141–150 of 151 posts
This is all about releasing the blocking mechanism that exists. I feel people like Eckhart Tolle have somehow mastered this, at least in the realm of the scope of abilities they are most comfortable being confined in.
In many cases, thinking that we are limited is itself a limiting factor. I've noticed this is true in ever facet of my life. When I was 14, I memorized pi to 50 digits with almost no effort. Later, I memorized it to 100, then 200. I realized at that point that I could memorize anything that I wanted to. I memorize phone numbers, credit card numbers, everything with almost no effort and not using any mnemonic device.…
> I actually convinced a friend of mine many years ago that he could in fact memorize pi to 100 digits... and he did and still remembers it to this day. I'm convinced anyone can do this and the major thing stopping them is their belief that they can't do it. I have similar experiences with (re)teaching basic math tricks and approximation to adults. "Oh, I wish I could to that but I suck at math" is a quite common res…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> The mind is not -- cannot be -- a source of empirical evidence. Science requires empirical evidence. > Since that's clearly not true of the brain's behavior, you seem to be making a claim that the mind is supernatural. No, only that the mind is not a legitimate source of empirical evidence (a negative assertion). Consider the areas that science doesn't (cannot) cover, and notice what they have in common -- usually…
It's hard for me take this at face value given that I haven't heard that there is a scientific understanding of what the mind is. You seem to be asserting an unfalsifiable, almost axiomatic statement that the mind cannot produce empirical evidence. This flies in the face of common sense. To the extent that there is anything that can objectively be called the mind, as an agreed upon real thing there has to be empirica…
Science proceeds using the null hypothesis -- meaning a claim is assumed to be false until there's evidence for it. On that basis, until someone produces reliable, empirical, falsifiable evidence by measuring the mind, evidence on which different observers agree, then the burden isn't mine to say that the mind cannot be a source for empirical observations, the burden is on psychologists to say and prove that it can be. So far, psychologists haven't been able to do that.
Without the null hypothesis, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster would be assumed to exist, and someone would have to shoulder the burden of proving that they do not exist (an impossible evidentiary burden). But with the null hypothesis, the burden of evidence for proving Bigfoot properly belongs to those who believe it exists. That same burden rests with those who claim that the human mind can produce empirical evidence, a position for which there is zero evidence.
> To the extent that there is anything that can objectively be called the mind, as an agreed upon real thing there has to be empirical evidence produced by that thing.
The same can be said about love -- everyone knows it exists, but it certainly isn't a source for empirical, objective evidence, the meaning of which all observers accept, evidence that produces consensus. There are any number of similar entities that clearly exist, but that are not appropriate subjects for scientific research.
> This something else is still there, in plain view by all (others behavior) and people present everyday at mental health clinics with very disturbing symptoms, every bit as real as a heart attack.
If I want a PTSD diagnosis, or an Asperger's diagnosis, I can certainly get them. If I want to avoid those diagnoses, I can also do that, by simply acting and speaking in a particular way. If I go to psychologist X I will get diagnosis A. If I go to psychologist Y I will get diagnosis B. Tom Widiger, who served as head of research for DSM-IV, says "There are lots of studies which show that clinicians diagnose most of their patients with one particular disorder and really don't systematically assess for other disorders. They have a bias in reference to the disorder that they are especially interested in treating and believe that most of their patients have."
Having faked out a psychologist, or been faked out by a psychologist as explained above, can I then fake out a cardiologist? You seem to think the mind and the heart are equally objective as sources of evidence. But they aren't -- the mind is not a physical organ and it cannot produce objective evidence.
> Otherwise the term has no descriptive power, and if I accept you assertion, I might as well reclassify things that I consider evidence of the mind (like utterances) to be evidence of something else.
We take you now to a psychology clinic where a test is about to be performed.
Therapist: "Please define the following words: ignorance, apathy, isolation. Go."
Subject: "I don't know, I don't care, leave me alone!"
Therapist: "Perfect score!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, I would rather have a mediocre memory and mediocre emotional intelligence, than an exceptional memory and the complete lack of EQ which you're demonstrating here. Hopefully you don't resent other people telling you how with little effort they were able to increase their vertical jump or learn how to play the guitar. Nope, I wouldn't. But if they then concluded from their own lack of effort that I should a…
the complete lack of EQ which you're demonstrating here. I would think someone with even a mediocre EQ would have more tact than telling someone they have a complete lack of EQ.
In many cases, thinking that we are limited is itself a limiting factor. I've noticed this is true in ever facet of my life. When I was 14, I memorized pi to 50 digits with almost no effort. Later, I memorized it to 100, then 200. I realized at that point that I could memorize anything that I wanted to. I memorize phone numbers, credit card numbers, everything with almost no effort and not using any mnemonic device.…
Others here are skeptical that just anyone can memorize pi to an arbitrary length. One way you can test if this has to do with you being 14 when this happened, is to memorize phi or e to 100, 200 or so digits with no mnemonic device. Or, maybe a string of random words or the contents of an entire magazine, each 100s of items long. It all depends on you being honest, but I'm curious. Maybe your brain has changed since…
I highly recommend reading Moonwalking with Einstein. It's about a journalist who got interested in memory competitions and, with a lot of practice, ended up winning the US memory championship. Anyone can do it.
[0] http://www.amazon.com/Moonwalking-Einstein-Science-Rememberi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I would agree that "the placebo response has no clinical application", I would not discount it so easily. Modern medicine tries to sweep all kinds of things under the "placebo effect" rug. In general, whenever something happens to the human body that we cannot explain by chemistry and mechanics, we call it a "placebo effect". This view of medicine treats the human as two separate entities: the body and the mind…
> In general, whenever something happens to the human body that we cannot explain by chemistry and mechanics, we call it a "placebo effect". If by "we" you mean you, sure. If you mean scientists I call bullshit. You're going to need a good citation to make that claim. > having spent 8 years trying to cure joint pains, I finally got rid of them just by thinking Not surprising. Pain is the one thing you expect to be ab…
Which is fine.
I'm just trying to say that whenever we don't know, we have a tendency to reject and ridicule any new hypothesis, especially if it's in the field where we also have no idea on how to measure things. So, while agreeing that a scientific approach (measure, quantify, prove, etc) is better, I would not reject nor ridicule hypotheses that we can neither prove nor disprove. Personally, I find them interesting, as they lie on the boundary of what we know and might offer promising research in the future.
[I don't want to pick up on your simplification wrt pain, so I'll just note it's huge. Psychosomatic pain is not about "perception" at all, it's real, and the symptoms are real.]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not offended. I wrote that the sentiment I described was belittling and people would resent it.
I am not offended. I wrote that the sentiment I described was belittling and people would resent it. Sorry, I don't believe you. You were either directly speaking for yourself or you were using weasel words a la, "people would resent it." In either case, you should man up to the fact that you were truly speaking for yourself. There were three people that voiced their offense at what I said. Two appeared to not be abl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not offended. I wrote that the sentiment I described was belittling and people would resent it. Sorry, I don't believe you. You were either directly speaking for yourself or you were using weasel words a la, "people would resent it." In either case, you should man up to the fact that you were truly speaking for yourself. There were three people that voiced their offense at what I said. Two appeared to not be abl…
You are very much mistaken, and are making a fool of yourself.
Someone worthwhile would just admit they were offended at what I said and move on with their life. I'm sorry you aren't such a person.
In many cases, thinking that we are limited is itself a limiting factor. I've noticed this is true in ever facet of my life. When I was 14, I memorized pi to 50 digits with almost no effort. Later, I memorized it to 100, then 200. I realized at that point that I could memorize anything that I wanted to. I memorize phone numbers, credit card numbers, everything with almost no effort and not using any mnemonic device.…
I'm happy you have this ability, but suggesting that everyone else just isn't living up to their potential because of some mental block that you have supposedly (and accidentally) overcome is, perhaps, limiting your compassion. You are very lucky to have an exceptional memory; others are not so lucky, and must work hard to do what costs you no effort. Supposing they just aren't trying hard enough or are succumbing to…
The research is on the parent's side: most people can improve their memory performance with focused practice.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/20/magazine/mind-...
This should not seem that surprising; we easily accept that most people can improve their physical fitness with exercise, for example.