Theory about the human psychic

[hyperion1is]

Hi,

I’m a novice related to science but sometimes you can’t stay „still”. For a long time now I felt the need to work on a theory to explain the human psychic. As far as I know Psychology is not an exact science since doesn’t have a scientific theory to explain the human psychic (like in physics) but is more about observations and borrows elements from exact science like statistics and so on. I hope I’m not offending anyone, this is not my purpose.

So, I have worked on a theory for some time now, but I’m stuck because I don’t know what are the scientific methods to validate a theory, or to apply math to a model. Maybe you can help me with that, or, I’m afraid, you might say that I’m hopeless and mind my own business.

I have read this topic http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50970-how-would-one-publish-a-groundbreaking-scientific-idea/ and I’m finding my self in md65536 shoes, with the exception that I don’t know how „groundbreaking” it is or not. Only you can tell me.

I publish here a part of the theory (some elements) hoping that „No one here will steal your ideas, and claim them for there own” is true and from what I know you have rights on a intellectual propriety only from the fact that you have publish it (first). I had to post in the right section, and a forum moderator can move it if this is not the right place, but bear in mind that I will like opinions of people from physics domain (also) firstly if they can help me on how to work with a theory/model (I hope they visit this section).

 

I will start (presentation of) my theory and along the way I think you will understand the title of the topic. I started this with the intention of exactly that, is not my intention of explaining the human brain. I don’t think (that being only my opinion ofcourse) that the brain is the best starting point to explain human psychic, because we don’t know much about the human brain anyway (at this point) and about the human being overall, I.e. if it has a soul or not. My approach is desired to be a scientific one and not to dwell in metaphysic, and if I managed to do that you can tell me. Also, I don’t know if my theory is original, and in which degree it can be considered original, because I didn’t read that much on Psychology topic, to be aware of all ideas. Please take note, that I’m not claiming that this is, will be the first (scientific theory) in this area, the first probably being „Brain, a decoded enigma” by Tudor Moise. You can refer to that if you want. That theory tries to explain the brain and from my point a view is a good work in this field but doesn’t explain Self-concious, even if the author tries to explain that as well.

 

 

Theory about the Human being (human psychic).

 

Model: The human being = I + (Human mind + Human body + Self + Consciousness).

 

Legend: H.M. = Human Mind component, H.B. = Human Body component, S = Self component, C = Consciousness component., I = the "I" component.

Green line = Decision making process (abstract).

 

 

Explanations of the terms: I will use along the way the „human being” instead of „human psychic” for dis-ambiguity of the terms. Please take note that here we „study” the human being from a psychological point of view. Because is a model and theory associated to the model the terms here has significance only inside this theory and not outside of it. I used those terms only so that readers can make an association with some notions that we have, but I hope, not confusion also.

The „I” term can be associated with Self-consciousness. The part of us which allows as to say „I”, and doesn’t let us to say „I don’t care”. Even if we say that we don’t mean it. When I started this, I started from this axiom: that we care, about everything (that is relevant to us) even if some of us try to numb certain aspects. But the „I” ofcourse is not the same as Self-conciousness as it is understood from other areas of study.

The „Human mind” and the „Human body” it is expressed in this way because this is a study about the human being (homo sapiens) and not about the animals. I’m aware of the similarities, but what aplies to animals may not aply to humans. (the intention here is actually not to be biased).

The „Self” and „ Conciousness” are just terms that will be explaind further.

 

Presentation of theory, the model and it’s elements.

 

The assertion here is that the Human being is composed from a system with 5 elements/components, or expressed in another way, the Human being can be studied from this point of view, as a system of components, and the study is made by studying each component and their interactions within the system.

There are 4 components within the system: The Human mind, the Human body, the Self and the Consciousness component. The fifth component, the „I” is an emergent of the system, within the system. Even if the „I” is an emergent is a component in itself with it’s own proprieties, that can be different from all the other ones. I.e H2 + O = H2O a different substance altogether. And the I works with the other 4 elements forming a system.

The term „component”: within the system all the „elements” can work individually and also collectively. And thus an element „behaves” as a component.

The Human Mind (H.M) role is to find solutions, return answers to interrogations and to establish correlations between items. HM works with concepts and the basic function of the Human Mind is manipulation of concepts. It has its own way of operating that can not be changed. HM intrinsically learns new concepts both through his own work independently and through processing tasks from the decision process. Human Mind operates independently and impartial (to all the others or to all things). The HM doesn’t work with moral concepts (not it’s role).

Human Body component: an interpreter of the physical human body (not the human body itself). A close analogy: in It, a driver for a piece of hardware and not that piece of hardware.

The Self : a component that is „static” and it has informations (maybe data) written into it. This data is always the same, is not changing. The component it self is not changeable; immutable. The info written into it is: Importance and „self-persevering”- which is to be read: I existed always, I exist, and I will always exist. (continuity may be another term for it”. „Importance” is to be read correctly just „Importance” – not in a superlative form. Outside view: if we ask our selves „I’m more important than another person or less important than another person?”. If we do that is wrong and is not attributed to the Self component. What we can say is „I’m important”.

Consciousness ©: a component that is designed to check new values ​​based on (against) a value system. The value system is "placed" in Consciousness and Consciousness assess what it is to be assessed on the basis of that Value system. What is to remember: consciousness is "unbiased" to the value system. It doesn't decide on the value system in any way. This system value can be "taken" changed, modified by the H.M and the I.

The I: is in „charge” of the Decision making process and another role is Conflict Resolution between the system elements (the I included). The I is on the „other side” of the Decision making, meaning that the interactions between the I and the other components is realized indirectly.

 

Relations between elements: components can exchange information between them. All elements have access to the same information about „External reality”. The components operate independently of each other and at the same time together. This may appear as contradiction, but is not. Ie: in quantum physics (from what I know) there is a principle which can be expressed: a switch state can be: ON, OFF, ON and Off both at the same time.This applies here also. I’m also working on a concept of „apparent contradictions” which happens/appears when decision is applied to soon (before grasping a new concept that explains the contradiction/the paradox”). This explanation derives from the theory.

 

Axiom 1: None of the components in the system can not be eliminated (once created).

Axiom 2: I has indirect capabilities upon other components but it can not create a conflict within the same component under the law of non-interference.

This is the main „body” of the theory. English is not my native language and I apologies for any mistakes. If I did mistakes and it creates confusion please let me know. There is more to this (theory) but all the work was done in „my head” and not with a pencil and a paper. So I think you can understand my dilemma. Maybe you can direct me to the right approach here, what is necessary for a theory to be coherent, valid and if it applies to a „section of reality” that is to be studied. How can I work with a model/with this one, math can be applied to it?

 

As a recap and wrap up: the I and the HB components are to be considered „biased”. HM, C, Self – un-biased. What is relevant to the Human being (and to this theory): Thought (process) – Decision (making process) – Action. This being a system an „effect” cannot be attributed only to a specific element, instead the system must be understood on Overall. I.e: different regions in the brain are associated with sight, hearing and so on, but what is to be said is that if that regions are affected a cognitive function is affected (from here the association) and doesn’t really mean that that specific region of brain if is responsible with a cognitive function (from what I know, I hope I don’t mistake). Anyway, I think that this is known about a system. That being said you can associate Thought to the Human Mind component, Decision to the I component and Action as an understanding of the decision taken. Thought and Decision as processes can only be attributed to the sistem (overall).

Thought – Decision –Action (with Decision in the middle) work together but there are not tied (ironed) to one another. To understand the human psychic you need to understand this processes independently. Some of us may be conditioned to tie them all together. As a religion theme: if you think of you neighbor wife, desire may appear, if desire appears Decision follows and Action (in that direction) also. So the highest you can do is to „purge” those unholy thoughts. Which is not the case, these work independently and one doens’t conditions another (like in cascade or another form). The system revolves around the stability of the Sistine and not related to survival (survival of the human body). The system is more stable when there are less conflicts and more instable when there are more conflicts within the system.

So a simulation can be: A person wants/needs to steal something:

The I is in charge of Decisions and takes decisions in relation to the other components (and it self) and in relation with Impartiality( I won’t go into details here about the Impartiality, is enough to say that it can be expressed mathematicaly and Free Will also. We can associate here Impartiality with O- zero).

A necessity is acknowledged from the HB and not only. A necessity like food (the simplest form) or a watch. The I needs to make a decision. The HM helps it to identify „all” the elements (such as risk) and also can provide a solution to that action ( to steal an object, in this case). If I interrogates HB it returns that that specific item is needed (food). If interrogates the Consciousness component a belief Sistine is needed, such a moral system. Checks the value (from the I) against the values present in the Value system and returns a result. In this hypothetical case it can go either way. That such an action can be moral or immoral. There is no absolute in no field whatsoever so there is not an absolute here, like an absolute moral system- point of reference). In other words the Values system is related to the individual in cause and not with something outside of it. What is „outside” is the risk of getting caught.

If/when the I interrogates the Self, „I always existed, I exist and I will always exist” so a piece of bread won’t make much of a difference, in layman terms.

If the I interrogates the HM about the risk HM can provide a risk assesment. Related to „If such an acton is worth it” HM is impartiall to that, to death (to all things) and it can go either way.

The I also interrogates it self and a decision derives. Is hard to predict here in this hypothetical case what that decision will be, considering that is a specific/singular case, disregarding past events. A decision is made as part of a strategy. The point is: the I can make an arbitrary decision (is not conditioned by the HB), can take a „totally arbitrary” decision disregarding HB component-which will lead to system instability or a decision which falls into a strategy or in the scope of the system. For dis-ambiguity: the I has to take into account each component when adopting a decision (as part of conflict resolution) and not to disregard an interrogation. Taking into account doesn’t imply following.

Edited July 26, 2013 by hyperion1is

[hyperion1is]

I hope I don't get many tomatoes in the head here, if this is viewed as a way, to lift this topic.

I'm only concerned that this topic was overlooked (being in another topic initially): 0 views

I know that here discussions are focused more on physics but this is theory after all (and in my view, I want it to be a scientific one). We don't need to have a lot of background on psychology to dwell a little into this. And how I stated above, I need your help, in following the scientific method. Constructive criticism is also allowed (welcomed).

Thanks!

 

Later edit: Sorry, it was 0 views even if I hit Refresh. Now is 51. Sorry again. No opinions on this?

Edited July 31, 2013 by hyperion1is

[sheever]

i consider that there is a need before any decision and before decision there is a choice and so on becomes a reaction.its so interesting we are built of the system of opposition.

also once you say "GOOD" you immedietly represent the "BAD" in within and so on becomes a superpositioning.

all what we do i think nothing else than self validation in every moment.being a source and the observer in one creates a loop for infinite need of this process.every tought is a self validation just as every definition we use and so on all meaning behind it.not just validate the self as conscious but also the external as seperate validated as well.its fascinating all happen internal....

[hyperion1is]

I. This theory and elements of this theory are Intellectual property of Irofte Daniel. http://hyperion1is.blogspot.ro/

"from what I know you have rights on a intellectual propriety only from the fact that you have publish it (first)." I haven't thought things through, haven't I? Publishing under anonymity.

 

II. sheever thank you for you feedback, even if I'm not sure how I can use it. If you wanted to test my limits of understanding you have succeeded .

"all what we do i think nothing else than self validation" - not according to my theory. Is about the stability of the system. Also "validation" is not related to us, but more about "in the eyes of others"; Validation is inverse proportional with Self-esteem.

[sheever]

my toughts where response to this

"The I is in charge of Decisions and takes decisions in relation to the other components (and it self) and in relation with Impartiality( I won’t go into details here about the Impartiality, is enough to say that it can be expressed mathematicaly and Free Will also."

self validation means to me.talk about an egg validate the egg as external also you so self validation.(even if its hidden)

Edited August 1, 2013 by sheever

[hyperion1is]

I see, thank you for your input. I hope you realize that I wasn't trying to be sarcastic; from here the sign. I only had problems following the usage of terms

Your interest is appreciated, even if your interest is only about analytic thinking.

 

On your:

self validation means to me.talk about an egg validate the egg as external also you so self validation.(even if its hidden)

I can't comment on your "external", in the view of this theory there is nothing External, only data; and data can't validate itself.

In other words, there is nothing happening externally related to the system, only internally. What is outside the system is Reality. It's not my job to analyze Reality, that's physicists job (and I can't help much with that it's seems ). For the system Reality is only data.

 

About the the quote/the bit you refereed to, it applies what I stated about the system. The Decision process is "belongs" to the system and can't be attributed only to a single component. The decision appears to belong to the I when you try to analyze components individually. I hope this helps (or it may it been obvious).

Edited August 1, 2013 by hyperion1is

[sheever]

absolutley got you.

once side note.when it comes to non physical the data has no validity but still validated.anyhow,i believe there is no external at all.

Scientist claims before the actual order to take an action after decision the signal measured in the brain 6 seconds before the action take place.

it can not represent fast responses towards the enviroment like someone throw a ball to you or running across a road front of a car and many more example.I question free will in physical and I ve got my own theory about this topic that also suggest something else but I dont want to bother anyone about it.

data does not validate itself but the observation does it.

cheers

Edited August 1, 2013 by sheever

[hyperion1is]

Improper use of the word. I think I stated before that English is not my native language. Romanian is, so the Terminology still gives me brief I see.

"Psychic" is what the dictionary gave me instead of "Psyche" as in this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyche_(psychology)

This is/wants to be, a study in Psychology, I don't know if anyone got that, and not in Supernatural. I have no intent to research the Supernatural, not today; this topic of Supernatural is of interest only if you can apply Science it, and when you do you most always find alternate explanations, so isn't supernatural anymore.

 

Anyway. I hope that the improper misuse of the term didn't delayered someone from Psychology. Did it?

If so, a moderator can help me change the title, and the first post, if it's even possible? I don't find a way. Thanks!

I feel silly

Edited August 2, 2013 by hyperion1is

[Ringer]

I didn't read very thoroughly, but a couple questions that jumped out at me pretty quickly:

1.) What specific aspects of the human mind does your model explain

2.) What does your model bring that others do not

3.) How would you test your model

4.) What tests have been done that support your model

[hyperion1is]

1.) What specific aspects of the human mind does your model explain

 

I guess that we are both referring to this "human mind" as the general definition and not the Human mind component in my system. Not to be confused.

OK. To reply to your question:

The model does/wants to explain any/all aspects of the human psyche and not slices of it. Examples: Free will, decisions, feelings, emotions awareness and so on.

With limitations to this theory (to this purpose), meaning that it's not it's role to explain Physics, Biology and related. Related to this is a question of integration.

2.) What does your model bring that others do not

 

I don't know any other Scientific model in Psychology, except with the possibility of one: The Brain, A Decoded Enigma by Dorin Teodor Moisa.

I see in your profile that you have Double Major in Biology/Psychology, maybe you can submit such a model that is scientific. In the sense to follow the scientific methods. By examples: to make predictions of data and not to the interpretation of data: "I observe the attachment of a child to it's caregivers and I predict future signs of affection as this does increase the chance of survival." Not very scientific. In the sense that is relying on interpretations of interpretations and also doesn't search for alternate explanations: like all a human does is always related to survival? If this is not the case, "the model" won't make accurate predictions".

I'm also not pretending to fully any of the actuals models in Psychology, What I read was enough for me to stop.

 

Not to hijack my own topic (what is scientific model in Psychology and what not) I only want submit the above model (for peer review) because it contributes to my work, in the sense that it's models the way data from External Reality it's processed and transformed into concepts. In my theory I only stated "All elements have access to the same information about „External reality”" and didn't explained how. Because of Dorin Teodor work, I didn't felt the need to re-invent the wheel, sorts of speak.

Dorin Teodor model/Theory (from my point of view) doesn't explain Self-consciousness for instance, and this alone determined me to make a different model.

Note: no affiliation between me and the author.

3.) How would you test your model

 

There can be all sorts of tests. It doesn't encounter "invasive way of examining the human brain" problem, because is not needed (not a must). I will design applications /simulations.

4.) What tests have been done that support your model

 

None, especially for this model. Regarding past tests: I will comment on Benjamin Libet test in the 1980s; after I will have a deeper look into it. It's seems to me that the test is not conclusive if it didn't account for the existence of 2 decisions instead of one: the decision of moving they hand and the decision to report it's awareness to the tester. So a different test that will account for the predictions of this theory can be conceived.

 

Anyway, regarding to predictions: The model can't do any real predictions right now, because it's not complete. I still need to check for coherency, and others can help if they want. You can point out to me what is not right or what is missing.

 

I hope I answered you questions in some manner. If further details are needed...

Edited August 3, 2013 by hyperion1is

[hyperion1is]

So, baby steps:

For more serious, and in detail I think we can resort to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_the_scientific_method

 

In the above picture it seems that I'm at the second step. "Form a hypothesis". Actually I'm at the 3'th step but I don't know what experiment to perform.

Now, I don't know what accounts as observations (what is accepted). Introspection can be used for collecting data in this study? I think that introspection can be used but not on it's own because of the high level of subjectivity in this method. So, introspection can be used along with the data collected from other people.

I can state about my self that "I exist", "I fell" and so on, and it's has a meaning, in the sense that I can process that information. It's not "blind"; you can describe it as a "reflexivity" if you will. If I collect data form other people they report the same thing. The collection of data can be un-biased in the sense that you don't need to ask: "Can you state about your self something?". You can observe how people include themselves in a construct: "I go to market". And that "I" has meaning to them, because if prompted to identify the "I" in that construct they can do it.
This has been tested before, in a variety of test like "the mirror test". (if it's valid or not I don't know, but It's an interesting test.)

If you try to find a word for that would be "Self-consciousness" (technically speaking that is an effect). So you start to find an explanation for that. Different explanations had been proposed some of them even philosophically but without validity: "Self-consciousness is an illusion". But by the definition of the "illusion", the illusion belongs to someone or something.
Anyway:
1. You go in circles in order to find an explanation. You can give a definition by description, but doesn't make it scientific.
2. You go in circles even more if you try to exclude the effect "Self-consciousness". You can't find an alternate explanation of the observation so, for me this remains a fundamental.

So, I tried a scientific approach. (not philosophical or words game etc).

I formed an hypothesis: "There is a part of us that allows us to say I"; or if you prefer "There is a part of me that allows me to say "I". Me, being the same as other people.
That "part of us" I named "I" (suggestive) and being a "part of" I asked my self "Is a part of what exactly"? Part of a system.

 

How do I test my hypothesis? What can be accepted as evidence for peer-review? What experiment should I do?

I see on this forum that are some people that are accustomed with the scientific method, maybe more than me. Can they help me debug this?

[sheever]

everything contains informations.behind the informations there different meaning that creates different beliefs.top of this you re do nothing but self reflect.

when you love someone you dont love the person actually.you love the image of the person (based uppon they action or however this image coming for you) you created in your mind and so on you love yourself.same with hatred and all other things.everything is internal.fact is that on top of all this you always observe what you want and make yourself playing a victim of life give you the biggest illusion of all.

when you try to understand me you actually understand your way of understanding of me.but you have no other reference than your understanding of yourself.

one thing certainly not an illusion and that is you exist as a self.everything else is part of the theatre you to experience yourself.

I work on this topic and how I see whats happen is there is you and everything else which is also you.if there is any proof of that in quantum mechanics as i claim as your position is zero dimensional since your reference frame always the same it will may lead to that you never move in your life anywhere but stay on the same spot and hallucinate you whole life as an illusion.

if you have no senses (and non locality)but you had any information access to any experience as memory you build up the same life in many possible way as you want without actually moving ever at all.

so in other words you dream or you may are dead still conscious.you cant refer to whats is unconscious because you have to be conscious to know that.just like you know you re always existed because you have no reference to anything else you cant remember your birth nor your death you just see it happen around you.

I think the information source as reference and the observation as reference frame has to be one and the same.

Edited August 5, 2013 by sheever

[hyperion1is]

sheever what you say it's interesting, but it's part of philosophy (maybe) or other area. There is nothing wrong with philosophy but this is not I'm trying to achieve here.

[sheever]

I wouldnt came to this direction if i dont research quantum mechanics and if there is no any suggestion can be linked to the idea.

I think looking more subject just like human behaviour also suggest foundation for quantum mechanics.even its not simple math.there are definetely links into everything.

 

 

[Ringer]

Sorry it took me so long, I've been a bit busy.

 

1.) What specific aspects of the human mind does your model explain

 

I guess that we are both referring to this "human mind" as the general definition and not the Human mind component in my system. Not to be confused.

OK. To reply to your question:

The model does/wants to explain any/all aspects of the human psyche and not slices of it. Examples: Free will, decisions, feelings, emotions awareness and so on.

With limitations to this theory (to this purpose), meaning that it's not it's role to explain Physics, Biology and related. Related to this is a question of integration.

So according to this idea only humans have these traits associated with the human mind aspect? There seems to be a duality inherent in your idea which is demonstrably unnecessary.

 

2.) What does your model bring that others do not

 

I don't know any other Scientific model in Psychology, except with the possibility of one: The Brain, A Decoded Enigma by Dorin Teodor Moisa.

I see in your profile that you have Double Major in Biology/Psychology, maybe you can submit such a model that is scientific. In the sense to follow the scientific methods. By examples: to make predictions of data and not to the interpretation of data: "I observe the attachment of a child to it's caregivers and I predict future signs of affection as this does increase the chance of survival." Not very scientific. In the sense that is relying on interpretations of interpretations and also doesn't search for alternate explanations: like all a human does is always related to survival? If this is not the case, "the model" won't make accurate predictions".

I'm also not pretending to fully any of the actuals models in Psychology, What I read was enough for me to stop.

I have many problems with many theoreticians within psychology, mainly because they seem to leave scientific training at the door when they start coming up with their ideas. So long as you stay within empirical evidence and predict from there you should get further than most models have.

 

 

Not to hijack my own topic (what is scientific model in Psychology and what not) I only want submit the above model (for peer review) because it contributes to my work, in the sense that it's models the way data from External Reality it's processed and transformed into concepts. In my theory I only stated "All elements have access to the same information about External reality" and didn't explained how. Because of Dorin Teodor work, I didn't felt the need to re-invent the wheel, sorts of speak.

Dorin Teodor model/Theory (from my point of view) doesn't explain Self-consciousness for instance, and this alone determined me to make a different model.

Note: no affiliation between me and the author.

 

I stopped reading his ideas at this part:

 

This theory is in a total opposition with all the actual sciences

associated with the functions of the brain. The present sciences,

associated with the functions of the brain, are not based on a single

fundamental model. In this way, as my theory will be accepted, all what

it was already written in the actual sciences associated with the

functions of the brain, have to be re-written or forgotten.

 

As Richard Feynman said, if your model disagrees with experiment it is wrong. Luckily that part was in the very beginning so I didn't waste too much time.

 

 

3.) How would you test your model

 

There can be all sorts of tests. It doesn't encounter "invasive way of examining the human brain" problem, because is not needed (not a must). I will design applications /simulations.

 

I would like specific examples of tests that would falsify your model, otherwise you're just waxing philosophical.

 

 

4.) What tests have been done that support your model

 

None, especially for this model. Regarding past tests: I will comment on Benjamin Libet test in the 1980s; after I will have a deeper look into it. It's seems to me that the test is not conclusive if it didn't account for the existence of 2 decisions instead of one: the decision of moving they hand and the decision to report it's awareness to the tester. So a different test that will account for the predictions of this theory can be conceived.

 

If you can't find evidence supporting your model it's not a model in the scientific sense. If there is no evidence it's pseudoscience. So if you truly wish to be scientific about it do research, not just research that supports your ideas either. If your model is wrong that's alright, but if you don't change your model based on the evidence that has been gathered you're not being scientific.

 

 

Anyway, regarding to predictions: The model can't do any real predictions right now, because it's not complete. I still need to check for coherency, and others can help if they want. You can point out to me what is not right or what is missing.

 

I hope I answered you questions in some manner. If further details are needed...

Again, if there are no predictions it's not a model. An explanation must both explain what we see and what we would expect to see in a given scenario. Edited August 14, 2013 by Ringer

[hyperion1is]

Sorry it took me so long, I've been a bit busy.

That's OK Ringer. Thank you for taking the time.

First of all let me start with this: Me, in the first post "So, I have worked on a theory for some time now, but I’m stuck because I don’t know what are the scientific methods to validate a theory, or to apply math to a model."

 

Maybe the word "theory" is a bit pretentious but actually I stated on what I'm working on. It's not finished and not a theory yet. If it was I would probably tried to publish it in a scientific paper. The reason that I posted here was for other people to tell me what they think so far and what is needed for this work to be deemed scientific.

1. Predictions. I got that, my theory will have to make testable and falsifiable predictions.

2. Maybe the terms? I revise now my work, in the sense that I noticed on my own that I didn't defined and stated all the fundamentals terms. For fundamentals terms definitions through description is accepted and after that all the other terms related to this field would have to be generated from the model/theory so you don't end up with thousands of terms and interpretable definitions. I'm I wrong?

This is why I posted here. For people to point that to me.

Is in the work. As some stages: I will have to finish the theory (in the sense to be a theory, coherent), the theory to make predictions, to research on previous observations and to design tests and applications. I'm not there yet.

 

So according to this idea only humans have these traits associated with the human mind aspect?

Yes, it seems so. How I state it, I start with the study of the Human and later I will compare it to the animal behavior/brain. And not the other way around, to make observations of animals and then to try to extrapolate them to human. From my point this approach may result in errors due to non-proper correlations.

But to continue with your idea. Yes is correct. Right now I think that only humans have this Human mind component. Also, don't forget related to this begs the question: The "I" being an emergent of the four, the "I" is present in animals? If yes, in what form, without the Human mind component in the system.

 

There seems to be a duality inherent in your idea which is demonstrably unnecessary.

Not sure that I follow. I can admit that a duality can be derived but how can be proven demonstrably unnecessary. Just curious if you seen something that I didn't.

 

If your model is wrong that's alright, but if you don't change your model based on the evidence that has been gathered you're not being scientific.

I don't mind to change my model. In fact I did it over time. The first time the "I" component wasn't included. I attributed the decision making process to the Self. I can't specify the evidence for that, it was only that I couldn't find any "activity" attribute in the Self that was needed for decision making. Now the "I" is part of the model/theory and is not an artifact to "force fit" some observations. I'm happy to change the model than to interpret the observations in a "convenient" manner. Which I know is wrong.

 

And finally:

Your quote from "Brain, a decoded enigma":

"This theory is in a total opposition with all the actual sciences

associated with the functions of the brain. The present sciences,

associated with the functions of the brain, are not based on a single

fundamental model. In this way, as my theory will be accepted, all what

it was already written in the actual sciences associated with the

functions of the brain, have to be re-written or forgotten."

 

I value your input and you may be right. But I didn't noticed the problem here. "The present sciences, associated with the functions of the brain, are not based on a single fundamental model." He is wright or wrong? Because I wondered about that. It is a current working hypothesis at least or theory about the brain? Neuro-science makes any perditions about the human brain? And re-running observations doesn't cont. I don't have a problem with neuro-science per say. It's a step forward to make some observations. But if it doesn't make any predictions how I can compare my predictions of my theory with those? This is a fundamental aspect. Because without that you just have some blinking lights under MRI. By analogy, without a hypothesis or theory about water for istance, I can trow a rock in a lake and make any interpretations in which way that I want.

I might be wrong this is why I value your input on this. According to your profile you have more experience in this.

 

"As Richard Feynman said, if your model disagrees with experiment it is wrong. Luckily that part was in the very beginning so I didn't waste too much time."

What experiment?

 

P.S. sheever, thank you that is interesting .Some missing fragments there in their "theory". It's about speculations from a filed that even they don't understand it well enough.

 

Edited August 15, 2013 by hyperion1is

[Ringer]

1. Predictions. I got that, my theory will have to make testable and falsifiable predictions.

2. Maybe the terms? I revise now my work, in the sense that I noticed on my own that I didn't defined and stated all the fundamentals terms. For fundamentals terms definitions through description is accepted and after that all the other terms related to this field would have to be generated from the model/theory so you don't end up with thousands of terms and interpretable definitions. I'm I wrong?

This is why I posted here. For people to point that to me.

Is in the work. As some stages: I will have to finish the theory (in the sense to be a theory, coherent), the theory to make predictions, to research on previous observations and to design tests and applications. I'm not there yet.

All terms that are used in ways that have not been strictly defined elsewhere should be defined. If they aren't defined then everyone could be using separate definition and any discussion will be meaningless.

 

Yes, it seems so. How I state it, I start with the study of the Human and later I will compare it to the animal behavior/brain. And not the other way around, to make observations of animals and then to try to extrapolate them to human. From my point this approach may result in errors due to non-proper correlations.

But to continue with your idea. Yes is correct. Right now I think that only humans have this Human mind component. Also, don't forget related to this begs the question: The "I" being an emergent of the four, the "I" is present in animals? If yes, in what form, without the Human mind component in the system.

So since only humans have it, and assuming you have an idea of what it does, what tests could you perform to show that this concept is uniquely human?

 

Not sure that I follow. I can admit that a duality can be derived but how can be proven demonstrably unnecessary. Just curious if you seen something that I didn't.

It's unnecessary because there is nothing about the mind that necessitates the unfounded assumption that it isn't brain processes. I did say seems to be, it is just something to think about as your ideas develop.

 

And finally:

Your quote from "Brain, a decoded enigma":

"This theory is in a total opposition with all the actual sciences

associated with the functions of the brain. The present sciences,

associated with the functions of the brain, are not based on a single

fundamental model. In this way, as my theory will be accepted, all what

it was already written in the actual sciences associated with the

functions of the brain, have to be re-written or forgotten."

 

I value your input and you may be right. But I didn't noticed the problem here. "The present sciences, associated with the functions of the brain, are not based on a single fundamental model." He is wright or wrong? Because I wondered about that. It is a current working hypothesis at least or theory about the brain? Neuro-science makes any perditions about the human brain? And re-running observations doesn't cont. I don't have a problem with neuro-science per say. It's a step forward to make some observations. But if it doesn't make any predictions how I can compare my predictions of my theory with those? This is a fundamental aspect. Because without that you just have some blinking lights under MRI. By analogy, without a hypothesis or theory about water for istance, I can trow a rock in a lake and make any interpretations in which way that I want.

I might be wrong this is why I value your input on this. According to your profile you have more experience in this.

Neuroscience makes a lot of predictions, I'll only stick to cognitive neuroscience because it's the only relevant one here. For example, if the brain is the mind when I disable communication from one hemisphere to the other anything information shown to the right side of the brain would not be able to be communicated vocally because language areas are in the left hemisphere. That's exactly what you see with split brained patients. If the mind was separate from the brain there would be no reason for this to happen. So there is a neuroscience prediction about mind/brain duality that has been done.

 

"As Richard Feynman said, if your model disagrees with experiment it is wrong. Luckily that part was in the very beginning so I didn't waste too much time."

 

What experiment?

The experiments that the linked book says its theory is in total opposition with. If it is opposition to the established science it is in opposition to experiment and is therefore wrong.

[hyperion1is]

Our discussion appears to be fruitful in the sense that we agree on certain aspects and disagree on others.
But I think we should first agree on what is science and what is not.

Neuroscience makes a lot of predictions, I'll only stick to cognitive neuroscience because it's the only relevant one here. For example, if the brain is the mind when I disable communication from one hemisphere to the other anything information shown to the right side of the brain would not be able to be communicated vocally because language areas are in the left hemisphere. That's exactly what you see with split brained patients. If the mind was separate from the brain there would be no reason for this to happen. So there is a neuroscience prediction about mind/brain duality that has been done.

I don't dismiss the brain. It's just not the central focus of my theory. But is included. In my theory we have Human body component. Even if is defined as an interpreter of the body that's OK because it lets you infer informations or properties of the body in a context. You can view it as a study from "inside out" (outwards). I don't dismiss the brain in the same manner that I don't dismiss my leg and to think that I can walk, move around, without a leg in the same manner that I could with it. So, let's not make confusions.
I only didn't wanted to have a biased start by assuming that all that I want to find out about the mind I will find it in the brain. I will explain further.

If you make a study about just one thing it will result in non-sense. It's a problem of principle. From chemistry point a view if you want to determine proprieties for the Hydrogen atom (or molecule) for instance it's difficult if not impossible from the Hydrogen alone.
If you were to make an experiment: H+O=H₂O you can deduct some proprieties, but even so you won't be able to tell what proprieties were of Hydrogen, which were of Oxygen and which you can put it on something else, if possible. You might want further to put the Hydrogen in reaction with every other substance and what remains, what is common, is of Hydrogen. And the problem that arise here is the same with "All swans are white" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductivism You will encounter at least one black swan to mess with your hypothesis. Hydrogen in the periodic table is something else because at least it provides context.

 

The point I'm trying to make here is that you can't put all the processes that you observe about the mind on the brain. The brain is not suspended in aether and you have to study the interactions between the brain and environment, if possible and determine what the brain is and what is not - to make it falsifiable. You can't find all the proprieties you need in just one place.

 

About your prediction from neuroscience. That only demonstrates that the world that we know of works with rules. From that experiment one can postulate that the brain is the link of the mind with the body. I'm not saying that but there are some that view it this way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lipton

 

And your prediction is not really a prediction. First you don't have an hypothesis/theory about the brain. I asked about that. Any hypothesis even if is "The brain is a technological device, even if biological in nature". Without a hypothesis you only have observations, which you can interpret it in which way you want. You can agree with me that without a theory/model about the brain 5 different scientists can draw 5 different interpretations related to an experiment? How this is helpful?

 

"the brain is the mind". If that is the case then the brain should explain anything you need to. Once you say brain=mind and vice-versa you can't resort to different theories about the same thing anymore. For instance explanations from Behavior theory must be explained by the brain theory. In which way possible, even if: "The nervous impulses that travel on this path and not the other is what is causing this and that.." Just guessing here. I don't have intimate knowledge about neuroscience, this is why I'm asking you. But let's stick to logic.

 

If you come with 2 different interpretations to explain something (brain theory if you will, if it exists, and behavior theory) is considered "cheating", you have to stay inside of only one theory at a given time.

To combine 2 will result in this:"All terms that are used in ways that have not been strictly defined elsewhere should be defined. If they aren't defined then everyone could be using separate definition and any discussion will be meaningless."

 

So, I refute that as a prediction without a model. Without that is the same as my analogy with the rock in the water. If I throw a rock in the water and makes ripples I can deduct that the water got upset with me and the ripples is it's way of communicating that with me.

And about predictions: Someone predicted that or was the other way around, this was first observed and later the conclusion. What predictions neuroscience can make about things that weren't observed yet?

Edited August 16, 2013 by hyperion1is

[Ringer]

Our discussion appears to be fruitful in the sense that we agree on certain aspects and disagree on others.

But I think we should first agree on what is science and what is not.

 

 

 

I don't dismiss the brain. It's just not the central focus of my theory. But is included. In my theory we have Human body component. Even if is defined as an interpreter of the body that's OK because it lets you infer informations or properties of the body in a context. You can view it as a study from "inside out" (outwards). I don't dismiss the brain in the same manner that I don't dismiss my leg and to think that I can walk, move around, without a leg in the same manner that I could with it. So, let's not make confusions.

That's what I meant about duality being inherent. I don't see the need to have an aspect encompassing the brain, then have separate aspects. It causes a duality, which has no evidence to support it and there is evidence refuting it.

 

I only didn't wanted to have a biased start by assuming that all that I want to find out about the mind I will find it in the brain. I will explain further.

It wouldn't be expected that you solely explain your idea in the form of brain activity, but separating the mind and brain causes your idea to be inherently flawed.

 

If you make a study about just one thing it will result in non-sense. It's a problem of principle. From chemistry point a view if you want to determine proprieties for the Hydrogen atom (or molecule) for instance it's difficult if not impossible from the Hydrogen alone.

If you were to make an experiment: H+O=H₂O you can deduct some proprieties, but even so you won't be able to tell what proprieties were of Hydrogen, which were of Oxygen and which you can put it on something else, if possible. You might want further to put the Hydrogen in reaction with every other substance and what remains, what is common, is of Hydrogen. And the problem that arise here is the same with "All swans are white" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductivism You will encounter at least one black swan to mess with your hypothesis. Hydrogen in the periodic table is something else because at least it provides context.

First if you got H+O->H₂O you would have broken the laws of physics, so you would be able to write a lot about it. Also, you could tell some properties of hydrogen and oxygen from that reaction. You know that properties of how atoms combine to form molecules aren't random. You could infer more properties using more reactions. You could also use prior evidence to further explain things about that reaction.

 

The point I'm trying to make here is that you can't put all the processes that you observe about the mind on the brain. The brain is not suspended in aether and you have to study the interactions between the brain and environment, if possible and determine what the brain is and what is not - to make it falsifiable. You can't find all the proprieties you need in just one place.

Yes, you can study to brain's interaction with environment, but that doesn't seem to be encompassed in your framework.

 

About your prediction from neuroscience. That only demonstrates that the world that we know of works with rules. From that experiment one can postulate that the brain is the link of the mind with the body. I'm not saying that but there are some that view it this way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lipton

No it doesn't, because of studies of split brain patients you can find that there are effectively two minds within those people. That shows that the brain causes the mind. You can find plenty of people who disagree with scientific consensus, but if they don't have evidence they don't have anything.

 

And your prediction is not really a prediction. First you don't have an hypothesis/theory about the brain. I asked about that. Any hypothesis even if is "The brain is a technological device, even if biological in nature". Without a hypothesis you only have observations, which you can interpret it in which way you want. You can agree with me that without a theory/model about the brain 5 different scientists can draw 5 different interpretations related to an experiment? How this is helpful?

Here was the prediction:

if the brain is the mind when I disable communication from one hemisphere to the other anything information shown to the right side of the brain would not be able to be communicated vocally because language areas are in the left hemisphere

If all the interpretations agree with experiments and make minimal assumptions they are equal. If they make different predictions they are tested and falsified. That's what a theory is, an explanation of a variety of experimental results.

 

"the brain is the mind". If that is the case then the brain should explain anything you need to. Once you say brain=mind and vice-versa you can't resort to different theories about the same thing anymore. For instance explanations from Behavior theory must be explained by the brain theory. In which way possible, even if: "The nervous impulses that travel on this path and not the other is what is causing this and that.." Just guessing here. I don't have intimate knowledge about neuroscience, this is why I'm asking you. But let's stick to logic.

You can resort to different theories, but only when evidence supports those theories. As of yet the mind=brain hasn't even been close to being falsified. We don't have enough evidence to explain all behavior with specific brain activity, but all that we do have supports the model of mind=brain. So any theory you have must either explain why all the evidence supports that despite being wrong without extraneous assumptions or you must work within that framework. That's not to say you can't come up with with a theory that doesn't mention the brain when explaining mind phenomena, but you can't contradict mind=brain without explaining the prior evidence.

 

If you come with 2 different interpretations to explain something (brain theory if you will, if it exists, and behavior theory) is considered "cheating", you have to stay inside of only one theory at a given time.

To combine 2 will result in this:"All terms that are used in ways that have not been strictly defined elsewhere should be defined. If they aren't defined then everyone could be using separate definition and any discussion will be meaningless."

My point is that for your idea to work you will have to be able to integrate it with the evidence we see in regards to brain activity and behavior. That's exactly the kind of thing you see when theories work. As an example Newtonian mechanics didn't explain some phenomena, but it did explain a lot. Then Relativity came along and explained the things that Newton didn't, so the theories were, more or less, merged.

 

So, I refute that as a prediction without a model. Without that is the same as my analogy with the rock in the water. If I throw a rock in the water and makes ripples I can deduct that the water got upset with me and the ripples is it's way of communicating that with me.

The problem is you are making a lot of unfounded assumptions without using prior evidence. You assume the water has feelings, you assume the water is reacting to you, you assume the water can communicate, you assume it uses ripples to communicate, etc. That's the problem with many psychological theories of the mind, too many assumptions that don't have, or contradict, evidence.

 

And about predictions: Someone predicted that or was the other way around, this was first observed and later the conclusion. What predictions neuroscience can make about things that weren't observed yet?

A prediction in neuroscience that has yet to be observed? I don't work in the area we are discussing, so I don't know if this has been supported, but I'll give it a shot. If the brain is solely the interface for the mind so it can communicate with the brain we should not be able to control anything separate from the body using only brain activity.

[hyperion1is]

I don't refute the mind and brain connection, or to say that the mind is separated from the brain. Everyone can experience this without complex experiments, through sleep deprivation. If you stay awake for 72 hours lets say, it's not only about the fatigue you experience but also you notice that you no longer can sustain the same mental processes in the same way that you were able before.
So let's leave it to that. I never claimed that the mind can exist without the brain. I'm not trying to develop a new kind of "science".

It wouldn't be expected that you solely explain your idea in the form of brain activity, but separating the mind and brain causes your idea to be inherently flawed.



Yes, you can study to brain's interaction with environment, but that doesn't seem to be encompassed in your framework.

Yes actually it does. How I expressed my opinion before, is hard next to impossible to study something without interaction.


Here was the prediction:

If all the interpretations agree with experiments and make minimal assumptions they are equal. If they make different predictions they are tested and falsified. That's what a theory is, an explanation of a variety of experimental results.


but all that we do have supports the model of mind=brain.

What is that model you haven't stated.

That's not to say you can't come up with with a theory that doesn't mention the brain when explaining mind phenomena, but you can't contradict mind=brain without explaining the prior evidence.

That is enough. That is actually what I trying to do. And I don't contradict mind=brain.

My only concern is about people coming with "evidence" of the brain, without having a hypothesis or theory about the brain to dismiss parts of my theory, even though the brain is still an enigma for us. This is why efforts are still being made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Brain_Project_(EU)

 

Like Benjamin Libet test which supposedly was made to shed some light on Free will without a definition or explanation of Free will. Free will has definitions and explanations in philosophy. You need to have Free will defined and explained by the brain theory (that you say that it exists) and then test for it. But you can't import a definition from philosophy and then test for it. If this is Science then it seems to overpass me.

But look where is Psychology in the hierarchy of Science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science . I hope is not because of mistakes like this.

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, if we have a problem, because I don't refute mind=brain, I can answer the rest of your questions.

That's what I meant about duality being inherent. I don't see the need to have an aspect encompassing the brain, then have separate aspects. It causes a duality, which has no evidence to support it and there is evidence refuting it.

It's just a matter of integration. Think of the Human body component as a distinct process inside the brain that will explain to the brain the human body. Just because the brain is in the body and a part of it that doesn't mean that is enough for the brain to "make" operations regarding the body. The brain needs a process to explain the body to the brain. And an "analog" understanding is not enough. This is the view in my theory. Wrong right, remains to be seen. So not really a duality here.

I thought you refer to a possible duality from the fact that the components in the system can work individually as well as together.

So since only humans have it, and assuming you have an idea of what it does, what tests could you perform to show that this concept is uniquely human?

I'm not there yet. At designing tests or to make comparisons between humans and animals. I stated that before.

 

Considering the role of the Human mind component "find solutions, return answers to interrogations and to establish correlations between items" you can infer some test from that. Ie. Regarding correlations between items a test will be to determine how well or how poor an animal manages in new locations or situations for which it has no prior experience and how it reports to an unknown element.

 

But related to that you are bound to make all kind of assumptions. Like what is considered "normal" for people. In the view of my theory a lot of us are in a pathologic state, more or less, depends on the person, because of Belief system/Values systems (mainly). What is there in the Values system placed in Conciseness component dictates almost everything about an individual. If you tell an individual (and make him believe it) that is a monkey he/she will behave like a monkey (what is known for the individual about the monkey behavior). Anyway, I have a lot of debunking here. I will finish my theory, and later I will publish results.

 

For now, I will refer it just as a problem for the individual to communicate with himself.

The Human mind components can make simulations, make deductions and so on. In a scenario where:

"You say goodbye to a loved one as it leaves with his car (to work let's say) and later on you have the feeling that something wrong happened. You make a call and that person tells you that he had a car accident but is fine."

Rolling back you noticed a mechanical problem with the vehicle, a loose wheel if you will. The Human mind made simulations, in parallel about you and about the other person, and predicted an outcome: a type and a possible time for it. After you make the call you notice that the predictions was right. But the "I" may not know from where he received the information and starts searching for different sources. This way you may arrive to the conclusions like telepathy and so on when is not the case.

 

 

Is not a matter of what "I" knows or not is about the fact that we like to take credit for everything. It's about the fact that the Human mind doesn't work with moral concepts and religious aspects makes us denied it "Don't trust it because it can lead you astray". It's about the fact that we like to consider ourselves intelligent. Intelligence defined as "To find solutions with the least of informations available" belongs to the Human mind component. Are you comfortable with the idea that intelligence it's of a component within your self and not directly yours, in a manner of speaking?

 

 

This what makes the study of the mind highly subjective. Hard for people to analyze themselves.