Teleporting Information

[Kaylia]

But it's not a fact that the model is the same exact thing as cognition.(in its entirety)

totally unrelated

It's a shame what they're studying is mixed within social interaction. I guess you think that a neurobiologist and neuropsychologist is the same thing, but what i do know, i study psychology lol.

I guess I do know more.

Neuropsychology is the applied scientific discipline that studies the structure and function of the brain related to specific psychological processes and overt behaviors. The term neuropsychology has been applied to lesion studies in humans and animals. It has also been applied to efforts to record electrical activity from individual cells (or groups of cells) in higher primates (including some studies of human patients).[1]

It is scientific in its approach and shares an information processing view of the mind with cognitive psychology and cognitive science.

It is one of the more eclectic of the psychological disciplines, overlapping at times with areas such as neuroscience, philosophy (particularly philosophy of mind), neurology, psychiatry and computer science (particularly by making use of artificial neural networks).

I also predicted that, but you also ignored it.

Anyone can predict the obvious, dont take too much credit.


Rest of your post is way too fragmented to even make sense.

[Kuya]

Which problem are you talking about?

What the mind is.

Sorry, but you can't simply turn down something established by sciences without a solid argument.

lol

The way they ignore the bottom-up approach completely is what annoy me the most, because there is some insight to get it from it.

I don't ignore it, i've read of the plasticity of neurons.

Ok, where do you think the mind is located? Seriously.

I don't know.

[Kaylia]

Ok, where do you think the mind is located? Seriously.

I don't know.

I will give you a clue. It start with b and finish with rain. 5 letters.

[Kuya]

scientific discipline

As is every other discipline within psychology minus psychoanalysis.

It has also been applied to efforts to record electrical activity from individual cells

WHOA WHOA WHOA. Neuropsychologists study that!? I couldn't have guessed it from the neuro part.

philosophy (particularly philosophy of mind

psychiatry

Whoops.

Thanks for posting what i already knew, you know, because i don't understand psychology, but you obviously do, mr.wiki.

[Kuya]

I will give you a clue. It start with b and finish with rain. 5 letters.

How causal.

[Tristam]

What the mind is.

lolI don't ignore it, i've read of the plasticity of neurons. I don't know.

Well if you understand plasticity you should know the biological basis of memories at the very least. Why do you think the same mechanisms don't apply to perception?

edit: So I have a better frame of reference, what do you consider to be the mind and why is it apart from known brain biology. What distinguishes it?

[Tristam]

In other words, you believe something somewhat different than Kaylia and Meson but you take my replies to their specific claims as contentions against whatever it is you believe. You take my replies out of context.

I agree with Meson 100%, I honestly don't know what you and Kaylia are talking about.

[Kuya]

Because perception also requires interpretation on the part of the subject. For example, when i say homosexuality, what does this mean to you?

[Tristam]

Because perception also requires interpretation on the part of the subject. For example, when i say homosexuality, what does this mean to you?

I think you're considering something else entirely, perception to me is the ability to recognize and address stimuli. Not sure what homosexuality has to do with perception.

edit: My ignorance notwithstanding, if perception requires input from the subject, does that not happen in the brain?

[Kuya]

So I have a better frame of reference

lol

what do you consider to be the mind and why is it apart from known brain biology. What distinguishes it?

The mind, as i consider it, informed both by the information processing paradigm of the cogniscitive revolution and psychological constructivism, is a system with biological basis that absorbs experiences and builds frames of reference with which to understand the world around it, however, it can also modify consciously and unconsciously these frame of references to change how it perceives concepts and objects around it. These frame of references are constructed via the assimilation of socio-historical factors such as language and values and even particular experiences with other individuals. What distinguishes it from the brain itself to me is not specifically that it is absolutely illogical, but that it simply was not a assumption i made a priori.

[Kaylia]

As is every other discipline within psychology minus psychoanalysis.
WHOA WHOA WHOA. Neuropsychologists study that!? I couldn't have guessed it from the neuro part.
Whoops.

Thanks for posting what i already knew, you know, because i don't understand psychology, but you obviously do, mr.wiki.

I supose you don't want to argue anymore, but that's not surprising coming from someone who doesn't believe his domain can be understood better.

Philosophy is rational at the base. Psychiaty is basically medecine. Why are you "whoop"ing me? Whoops indeed.


I bolded those part because you're telling me since the beginning of the thread that our brain can't be compared to a neural computer, yet, a natural sciences is doing it.

[Kuya]

I think you're considering something else entirely, perception to me is the ability to recognize and address stimuli. Not sure what homosexuality has to do with perception.

edit: My ignorance notwithstanding, if perception requires input from the subject, does that not happen in the brain?

You recognize the concept of homosexuality, do you not? What is your interpretation of it? How does your understanding of the concept of homosexuality relate to your mechanicist method of viewing cognition?

It may very well happen in the brain, there is simply, currently, as you put it, no way to know where in the brain this concept of homosexuality is, and how it manifests exactly into the way you perceive it, or perhaps i should say interpret, though they may mean the same thing if we get into semantics.

[Tristam]

lol

The mind, as i consider it, informed both by the information processing paradigm of the cogniscitive revolution and psychological constructivism, is a system with biological basis that absorbs experiences and builds frames of reference with which to understand the world around it, however, it can also modify consciously and unconsciously these frame of references to change how it perceives concepts and objects around it. These frame of references are constructed via the assimilation of socio-historical factors such as language and values and even particular experiences with other individuals. What distinguishes it from the brain itself to me is not specifically that it is absolutely illogical, but that it simply was not a assumption i made a priori.

Ok, I really think we're having a forest/trees argument here, I would argue that the frames are built within the brain and are partially if not fully based on memories and prior experiences. But sadly I must go to work now.

[Kaylia]

I honestly don't know what you and Kaylia are talking about.

Me neither

Kuya objected my "brain computer" point early in this thread.
He followed with his argument that psychology is "innacurate"
He later admits that Neuropsychology (link natural sciences to psychology) is valid

If every disciplines in psychology are inacurate, I don't understand his initial objection. I understand even less why anyone would object if is natural sciences are at the base of neuropsychology.

[Kaylia]

It may very well happen in the brain, there is simply, currently, as you put it, no way to know where in the brain this concept of homosexuality is, and how it manifests exactly into the way you perceive it, or perhaps i should say interpret, though they may mean the same thing if we get into semantics.

I really don't understand where this picture is amongst the 01100101001010101010010101. Yet, it's there. Information can always be decoded one way or the other.


http://www.physorg.com/news148193433.html

[Kuya]

but that's not surprising coming from someone who doesn't believe his domain can be understood better.

I'm not sure if it can, but psychologists are welcome to try.

Philosophy is rational at the base

You don't know anything about positivism, do you? You quoted that to try and say that it's not social science but natural science, even though it merges both, and you ignored the parts where it said that it overlaps with philosophy, which is not considered natural science or even social science but both possess aspects of philosophy, and psychiatry which is obviously psychology and still considered social science even though it overlaps with medicine (merger of psychology and medicine).

I bolded those part because you're telling me since the beginning of the thread that our brain can't be compared to a neural computer, yet, a natural sciences is doing it.

They are criticized a lot for being reductionist and mechanicist and doing what the conductivist did and ignore everything else and focus on solely one thing. They are, however, part of the cogniscitive revolution and along with psychologists such as Jean Piaget developed information processes. They are mostly involved with trying to create AIs are at the very least that's what they tend to focus on, not the other way around, but i don't think it impossible that they can't contribute to the rest of the field.

[Kaylia]

I'm not sure if it can, but psychologists are welcome to try.

I hope they do.

You don't know anything about positivism, do you? You quoted that to try and say that it's not social science but natural science, even though it merges both, and you ignored the parts where it said that it overlaps with philosophy, which is not considered natural science or even social science but both possess aspects of philosophy, and psychiatry which is obviously psychology and still considered social science even though it overlaps with medicine (merger of psychology and medicine).

Like I said, philosophy is based on rational thought. It's a social sciences, but it doesn't contradict science in any way.


Psychiatry is considered a social sciences, because it's included with psychology, but it's still based on observation and prediction. You try to observe a pathology, and you attempt to heal it with a particular tool. There is nothing wrong with this. I never said there was anything wrong with psychology either (you attempt to modelize human's thought to explain a particular behavior). There is something wrong with the interpration certain's people make thought.

[Kuya]

Neuropsychology tries to eliminate the inaccuracy by focusing more on biological basis instead of social ones, though they do mingle with the latter often. They have, ironically, not contributed as much in understanding behaviour as social psychology has, but as any psychologists will tell you, for example, one of the reasons for the inaccuracy is that, if you were to tell a person of the bystander effect, the effect becomes null, and some people are not affected by the bystander effect due to personal disposition. Neuropsychology can't make a contribution as "practical" in the sense of predicting behaviour as this, but they don't have to worry as much with the situations the example i mentioned brings.

Also, though a machine that creates the images of what you're thinking would be incredibly handy, i highly doubt that implicit information can be transformed into an image. You don't have to imagine a homosexual to know what it means according to your socially influenced interpretation.

[Kuya]

Like I said, philosophy is based on rational thought. It's a social sciences, but it doesn't contradict science in any way.

I was already aware that you held this way of thinking, but if you don't know what i was talking about earlier then i'll explain. A positivist-empiricist believes that philosophy and science should be separate and considers philosophy worthless as a pseudo-science, and only empirical experiments are valid and true science, anything that is too theoretical according to a positivist is not really science.

Also, are you aware that the faculty of psychology is located in different departments in varying countries? In PR the faculty of psychology is located in the social science department, in Mexico it is located in the medical department. Other nations have psychology in the natural science departments and others in philosophy.

[Kaylia]

Neuropsychology tries to eliminate the inaccuracy

Which is why people who understand natural sciences favor it over the rest. It's the only one that has a chance to go somewhere. The other will be forever stuck where they are right now because of their approach.

Understanding how and where your science will evolve is very important.

Also, though a machine that creates the images of what you're thinking would be incredibly handy, i highly doubt that implicit information can be transformed into an image. You don't have to imagine a homosexual to know what it means according to your socially influenced interpretation.

In the near future, we can expect to see machine that interpret stuff in your brain similarly to how it recognize your voice (you have to calibrate it for a particular person).

A machine that read the mind completly might not be possible because of technical limitations, but it will always be physically possible.