Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 General Skepticism
 pseudoscience
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

cantbe323
Suspended

242 Posts

Posted - 01/19/2010 :  17:22:23  Show Profile Send cantbe323 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Scientists say they know how the mind works, but they can't see the mind at work. So all they can do is make pseudoscience guesses that may or mmay not be correct.

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 01/19/2010 :  17:42:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Actually, a great deal is known about how the mind works.

Table of Contents for the article in the link:
CONTENTS
THE BRAIN
How the Human Brain Evolved
Reptilian Brain
Mammalian Brain
Human Brain
Brain Waves
Brain Scanning
SLEEP AND SLEEPING
Body-Temperature and Sleep Rhythms
Sleeping
Deep Sleep and REM Sleep
Role of DEEP Sleep
Role of REM Sleep
DREAMING AND DREAMS
Content of Dreams
Role of Dreams
LEARNING, MEMORISING AND REMEMBERING (Receiving, Storing and Recalling)
Types of Memory
Procedural Memory
Declarative Memory

Associating Memories and their Components
Working Memory
External Memory
Stored Information (Perceived Content)
Learning (Memorising) and Understanding
Development of Brain Functions in Humans
Development of Brain Functioning in Foetus and Newborn
Role of REM Sleep in Infants
Changes in Sleep-wakefulness Rhythm during First Year of Infant's Life
Learning by Playing and by Experience
Change from Eidetic to Linear Memory
CONCLUSIONS - BRAIN, MIND AND BEHAVIOUR (Human Behaviour and how the Mind works)
Instincts and Instinctive Behaviour
Conscious Behaviour: Learning and Evaluating, Memory and Memorising
Communicating Non-verbally: Conveying Information by Using Images
Instinctive Behaviour
Subconscious Behaviour (Functioning)
Memorising
Adapting to the Environment: Changing Instinctive Behaviour
Adapting to the World in which we Live: Changing Behaviour Patterns
Evaluation and Understanding
The Struggle for a Better Life
Main Conclusions
NOTES AND REFERENCES
Notes <..>
References {..}
ILLUSTRATIONS (Click any illustration to see the full-size chart)
1. Sleep Pattern: Day-Night-Day
2. One Sleep Period (One Night)
3. The Human Brain

It's a long one, as the human brain is quite complicated. Welcome to SFN, cantbe323




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 01/19/2010 :  18:15:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by cantbe323

Scientists say they know how the mind works...
Name a scientist who says that.
...but they can't see the mind at work.
That's true, but we also can't see electrons at work, yet the computer you used to post this message works okay, doesn't it?
So all they can do is make pseudoscience guesses that may or mmay not be correct.
One of the main differences between science and pseudoscience is that scientists test their guesses to see if they are correct or not. Pseudoscientists don't.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

cantbe323
Suspended

242 Posts

Posted - 01/19/2010 :  18:30:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send cantbe323 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
It's really based on cause/effect. All scientists know about the head for sure is the effect, very little about the hidden causes... And since they can't see inside the head to watch the mind at work, all they can do is make educated guesses about how it works, and not being system engineers, they're probably wrong.

Your list is impressive and extensive, but I just don't trust pseudoscientists to do anything right. I have my own theory, but no way to prove it

cantbe323
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 01/19/2010 :  18:45:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by cantbe323

It's really based on cause/effect. All scientists know about the head for sure is the effect...
Again, that is true about every science which deals with that which cannot be directly observed by our five senses. So is atomic theory pseudoscience in your view?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

cantbe323
Suspended

242 Posts

Posted - 01/19/2010 :  19:25:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send cantbe323 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
We can only see the effect of computers, not the cause.

Engineers test their guesses, scientists don't know how.

We can only see, feel and hear the effect of nuclear fission, not the cause. For all we know, physicists came upon the cause by chance and made educated guesses.

Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4955 Posts

Posted - 01/19/2010 :  19:42:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by cantbe323
We can only see, feel and hear the effect of nuclear fission, not the cause. For all we know, physicists came upon the cause by chance and made educated guesses.
What are you getting at with this? We know the cause of nuclear fission. It certainly wasn't "by chance"; atomic theory had made successful predictions for decades before anyone detonated a hydrogen bomb.

And your phrasing doesn't ultimately make any sense. You seem to be saying in general that no one knows why anything works and yet at some point with enough tests have been made and bombs built, I think it's safe to say that people do know why something works and aren't making guesses. No?
Go to Top of Page

cantbe323
Suspended

242 Posts

Posted - 01/19/2010 :  20:35:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send cantbe323 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
We know the cause of nuclear fission. It certainly wasn't "by chance"; atomic theory had made successful predictions for decades before anyone detonated a hydrogen bomb. >>

How can you be so sure? You probably weren't even born when they were making all those initial tests and experiments. All a cyclotron does visibly is propel things that can't be seen with the strongest magnifying glass, so all you can really see is the effect.

cantbe323
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4955 Posts

Posted - 01/19/2010 :  20:47:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by cantbe323
How can you be so sure? You probably weren't even born when they were making all those initial tests and experiments.
For real? So I should instead posit a grand conspiracy theory wherein thousands of scientists are fabricating data about the history of the study of the atom-- a plan that has duped countless millions since? Everyone, of course, except you? Is that really your argument?
All a cyclotron does visibly is propel things that can't be seen with the strongest magnifying glass, so all you can really see is the effect.
Yes, and again, here is where your argument breaks down. Again, after repeated successful tries, and when said tries conform to our basic understandings of nuclear physics, then it's safe to say that we are starting to know the why. This isn't a one-time event.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 01/19/2010 :  20:51:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by cantbe323

Scientists say they know how the mind works, but they can't see the mind at work. So all they can do is make pseudoscience guesses that may or mmay not be correct.

Take a look at how scientists use modern imaging equipment before you say that. Because they are now "seeing" how the brain operates, and are using what they see and learn in a very practical way.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 01/19/2010 :  21:50:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I have my own theory, but no way to prove it.


I'll bite: What is this "theory"?

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 01/19/2010 :  22:13:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by cantbe323

We can only see the effect of computers, not the cause.
That was my point.
Engineers test their guesses, scientists don't know how.
Aha. I've seen the engineer-who-is-jealous-that-he-is-not-a-scientist before, but mostly among the Intelligent Design crowd.
We can only see, feel and hear the effect of nuclear fission, not the cause. For all we know, physicists came upon the cause by chance and made educated guesses.
And because we weren't there at the birth of nuclear physics, we can't know. This sort of Last-Thursdayism is common among the aforementioned crew, also.

Really, is there a point to all this? Cheerleading for engineers and poo-poohing scientists isn't a point.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 01/20/2010 :  05:19:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by cantbe323

It's really based on cause/effect. All scientists know about the head for sure is the effect, very little about the hidden causes... And since they can't see inside the head to watch the mind at work, all they can do is make educated guesses about how it works, and not being system engineers, they're probably wrong.

Your list is impressive and extensive, but I just don't trust pseudoscientists to do anything right. I have my own theory, but no way to prove it

cantbe323

Define "psuedoscientist."

Had you but opened the link and studied it a bit, you might have come to an understanding. Or perhaps even had your theory collaborated.
How can you be so sure? You probably weren't even born when they were making all those initial tests and experiments. All a cyclotron does visibly is propel things that can't be seen with the strongest magnifying glass, so all you can really see is the effect.

Actually, I and a few other old farts in here were. I remember quite well watching b&w newsreels of atomic testing in the '40s.

If you think of scientific equipment as a sort of prosthetics, you will find it easy to see how scientists "see" even where nothing can be seen. I can't believe I wrote that!




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf

USA
1486 Posts

Posted - 01/20/2010 :  16:01:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit ThorGoLucky's Homepage Send ThorGoLucky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by cantbe323

Scientists say ...

Oh gag, strawman fallacy alert.
Go to Top of Page

cantbe323
Suspended

242 Posts

Posted - 01/21/2010 :  15:55:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send cantbe323 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
You seem to be saying in general that no one knows why anything works and yet at some point with enough tests have been made and bombs built, I think it's safe to say that people do know why something works and aren't making guesses. No? >>

Bombs are definitely effect, and since they are tested, not just words, cause is well documented.

cantbe323
Go to Top of Page

cantbe323
Suspended

242 Posts

Posted - 01/21/2010 :  16:30:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send cantbe323 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ricky

[quote]I have my own theory, but no way to prove it.


I'll bite: What is this "theory"? >>

Here's the short version...

There is no analytical brain, only muscle memory and experience mmemory weighted by what worked and what didn't work.

cantbe323
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.17 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000