I think the only thing SS cares about is yanking everyone's chain.So idealism has nonrestrictive assumptions? Or do you mean it just has different assumptions?
~~ Paul
I think the only thing SS cares about is yanking everyone's chain.So idealism has nonrestrictive assumptions? Or do you mean it just has different assumptions?
~~ Paul
I have less problem with those two things than I have with scars disappearing.
A burn was induced without heat? That's a tad difficult to believe. Oh wait, it was a "burn effect."
I have no philosophical issue with multiple personalities up to a point. I'm just suspicious that it has become the thing of urban legend.
The subject of the discussion is not "what I have in mind", rather it is the topic presented in the opening post.You're not? Not even when you wonder if this could be " a glitch in the matrix"? Bucky believe it or not, you do set a precedent through your previous postings on this forum that this example suggests that you think it's a bit too crowded for that woman's mind to contain all 20 personalities. Is that what you have in mind?
On November 5, 1997, Pat Burgus and her family had their first victory against two of their therapists and Rush-Presbyterian St. Luke's Hospital here in Chicago. On that day the media reported a $10.6 million settlement (the largest ever in a recovered memory case) of a lawsuit against the hospital and two therapists. These therapists were identified by The New York Times, in a front page story, as Dr. Bennett Braun, director of the trauma unit and Dr. Elva Poznanski, chief of child and adolescent psychiatry.
So you think tossing out the claim that scars disappear is a minor issue?Is this all you got?
What's to tackle? I have no problem believing that the brain is capable of generating and compartmentalizing multiple personalities. As I said, though, only up to a point. Disappearing scars goes beyond that point.Couple of lines of passive aggressive replies based on cherry picked bits and pieces? Filtered out to avoid tackling the subject at all?
What shall we discuss?The subject of the discussion is not "what I have in mind", rather it is the topic presented in the opening post.
cheers
I didn't toss anything :)So you think tossing out the claim that scars disappear is a minor issue?
To be fair we don't even understand how the brain secretes one personality, let alone a multitude of them ;)People appear to believe this requires some kind of mind(s) /= brain. I don't see why.
Similarly allergies that come and go as these personalities alternate seems also pretty unusual. At least these phenomena are challenging our current medical knowledge, just like the "ice man" guy (Wim Hof) who is able to exert an impressive control over his physiology, again something unheard of, unless you go searching among pro meditators in the east.
(And the again skeptics will dismiss the cases as stories, at least the dutch guy has been tested dozens of times in controlled conditions).
There is quite a lot of recent psychiatric literature on this subject (MPD) supported by fMRI evidence that suggests these problem are real. Cause of course... we cannot believe the poor sufferers, we need a machine to tells us they are really sick!
I think the scar question is important because it points to the possibility that this whole thing has become inflated by urban legend.I didn't toss anything :)
I've simply reported what is explained in an article. If you think it's not credible, then fair enough.
Agreed. But if it can do one, why not several? On the other hand, I have two good friends who are psychiatrists and they both are skeptical about more than a couple or three personalities. They suggest that the psychiatrists themselves might be one cause of the charade of 10 or 20 personalities.To be fair we don't even understand how the brain secretes one personality, let alone a multitude of them ;)
I think the scar question is important because it points to the possibility that this whole thing has become inflated by urban legend.
That's interesting.Agreed. But if it can do one, why not several? On the other hand, I have two good friends who are psychiatrists and they both are skeptical about more than a couple or three personalities. They suggest that the psychiatrists themselves might be one cause of the charade of 10 or 20 personalities.
They simply said that they did not know of a credible case.That's interesting.
What is not entirely clear though is why 2-3 personalities would be plausible, while a higher number would sound dubious. What is the problem exactly?
So idealism has nonrestrictive assumptions? Or do you mean it just has different assumptions?
~~ Paul
Isn't this a discussion forum?Stop badgering me with these questions.
Isn't this a discussion forum?
~~ Paul
I was with you after two sentences, but then you declared that idealism gets rid of restrictive assumptions. I think if you're honest about idealism and make sure it really describes the world as we know it, you don't get rid of assumptions.
I agree. But this is a discussion forum. ;-)I don't know if you've noticed, but outside of religion, nobody cares about any of this crap. The world is what it is, whether you want to consider it mental, material or both makes no difference.
Everything is a set of beliefs. Perhaps you mean it is a set of faiths. Indeed, every metaphysic requires some underlying assumptions. That's what we're talking about.Somehow these metaphysical paradigms are useful for providing a framework from which science can draw assumptions. But as Bernardo himself asserts, not even science needs such nonsense. Materialism is stupid, because it is a set of beliefs. Sure, Idealism could be the same in ways that might be unpredictable presently, but we must evolve. Progress and stuff.
How would you suggest that scientists study morphic fields? (Sheldrake is a scientist, after all, so he could certainly spend more time experimenting with his own hypothesis.) Since morphic fields are only falsifiable on a case-by-case basis by coming up with a different explanation for the phenomenon, it is difficult to study them in general.I'd like to see science look into those hypothesized morphic fields a little more closely. I think Sheldrake might be onto something. Too bad for me that so many scientistic gatekeepers are heavily invested in their dumb beliefs... Let us also not forget that mind can create matter. We have no evidence of matter creating mind. The former is all-encompassing while the latter is limited in regards to its threshold for assumptions.
Everything is a set of beliefs. Perhaps you mean it is a set of faiths. Indeed, every metaphysic requires some underlying assumptions. That's what we're talking about.
How would you suggest that scientists study morphic fields? (Sheldrake is a scientist, after all, so he could certainly spend more time experimenting with his own hypothesis.) Since morphic fields are only falsifiable on a case-by-case basis by coming up with a different explanation for the phenomenon, it is difficult to study them in general.
We have plenty of evidence of matter that exists without a mind to create it: What keeps the trees in your yard consistent between one look and the next? You can hypothesize that it's some sort of meta-mind, but that is just an hypothesis.
Faith is when you hold something to be true without evidence. Belief is when you hold something to be true with evidence.Good for everything. I'm not talking about everything. Faith is belief. Why even comment? Stop wasting my time. You're taking me away from my 9/11 studies.
Love to. I think they are a more or less unfalsifaible concept with a huge pile of goalpost moving built in.I was simply illustrating a point. Do you want to discuss morphic fields now?
You don't seem to understand what a conversation is. If you just want to talk to yourself, add some kind of footnote to your post.Stop adding your own points to mine. Just do your thinking inside your head. You don't have to type it out in replies.