written by someone else just to fill space.

    Message: 63715
    Author: $ Shirley Bear
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bob/Bears
    Date: 03/08/90  Time: 12:10:40

    Yep! Bob, Teddy Bears are people too.   Yes I have lost IT.  I am sure that
    90% of the people I know believe I have lost IT and there is no hope left
    for me.  Oh, Well! Little do they know.  So my life revolves around Bears
    it could be worse.
    Anyways, good to have you back Bob.
    Catch ya later.
                                          ***** Shirley *****

    Message: 63716
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Zak on psych
    Date: 03/08/90  Time: 16:32:36

    Zak, the information you posted is nothing new to me.  I have
    taken a college level course in psychology, and my text was
    remarkably similar to yours.  Evidently, I comprehended its
    contents to the satisfaction of the instructor, since I received
    an A in the course (alternately, you might assert that I merely
    did a thorough job memorizing the text).  That does not change
    the fact that I *still* do not admit psychology to be a science.
    That does not mean that I find psychology useless.  But you must
    learn to distinguish between probable inference and rigorous,
    scientific methodology.

    "Then, from about 1920 to 1960, American psychologists redefined
    psychology as the science of *behavior*.  After all, they said,
    SCIENCE IS ROOTED IN OBSERVATION.  YOU CANNOT OBSERVE A SENSATION
    , A FEELING, OR A THOUGHT; but you *can* observe how people's
    *external* behaviors are affected by external stimuli."

    By their own admission, then, the psychologists themselves
    support my contention that one cannot define the interpretation
    of behavior, in terms of feeling or thought, as a science!  That
    does away with 95 percent of all psychology claiming to be
    science.  As for behaviorism...I have no trouble with defining
    classical behaviorism as a science: so long as its adherents
    refrain from making any assertions about the mind (behaviorists
    are notorious for making assertions about the passivity of the
    mind relative to environmental considerations).
    To define psychology strictly as behaviorism, then, is not merely
    supererogatory, but oxymoronic, since the roots of the word
    "psychology" clearly define the term as the study of the psyche.
    If you wish to so define it, however, I will accept this -- as
    long as you are willing to renounce the rest of your
    equivocations.  Psychology, then, is merely classical behavior-
    ism: the study of behavior in response to external stimuli. Fine.

    As for Phineas Gage, any number of conclusions might be drawn, with varying
    degrees of credibility.  Again, you are confusing behavior with mind,
    probable inference with genuine science. It may very well be that hostility
    is connected with the frontal lobe (though this is more a matter for
    neurology than psychology): certainly, Mr. Gage sustained trauma to the
    frontal lobe, after which his behavior changed radically.  Certainly, people
    with a previous history of hostile behavior have been known to be "calmed"
    by trauma to the frontal lobe. Perhaps it was merely that his inhibitions
    were removed by the accident: before the accident, he was described as a
    gentleman.  After the accident, he was publicly profane, expressed his
    temper without any consideration for others, and chased women without regard
    to conventional mores.  Perhaps the conclusion to be drawn is that
    inhibitions are connected to the frontal lobe.  Hell, a lot of behaviors
    and capacities are observed to correlate with various parts of the brain.
    These are by no means worthless.  They are by no means scientific, either,
    when used to interpret the mind. And how did his friends reach the
    conclusion that Phineas Gage became enraged "for no reason"?  Reason is a
    product of the mind, and they had no access to Gage's mind.  Perhaps he was
    given to brooding over past abuses and indignities, an inner conflict which
    might have manifested itself prior to the accident as pensiveness,
    distraction, or melancholy, but which now, lacking the inhibitions which
    dictated a more socially acceptable demeanor, resulted in sudden and
    apparently unprovoked rages.

    Have you ever observed the behavior of a sociopath?  And I do not
    restrict this category to serial killers, or even to those
    inclined to violence.  They have been variously described as
    "charming", "intelligent", "pleasant", "cheerful", "good-natured"
    and other complimentary terms.  Perhaps those making such
    observations, which are of course based on the observation of
    behavior, are lacking in perspicacity.  Perhaps they are willing
    to be deceived.  Then again, perhaps one cannot draw scientific
    conclusions about what goes on inside someone's mind (assuming
    they have one in the ordinary sense) based on the way they act.
    It is my own opinion that people are predisposed, genetically and
    by experience, to associate certain patterns of behavior (be they
    expressions, sounds, whatever) with certain internal states.
    By presenting people with recognisable patterns of behavior,
    they instinctively "fill in the blanks", presupposing the
    existence of that which they cannot know: the internal state
    of the observed.  When this inference accurately corresponds,
    then such "psychology" is indeed useful.  But not scientific.

    Message: 63720
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: My Dinner with...
    Subject: Idiot Savants(cont.)
    Date: 03/08/90  Time: 16:36:51

    "Had the numbers any meaning, I wondered on the way home. Had
    they any 'real' or universal sense, or (if any at all) a merely
    whimsical or private sense, like the secret and silly 'languages'
    brothers and sisters sometimes work out for themselves?  And, as
    I drove home, I thought of Luria's twins -- Liosha and Yura --
    brain-damaged, speech impaired identical twins, and how they
    would play and prattle to each other in a primitive, babble-like
    language of their own . . . (Having consulted tables of powers,
    primes, logarithms and factors, I determined that) all the
    numbers, the six-figure numbers which the twins had exchanged,
    were primes. . . Had they somehow seen or possesed such a book
    (a list of primes) as mine, or were they, in some unimaginable
    way 'seeing' primes, in somewhat the same way as they had seen
    111-ness or triple 37-ness?  Certainly they could not be
    calculating them -- they could calculate nothing.
    I returned to the ward the next day, carrying the precious book
    of primes with me. I again found them closeted in their numerical
    communion, but this time, without saying anything, I quietly
    joined them.  They were taken aback at first, but when I made no
    interruption, they resumed their game of six figures.

    After a few minutes I decided to join in, and ventured a number,
    an eight-figure prime.  They both turned towards me, then
    suddenly became still, with a look of intense concentration and
    perhaps wonder on their faces.  There was a long pause -- the
    longest I had ever known them to make, it must have lasted half
    a minute or more -- and then suddenly, simultaneously, they both
    broke into smiles.
    They had, after some unimaginable internal process of testing,
    suddenly seen my own eight-digit number as a prime -- and this
    was manifestly a great joy, a double joy, to them; first because
    I had introduced a delightful new plaything, a prime of an order
    they had never encountered; and secondly, because it was evident
    that I had seen what they were doing, that I liked it, that I
    admired it, and that I could join in myself.
    They drew apart slightly, making room for me, a new number
    playmate, a third in their world.  Then John, who always took the
    lead, thought for a very long time -- at least five minutes --
    and brought out a nine-figure number; and after a similar time
    his twin, Michael, responded with a similar one.  And then I, in
    my turn, after a surreptitious look in my book, added my own
    rather dishonest contribution, a ten-figure prime.

    There was again, and for even longer, a wondering, still silence;
    and then John, after a prodigious internal contemplation, brought
    out a twelve figure number.  I had no way of checking this, and
    could not respond, because my book (which as far as I knew, was
    unique of its kind) did not go beyond ten figure primes.  But
    Michael was up to it, though it took him five minutes, and an
    hour later the twins were swapping twenty figure primes, or so I
    assumed, for I had no way to check.  Nor was there any easy way,
    in 1966, unless one had the use of a sophisticated computer. And
    even then it would have been difficult, for whether one uses
    Eratosthenes' sieve, or any other algorithm, there is no simple
    method for calculating primes.  There is no simple method, for
    primes of this order -- and yet the twins were doing it.
    . . . Such higher or deeper mathematics were conceived, in
    principle, by Gauss in his Disquisitiones Arithmeticae, in 1801
    . . . one has to wonder whether there may not be a conventional
    arithmetic (that is, an arithmetic of operations) -- often
    irritating to teacher and student, unnatural and hard to learn,
    -- and also a deep arithmetic of the kind described by Gauss,
    which may be truly innate to the brain, as innate as Chomsky's
    'deep' syntax and generative grammars.

    "This serenity was, in fact, interrupted and broken up ten years
    later, when it was felt that the twins should be separated,
    'for their own good,' to prevent their 'unhealthy communication
    together,' in order that they might 'come out and face the
    world...in an appropriate, socially acceptable way' (as the
    medical and sociological jargon had it).  They were separated,
    then, in 1977, with consequences which might be considered as
    either gratifying or dire.  Both have been moved into halfway
    houses, and do menial jobs, for pocket money, under close super-
    vision.  They are able to take buses, if carefully directed and
    given a token, and to keep themselves moderately presentable and
    clean, though their moronic and psychotic character is still
    recognisable at a glance.  This is the positive side -- but there
    is a negative side too (not mentioned in their charts, because it
    was never recognised in the first place).  Deprived of their
    numerical communion with each other, and of time and opportunity
    for any 'contemplation' or 'communion' at all -- they are always
    being hurried and jostled from one job to another -- they seem to
    have lost their strange numerical power, and with this their
    chief sense of joy and sense of their lives.  But this is
    considered a small price to pay, no doubt, for their having
    become quasi-independent and 'socially acceptable'.

    "One is reminded somewhat of the treatment meted out to Nadia, an
    autistic child with a phenomenal gift for drawing.  Nadia too was
    subjected to a therapeutic regime 'to find ways in which her
    potentialities in other directions could be maximized'.  The net
    effect was that she started talking -- and stopped drawing.
    Nigel Dennis comments: 'We are left with a genius who has had her
    genius removed, leaving nothing behind but a general defect-
    iveness.  What are we supposed to think about such a curious
    cure?'"

    Message: 63725
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Paul
    Date: 03/08/90  Time: 16:46:34

    Tough dukeys.  Use the [S]kip key.

    Perhaps you could tell me, as long as I have your attention...exactly how
    does one spell "dukeys"?  Is it "dukeys", or "dookeys", or perhaps "dukies"?
    I have been told that you are something of an expert on scatological slang.

    Message: 63726
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann's Art
    Date: 03/08/90  Time: 16:48:43

    Ann, I recently viewed some of your computer art, and let me say, without
    any exageration or flattery, that you are tremendously talented.  You could
    easily be a professional artist.  Excellent use of light and color.  I'm
    really quite impressed.

    Message: 63727
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff on Paul
    Date: 03/08/90  Time: 18:10:47

    Hear, hear!  I enjoy the excerpts which users choose to share with us.

    Reverend Beauregard Jackson Culpeper Dog, Colonel, CSA, retired

    Message: 63728
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Dog on Jeff
    Date: 03/08/90  Time: 19:03:16

    Stout fellow!

    Message: 63729
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Jeff Beck
    Date: 03/09/90  Time: 05:46:54

     In the first place, I have no idea where I achieved the rank of "expert" in
    anything, let alone scatalogical slang.
     Secondly, never having heard the term dukeys, dookeys or dukies, I haven't
    the slightest idea of what the correct spelling might be.
     Thirdly. I have been using the skip key, since I find your subject matter,
    and the way you drag it out, to be classicly boring. But then again, it has
    been over 45 years since I studied psychology, which, by the way, I consider
    an imperfect science for two reasons. 1. It being a study of human
    behaviour, it cannot be a perfect science, since human behaviour is
    essentially erratic and therefore unpredictable in many cases, and.
    2. In my humble opinion, no science is perfect, since all sciences are in a
    constant state of change.
     I will now revert to my previous state of boredom. Back to the skip key.

    Message: 63730
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject:  Geesh!
    Date: 03/09/90  Time: 05:48:45

     Now we have a mutual admiration society! Jeffy and Beauregard. Well, they
    probably deserve each other. (smile)

    Message: 63731
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff/my art
    Date: 03/09/90  Time: 07:34:48

    Thanks a lot Jeff. Now if I could only get a job drawing or teaching drawing
    programs on the computer I'd be happy. I just did send a reseme along with a
    disk of four of my drawings to the Al Collin's school. I would truly like to
    teach people to use art programs and you can learn faster from a demo then a
    manual anytime. I believe that all people whether they think they have
    talent or not can produce quality drawings if they know the basics. A
    computer drawing program is SOOOOO much better than to pick up oils, water
    colors and pen and ink and try to draw. so much is built in already. Do yo
    draw, paint, etc? -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63732
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann's Art
    Date: 03/09/90  Time: 08:06:06

    Given Ann's talent, (BTW, I agree with you), do you think that if she was
    forced to communicate with others (for her own good) she would lose that
    talent ? :-) Jest Wondering.

    Message: 63733
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Dog on Jeff on Paul
    Date: 03/09/90  Time: 08:10:45

    I enjoyed those excerpts immensely. It would be extremely interesting to
    know how the brain works so that we could make learning much easier. I am
    reminded of a guest on Barry Young who had a great talent for multiplying
    and dividing extremely long numbers. He claimed that he "learned" how to
    do it by himself, and that when he told his teacher about his method, he
    was discouraged from learning arithmetic in his way and that he must use
    the methods taught in schools. Perhaps when we learn how the brain really
    works we will be able to do mathematics much more naturally and more easily.

    Message: 63734
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Paul (again) on JB
    Date: 03/09/90  Time: 08:13:02

    I'm surprised that you find this material boring. It induces a sense of
    wonder and discovery into another facet of that marvelous organ, the brain.
    Perhaps you should become more child-like with a child's sense of excitement
    and things that are new.

    Message: 63735
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 03/09/90  Time: 16:19:46

    Well, good luck.  As for my artistic talents (or lack thereof) it should
    suffice to state that I cannot draw stick figures without the aid of a
    straight-edge.

    Message: 63736
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Roger/last on Paul
    Date: 03/09/90  Time: 16:21:10

    No!!! He's already child-like enough as it is!  :)

    Message: 63737
    Author: Mike Carter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann / Drawings
    Date: 03/09/90  Time: 17:27:00

    I found that using a computer for my Cartoon drawings was so much cheaper
    than to go down and buy the shading sheets, the paper{ and the
    sable brushe{..not to mention that{_ getting reductions is{very costlly
    too..
    Using the computer I have increased my profit margin selling the drawings
    because I don't have as much expense into the materials.
    The only DRAWback (he heh) is that drawing on the computer takes
    5 to 6 times the amount of time to draw than it would normally using
    the pen and ink methods.

    Now that I have a VGA setup, maybe Cliff would open the UL and DL
    sections to non status members.

    Then again, I could be waiting until Dan Quayle is referenced as an
    Old Man.

    Message: 63738
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Last on Mike C.
    Date: 03/09/90  Time: 17:37:43

            Drats!   I saw mike on, and was about to intervene to get his phone
    number...and POOF!   He logged off.   "How dare he" I said to my self....
    (just kidding)  Oh well....

            There are reasons I don't open the ibrary to Non-Members, but if
    Mike would like a copy of Ann's drawings, I  would be happy to give you a
    disk.   Do you have a 3.5 disk drive....  or just 5.250 drives?

            *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

    Message: 63739
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: reading
    Date: 03/10/90  Time: 00:14:15

         I cannot, nor do I attempt to speak for anyone else (and why would they
    want me to?), but personally, if I want to fill 3-6 messages from a book
    about psychology, neurology, theology, cosmetology or any other "ology," I
    will log on Apollo and do so.  (As long as I'm not in the Phantom Zone or
    something.)
         I log on to Apollo to read some thoughts, opinions, and occasional
    transcribed material from books, written by other users, not by some
    misguided user who says things such as the following:
         "...Some misguided professor who has to publish something to maintain
    his $tatus, er, status around the campus."
         I mean, what is that supposed to mean?  Who is the "misguided
    professor?"  Oliver Sacks?  It sounds like whoever wrote that quote has seen
    D.O.A. one too many times.  Or perhaps there is a neurological impairment
    there.  I don't know.

         Just my 2 cents worth.  Aimed at no-one in particlar (and ESPECIALLY
    NOT Paul Savage!), just those whose thoughts are apparently so barren that
    they have to write messages complaining about other messages just to fill
    space.

         Zak

    Message: 63740
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: imperfect science
    Date: 03/10/90  Time: 01:04:47

         Paul, I disagree with your reasons for psychology being an imperfect
    science.
         Your first reason is that human behavior is erratic, therefore it is
    unpredictable.  In other words, human behavior is unpredictable, thus
    unpredictable.  You might as well just say "Human behavior is
    unpredictable," right?
         This may be the case in many instances.  But there are other instances
    where human behavior is very predictable.  Go look at Melissa Dee's messages
    on JT's public domain.  Ever notice that in classrooms, most students choose
    to sit in the same seats time and time again?  If somebody kills your cat,
    would it be accurate to predict you would respond with behavior that
    represents anger?  Of course it would.  Sure, you can't always predict human
    behavior in all instances, but that is not what psychology claims to be able
    to do.
         I have to agree with your second reason, in itself, but not as support
    for your argument.  You said that "psychology is an imperfect science"
    because "no science is perfect."
         What does it mean for a science to be perfect?  Does that mean that all
    its claims, every last one of them, has to be unquestionably true?  Does
    that mean that it can't make mistakes from time to time (even though it
    corrects them)?  Of course not.  Most science textbooks have the disclaimer:
    "Do not believe everything you read in this book."  That's what science is:
    questioning, continually looking for new and more accurate answers, and new
    methods of finding them.  This does not make science any less valuable.

    Message: 63741
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Beck on psych
    Date: 03/10/90  Time: 01:16:30

         I'm glad you got an A in your psych class.  I got an A as well, so en
    garde!
         Your skepticism regarding psychology is so overdone as to render your
    position pointless.  You might as well argue an evil-demon argument in which
    you say that we can know nothing, because how can we trust our own
    perceptions?  How do we know that all of our senses are not being controlled
    by a giant, supersophisticated computer, or an evil demon?  How do you know
    that you aren't the only "normal" one, and the rest of us aren't aliens who
    are conducting a giant experiment on you, you lab rat?  (Secretly, we're all
    talking behind YOUR back.)
         Likewise, how do we know that when somebody emits shrieks of pain, that
    he is really feeling pain?  How do we know that when we see a child crying,
    that the child is sad or hurt?  How do we know that...blah blah blah.  Sure,
    you cannot observe a sensation, a feeling, or a thought.  Even at your level
    of skepticism, empirically this is true.  The trouble is you are arguing
    against a straw man -- who *are* these psychologists who purport to have the
    ability to observe thoughts and feelings?  At best, they can only observe
    outside behaviors that correspond to what we believe are the inside
    behaviors that cause them.  (We believe this is so by our own personal
    experiences of crying and feeling pain, laughing and feeling whimsy, etc.)
    Would it make you happier if all psychologists worded it more specifically?
    I.E.  "The electric shock given to John caused him to feel pain" turns to
    "John responded to the electric shock by shouting loudly, 'OW, stop,
    stop!'"???  Hint:  they already do.

         Perhaps it is too much for you for psychologists to even mention anger,
    sadness, glee or pain.  But this is absurd -- we know these states of
    feeling exist, and we know that usually, outside representations of them
    correspond accurately.  If in a given experiment, evidence leads to doubt
    that this is true (say a subject fakes his responses), then the experiment
    would be useless, its results disregarded.  But still, perhaps this is too
    much.  We need a specific example if we are going to get much further here.
         What about depression cases?  How accurate would a study be of the
    effects of certain drugs on depressed people, if we could never be sure if
    the depressed subjects were really depressed?  (Of course, they aren't
    "depressed," they are "humans who claim to suffer the symptoms of a
    behavioral state some refer to as depression," right?)
         But then we have cases like Phineas Gage.  Neurology.  You separate
    neurology and psychology as if they were as far apart as classical and punk.
    (Well, maybe you don't, but it sounded good.)  Rather, they are as
    intimately connected as cosmology and astronomy.  Psychology would be
    nothing if it didn't refer to resources such as neurology, sociology,
    anthropology, and linguistics.  Psychology brings these realms together for
    something that is, as you said, very useful.
         By the way, your alternative analyses of Phineas Gage's condition don't
    hold water.  To say that Gage's "inhibitions were removed" is ignoring the
    facts of the case.  This man literally could not function in society.  He
    ended up in a carnival freakshow.  Name some other freak accident not
    connected with the brain (a spike through the pelvis?) that had this effect.

         Phineas Gage was not just naturally freaking out.  He was
    neurologically impaired.  Poor Phineas.  If you can't agree to this, I have
    to wonder what you're doing reading Oliver Sacks.  This is not probable
    inference versus genuine science.  Okay, let me restate that.  ONE case,
    such as Gage's -- we have probable inference (maybe).  Two or three other
    similar cases -- we have even more probable inference.  Now let's heap
    experiment after experiment (conducted scientifically, of course, with
    controls, hypotheses and predictions).  What do we have now?  ("A mess" is
    not an acceptable answer.)  We have very, very, very probable inference.  We
    have cats that shriek and hiss when this area is stimulated, and people who
    do the same. (We also have cats and people who cower in fear in the sight of
    a mouse when certain parts of the amygdala are stimulated.)  How *probable*
    does the inference have to get here?
         What is your definition of genuine science?  You draw a line somewhere
    between "useful" and "scientific."  What IS science, if not useful?
    Isn't that the whole point?  You say "a lot of behaviors and capacities are
    observed to correlate with various parts of the brain.  These are [not]
    worthless.  They are [not] scientific, either."  Why?  Why aren't the
    correlations scientific?  I assume you think they are pretty accurate,
    otherwise you wouldn't think they were useful correlations.  Since they are
    accurate, they are scientific.  What point of yours am I missing?

         To sum up -- your point rests on one premise, that you can't associate
    patterns of behavior with certain internal states.  It's invalid, you said,
    it's illogical, it doesn't follow.  "John says he is angry.  John's face is
    red and he is beating his fists on the table.  Therefore, John really is
    angry."  That ONLY doesn't follow if John is lying.  So we have to assume
    (correctly?) that most people don't lie about their feelings, at least not
    the simple, momentary ones.
          I'm not sure what your point is here.  To me, this is a straw man
    argument since I can't think of any psychologists (except Freud, who most
    psychologists agree had a lot interesting things to say, but don't put too
    much stock in) who have made claims that are based on any false assumptions
    about internal states.  Jeff, PLEASE, let's get to the meat of the argument
    -- describe an example of an experiment in which the psychologists drew
    conclusions you found wholly disagreeable.
         If we can't draw conclusions about internal states scientifically, yet
    it is useful, then what pray tell is psychology?  An area of non-scientific
    medicine?  A pseudo-science?  Yet it can't be a pseudo-science, for we know
    that the claims of pseudo-science are almost always B.S., and the claims of
    psychology often carry a lot of weight.   (Psychology is responsible for
    defining addiction, and observing how it works.  Psychology is responsible
    for accurate studies done on the effectiveness of different methods of
    educating.)  ...Even if PSYCHology and behaviorism are oxymoronic, this
    doesn't matter.
         The internal and external work together.  See beyond the outside.

    Message: 63745
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Zak on Paul
    Date: 03/10/90  Time: 03:22:54

    I don't believe that Paul has a cat.  If he did, and someone were to kill
    it, I think that he would most likely be pleased.

    Message: 63746
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Zak/psych
    Date: 03/10/90  Time: 03:41:37

    The "evil-demon" question is a rather complex one, but has an answer, and as
    an assertion is definitely rebuttable.  We can know certain things.  On the
    concrete level, we can know our own existence.  But not form or location.
    As for your other question, I don't KNOW that I'm not the focus of some
    experiment.  Likewise, I don't know that I'm not dreaming, mentally ill and
    hallucinating, or any of innumerable propositions.
    I don't know that when someone shrieks, they are feeling pain.  As you said,
    I can only assume this because of my own paradigms.  They are not
    infallible, as demonstrated by the fact that they can be rather easily
    fooled.  We see illusory human behavior every time we view a movie, and when
    the actor is sufficiently talented, if it were not for the context in which
    his actions were viewed, the deception might be total.  As it is, we see
    various emotive images on the screen, and even though we know that what we
    see is an illusion, we still respond as though it were real, if only for a
    split second.
    I am not arguing against a straw man.  You are arguing against a straw man
    and accusing me of the offense.  I have never suggested that there are
    psychologists who claim the ability to observe thoughts and emotions.  I
    merely stated that interpretations of behavior in terms of the mind are
    purely suppositious.  When these suppositions have, as far as can be
    determined, a better chance of being true than false, then they may be
    useful.  When they do correspond accurately to inner states, then of course
    they are useful.  But not scientific.

    Again, I don't believe you have been paying any attention to the point I'm
    trying to make.  The point is not that it is useless to speculate about or
    try to predict inner states by observing behavior, merely because such
    speculations are not scientifically verifiable.  The point is that such
    speculations are not scientifically verifiable; they are therefore
    unscientific.  if you wish to define psychology as an art, fine.
    It is, of course, silly to suggest that people should not be treated for
    depression merely because we don't KNOW they are depressed, just as it would
    be silly to suggest that people should ignore traffic control devices merely
    because they are not sure that such devices exist.

    As for Phineas Gage, I merely suggested an alternative explaination for his
    radical change in behavior.  You did not refute that merely by pointing out
    that he could not function in society (a statement which is both vague and
    unverified).  His rages and unencumbered libidinism might well be explained
    by an attenuation of his ordinary inhibitions, while other factors (I assume
    that there are other factors, otherwise, where is your argument?) which
    impair his ability to function in society might be related to additional
    neurological damage.  I would remind you that brain damage is not necessary
    to be a misanthrope.  Who knows?  Maybe after suffering such a grotesque
    misfortune, he concluded that God was dead, and, lacking motivation to
    behave in a Christian manner, became the cad that he always was.  Of course,
    I'm being silly, but the point has been made.  (as for other examples, I am
    not a student of weird neurological mysteries.)

    I will not argue that behavior can be stimulated by stimulating the brain.
    I don't know about some of your examples, and although they sound spurious,
    I'll take your word for it.  But again, so what?  You argue that because
    behavior can be altered by stimulating the brain, and because Gage's brain
    was damaged, that his hostility was some sort of robotic response to this
    damage. Well, that's fine for speculation, but not for science.  Prove it.
    You can't, of course, because you don't know what was going on in Gage's
    mind, and your speculation carries no more weight than mine.  Psychology is
    NOT scientific, because its speculations (speculations which interpret
    behavior in terms of inner states) are UNVERIFIABLE.

    Finally, I insist that you stop this masturbatory self-aggrandizement and
    actually read my posts.  Perhaps then you will be able to distinguish
    between an academic point and a total condemnation.

    Psychology can work, and when it does it is useful.  But psychology, because
    it deals with speculations on inner states and their causes, based on
    observation of behavior, can and routinely is abused and misused, by both
    the blatant quacks and the status-quo.  Since speculations about the
    interaction between your inner states and your behavior are unverifiable, I
    have free reign to formulate whatever theories I please.  If I wish to
    invent such entities as "the id", "the ego", and the "superego", or if I
    wish to attribute your behavior to unconscious influences, I can do so, and
    there is no way to verify these speculations.  It is all very well to say
    that today, Freud is laughed at, but for a long, long time this was not so,
    and during the time in which his theories were respected by the
    psychological community, a lot of people were (mis)treated based on these
    speculations.  This sort of thing continues to this very day, with qualified
    psychologists, following whatever school of thought they are currently loyal
    to, subject patients to analysis which is worthless at best, and often ends
    up screwing them up as well as wasting time and money.  It is important that
    psychology be recognised as an art, and not a science, for it is
    particularly dangerous when science is used as a fetish to rationalise and
    lend credibility to subjective, highly speculative theories.

    Just a few decades ago, the psychological community wholeheartedly condemned
    homosexuality as a form of mental illness; an aberation, a disturbance.  No
    doubt there were thousands of homosexuals who sought counciling and were
    treated according to these theories; no doubt they routinely accepted the
    word of the "scientific" experts in submitting to this treatment.
    These days, psychologists deny that homosexuality is an illness or a
    perversion; it is merely an "alternative lifestyle."
    Contrast these paradigmatic changes with those which occur in hard sciences
    like physics; the mere act of revision does not make a science worthless:
    science is a dynamic process.  But in the case of the psychologists, where
    is the new scientific evidence?  Where was the old scientific evidence?
    What changed?  Public opinion, that's what.

    Message: 63751
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff
    Date: 03/10/90  Time: 05:48:12

     Since I obviously worded my last post so poorly, let me try again, OK? My
    apologies if I was misunderstood, and I accept the responsibility for poor
    communications.
     Having said that, let me rephrase my opinion concerning long messages
    copied out of books. Subject matter notwithstanding, my feelings are that,
    if I am interested in a subject enough to read up on it or study it, I feel
    that the library, or perhaps a bookstore, would be the proper place to go.
    Or perhaps even enroll in a class on that subject in one of the many schools
    available in the community.
     BBSes, generally, are sounding boards for people's opinions on matters of
    mutual interest to those people using that facility. It is my personal
    opinion (and wish) that messages on BBSes be kept as brief and succinct as
    they can be, rather than long, multiple message readings from books.
     I am not trying to raise anyone's ire. I am merely expressing an opinion.
    It would seem more appropriate to this particular media if  you were to
    express your thoughts of what an author wrote than to go to extremes quoting
    pages of the author's efforts. Just another thought. THanks for reading.

    Message: 63752
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Roger #63732
    Date: 03/10/90  Time: 09:04:14

    Huh? What? I missed that post entirely. Care to define? -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63753
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike on com. drawing
    Date: 03/10/90  Time: 09:07:50

    I don't think computer drawings take as much time as say oils or water
    colors. You are right about pen and ink though. That's my second favorite
    way to draw - a pencil sketch and then go over it with India ink - adding
    the details. You get paid for your drawings? How so - tell me! -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63754
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul on long posts
    Date: 03/10/90  Time: 10:10:24

    Long posts copied from books often serve to whet my interest in a topic. At
    the very least, they can be used as a basis for discussion, as they have
    given common footing to all parties.

    Message: 63755
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Ann #63752
    Date: 03/10/90  Time: 12:00:43

    I was joking. see the ":-)" and the lousy pun "jest wondering". The
    "joke" arose from the superposition in my mind of Jeff's post on
    idiot savants and his praise of your drawing capability. In the
    post on idiot savants he mentioned (or quoted, can't remember) that
    an autistic? person drew beautiful pictures that amazed everyone. When
    "cured" of his autism, he lost his ability draw beautiful pictures. That led
    me to suggest that because you draw beautiful pictures that if you
    were cured and able to talk that you would lose your ability. Since
    you obviously have no problem talking, Ann, the question becomes
    a non-sequitur and , therefore, funny.

    Message: 63756
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: On the Lighter Side
    Subject: Paul Savage
    Date: 03/10/90  Time: 16:03:21

         I think you could save yourself a lot of time if you'd just [S]kip the
    messages you don't like or uit from them, instead of complaining.

    Message: 63757
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Zak on Paul on Zak
    Date: 03/10/90  Time: 16:22:12

    (1)  Paul has a right to his opinion...and can post it!

    (2)  I don't think it was quite a complaint, but more like an explanation of
         the type posts he prefers.

    (3)   Apro Poet took such criticism like a MAN!

    (4)   The both of you keep posting............

                                    *=* Thanks *=*
                                    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

    Message: 63758
    Author: $ Jim Lippard
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: science
    Date: 03/10/90  Time: 16:29:10

    If science requires verification by observation, then much of physics is not
    science.

    Message: 63761
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: On the Lighter Side
    Subject: My new Gun...
    Date: 03/10/90  Time: 18:18:10

            After getting my new weapon of over a week ago, I sent it out to the
    'Gun Smith' for some fine tuning....  You know, combat sights, trigger job
    and last, but not least... the Speed Button(tm) of Mr N. Ford.  Took this
    baby out to a shooting area today, along with Steven Carls, to get it
    sighted in, well...  what you never expect in Arizona is RAIN, and rain it
    did.   The targets got soggy along with your ol'SysOp and Mr Carls, but not
    before I got it at least a little sighted in doing head shots at 15 yards in
    a nice grouping.

            The weapon specs: Smith & Wesson 625-3 45ACP 6 shot wheel gun with a
    5 inch barrel.   As some of you know, ACP is generaly shot by autos and NOT
    wheel guns. (six shooters)  There is a special 'full-moon' clip that you
    snap the 45ACP round into that does the head spacing. The clip holds all six
    rounds and the neet thing about this, is, it's just like a speedloader, but
    it stays with the rounds when chambered.  And when you eject the rounds,
    they stay together in this clip, making the pick up of your spent brass,
    very easy. I have many clips, so I don't have to fiddle any between reloads.

            Maybe next week the sun will shine and I will get some much needed
    practice to hone my skill, before I try to compete against some other VERY
    good shooters on the combat range.... but so far, the new weapon looks
    great.....  I wish I could say the same for the SysOp!

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

    Message: 63762
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Shirley
    Date: 03/10/90  Time: 19:08:30

    Re:  "I am sure that 90% of the people I know believe I have lost IT and
    there is no hope left for me."

    There is always hope Shirley.  Besides, what true American didn't start out
    loving a Teddy Bear?

    Message: 63763
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff Beck
    Date: 03/10/90  Time: 19:11:53

    Re:  "exactly how does one spell "dukeys"?  Is it "dukeys", or "dookeys", or
    perhaps "dukies"?"

    I thought he spelled it "Dukakis."  :-)

    Message: 63764
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff
    Date: 03/10/90  Time: 19:16:00

    Re:  "Do you have a 3.5 disk drive....  or just 5.250 drives?"

    Only the elite have 3.5 disk drives.

Content of this site is © Mark Firestone or whomever wrote it. All rights reserved.