BF2S Forums According to my Psychology hanbook...

RoosterCantrell wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

ELITE-UK wrote:

Thats the biggest load of bull ive ever heard.

Prove your existence to me.

Even better, prove the existence of your own hand to yourself.

Then I must request that someone prove to me that this kind of "psychology" isn't a total waste of time.

If you want an answer to anything about Psychology, ask Tom Cruise.  Apparently, he's got the real low-down.

Don't be so glib, Rooster.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Well the idea of existence is one I was schooled on in philosophy classes more than psychology.  My psychology classes (of which I only took two) were more along the lines of studying the human mind and body in relation to learning and social interaction.

This seems to be a debate on objective reality vs. subjective reality...we could discuss this forever without coming to a concrete conclusion.  So I ask you, do you believe what your pyschology book tells you?

Psychology explains why people interpret subjective reality as "real".  So it's in both places really.

Rene Descartes would have fun in here... I'm going to look at the meteor shower now..lol

stryyker wrote:

If I don't believe something exists, then it doesn't.


Discuss.

what if a guy held a gun to your head.  Regardless of wether you believe bullets exist or not doesnt matter at that point.

Descartes was more duality of the mind - what you know in the mind as truth as opposed to perception or interpretation.  Aristotle I think was the originator of the indirect realism idea as far as being able to only interpret what we see in our mind as real.  I guess I am going to have to read up on some old books I have from my college days, because I really can't recall nor put into words a proper description.

If I don't believe something exists, then it doesn't.

This is pointing inward- to the human psyche and the power of denial.  It is simply showing you the premise a most common human trait used to protect us from ourselves; mentally at least.

Case in point:

You have a drinking problem, but tell yourself that you don't- therefore in your mind; you do not have a drinking problem.

The drinking problem does not exist because you do not believe that it does.

On the other end of that spectrum/


You have someone close to you die, but tell yourself they are going to a better place- therefore in your mind, you are making yourself happy for them when you would otherwise be overcome with grief-

The grief does not exist because you do not believe it does.

In psychology, nothing is verbatim- as each mind is different, the things you learn should be used as metaphor and at most, a place to start your thoughts on a matter.

thareaper254 wrote:

Must be true because I always said God doesn't exist.

Which is a perfect example.  To you, he does not exist.(period)

Let's remember the title of the thread- which eludes that the statement we are discussing came from a psychology handbook.
Which in turn, means it has to deal with the mind, not the physical world.

Conclusively, the author of the statement was referring to the ability of the mind to create it's own realities.

They didn't mean that you look at your hand, say to yourself "that hand does not exist" and it just disappears..
That would include a physical object, which is outside the psyche (allthough physical objects affect the psyche, the psyche cannot affect the physical world)

Last edited by basetballjones (2007-12-13 22:17:03)

That first question reminds me of a story my friend told me.
He said one of his friends was in his philosophy class waiting to take his final with a piece of paper in front of him.  His professor comes in and puts a chair in front of the class and says, "Prove to me that this chair is not there."
His friend writes on his paper, "What chair?"

He got an A+ on the final.

while this theory has some truth in it, it also has some serious limitations. After all, the facts speak for themselves. Undeniably, there are things that exist, wether we chose to believe so or not. Earth, for example.

Unless, of course, you want to argue that mankind collectively has agreed to believe that earth exists. All 6 billion of us.

Kmarion wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Rene Descartes would have fun in here... I'm going to look at the meteor shower now..lol

Eh, that is arguing the existence of self, we're arguing the existence of everything else. (The consciousness and the body aren't the same, as far as the hand thing)

Shame. I had higher expectations for you ...to see where I was going..

But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all] then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.

His work exceeded self. You just got caught up on his most popular ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_the_Method


In this manner, Descartes proceeds to construct a system of knowledge, discarding perception as unreliable and instead admitting only deduction as a method. In the third and fifth Meditation, he offers an ontological proof of a benevolent God (through both the ontological argument and trademark argument).

To further demonstrate the limitations of the senses, Descartes proceeds with what is known as the Wax Argument. He considers a piece of wax: his senses inform him that it has certain characteristics, such as shape, texture, size, color, smell, and so forth. When he brings the wax towards a flame, these characteristics change completely. However, it seems that it is still the same thing: it is still a piece of wax, even though the data of the senses inform him that all of its characteristics are different. Therefore, in order to properly grasp the nature of the wax, he cannot use the senses: he must use his mind. Descartes concludes:
“     Thus what I thought I had seen with my eyes, I actually grasped solely with the faculty of judgment, which is in my mind.

The "this" I was referring to was only the link provided, someone modernizing his most famous idea "I think, therefore I am", I wasn't talking about the man himself.

As far as the man himself, his ideas are interesting, but the ontological argument for God really puts me off...I the human mind is imperfect, and I believe that we aren't capable of fully comprehending or proving the existence of God. Of course assuming God is a perfect being, but then if he wasn't, I wouldn't consider him God, at least in the monotheistic sense of religion. It doesn't mean we don't have the ability to praise, worship, and have faith in, but the belief can go no further than faith.

Anyways, though some of his ideas are...dated interesting stuff, but I was keeping it on topic. Perhaps we should have a series of philosophical debates centered around various philosophers? I think that would be fun.

B.Schuss, how do we know the Earth does exist? Have you even so much as seen the Earth from a perspective to prove its magnitude and shape, even through your fallible senses? As for everyone else agreeing it exists, the only one that matters is you. The rest of the human race doesn't exist either unless you want them to, and even then in your head they can also believe in the existence of the Earth.

I think the really interesting idea of this question is that we can't force ourselves to believe something that goes against everything we have been told, and everything we have learned through personal experience. I honestly believe that if you don't believe it exists, it doesn't, not in any sort of hey look this is a funny idea, but honestly. If no part of your mind has ever encountered something, or if you don't believe something is in existence that is right in front of your face, how can you justify its existence? I only see this computer screen because I choose to, if I truly didn't believe in it, how could I see it, or interact with it? So the real key to this is no matter how much we try, we just can't change the hardwiring in our brain.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The "this" I was referring to was only the link provided, someone modernizing his most famous idea "I think, therefore I am", I wasn't talking about the man himself.

Well by golly I was.

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

I believe in a thing called Love

Love is grand, divorce is a hundred grand.