Hypnosis and evolution

[Seamus Riley]

Upisoft, why go that far? why not say god was pretty stupid to give us rocks to kill each other with? is there a hidden agenda here?

 

[Upisoft]

Have you been hurt recently?

Depends what you define as "recently". If it means "less than 2 years" then I can't see many people answering that question with "no".

All we have is each other, if we forget that we will be led to madness or worse. Trust me on this. Some people will hurt you either through neglect or malice. Most people will love you and defend you to the death. Sometimes we forget this.

I see only few willing to love. I see more interested only in they own good being. And I see even more indifferent. You live in another country. Maybe the things are different there.

 

[Upisoft]

Upisoft, why go that far? why not say god was pretty stupid to give us rocks to kill each other with? is there a hidden agenda here?

Ugh? Hidden agenda? No. I was more concerned about the answer of the question how it evolved.

And about the rocks. Well, I don't see the point. Even if the bad guy exists, and is able to take over someone the stones will do no damage to the soul of those killed. But if he is able to control the memories, wishes and beliefs... well... that's quite different story.

 

[Seamus Riley]

again, you're making a HUGE logical leap to say that if someone is in a state of elevated suggestibility whereupon some bad devil guy with sinister ideas can plant a suggestion, that the person has fully surrendered free will for the totality of his existence. you could very easily throw hypnosis out of your argument entirely. please make a point about hypnosis or withdraw the OP.

 

[Upisoft]

again, you're making a HUGE logical leap to say that if someone is in a state of elevated suggestibility whereupon some bad devil guy with sinister ideas can plant a suggestion, that the person has fully surrendered free will for the totality of his existence. you could very easily throw hypnosis out of your argument entirely. please make a point about hypnosis or withdraw the OP.

I don't see the problem as "surrender free will forever", either you didn't understand my argument or you are using a strawman.

Let's for a moment accept that what the Bible teaches is true. Let's have a man that believes it and therefore his soul is saved.

Now that man has some problems and agrees to hypnotic session in attempt to fix them. During the session the hypnotist is taken by the devil and implants some false memories, wishes or beliefs in the hypnotized guy that reject the Bible and suppress those that confirm the belief. The guy is instructed to think about his beliefs after say 1 hour. After the session, he returns home and 1 hour later comes to conclusion he no longer believes in God. Thus, the devil is successful. The guy by his own will decided to reject God, only the data he was working was tampered with.

 

[ShaunJ72]

Maxwell

That is an excellent opinion. Obviously it is counter to pretty much all scientific studies on human reasoning. That is why I like it.

Can you explain why you believe this, this kind of thought is incredibly interesting to me. I really hope what you say about yourself is true, because you will be a massive outlier to these studies.

You are nowhere near clever enough to try and adopt this smug, patronising approach. Please list the 'scientific studies on human reasoning' that you refer to and I will respond to them.

When you, Maxwell, have a choice to make, what do you base your decision on? When you receive two conflicting pieces of information and a decision needs to be made, what do you do? You discard some information, you have to because much of it is contradictory and a lot of it must be incorrect. Do you believe absolutely everything as you are such a credulous cove? No, you can't, because you have to process what is relevant and useful, and what is irreleveant and a potentally a threat. You may not realise it, but you do.


Your little fable is pointless. You are an adult, and an adult in that situation would make a decision, sober or otherwise, by weighing up the potential risks and benefits of the options available to them at that time in that situation. When you say you are/were credulous you mean that you chose to believe someone, the woman who gave you directions to the ATM in your little fable, after evaluating all the information available to you.

• Do you believe everything or do you process and filter information?
• If you process information, what criteria do you use?

As a child or a woman in a similar situation, with no one to ask directions from the situation could potentially be very different. A woman is lost and asks a man on a deserted street at night for directions, he says he isn't sure how to get to her destination but if she goes back to his house with him she can use his phone or the internet to check where she's meant to be going. Should she be credulous? How about if it was your sister or daughter?

By your apparent assessment, they should do this because credulousness is an evolutionary advantage.

Just curious: are you an economist? Or do you study anything related to economics?

No. Do you make fudge?

I think you totally missed the point of the story.

Your story had a point?!

Also I am lower class, I have prevented alot of muggings by convincing people to break into cars instead. I just really don't think mugging people is okay. I am not naive, I am just a well educated prole.

You are really struggling to maintain any semblance of relevance here.

Don't forget, please list the 'scientific studies on human reasoning' that I need to read up on, I'm really looking forward to it. The fact that you have mentioned them suggests to me that you have read up on this subject and it will be no problem for you list a few scientific papers.

Choosing to believe someone is not the same a unconditional credulity. Young children and mugs don't get to make the choice.

 

[Seamus Riley]

I don't see the problem as "surrender free will forever", either you didn't understand my argument or you are using a strawman.

Let's for a moment accept that what the Bible teaches is true. Let's have a man that believes it and therefore his soul is saved.

Now that man has some problems and agrees to hypnotic session in attempt to fix them. During the session the hypnotist is taken by the devil and implants some false memories, wishes or beliefs in the hypnotized guy that reject the Bible and suppress those that confirm the belief. The guy is instructed to think about his beliefs after say 1 hour. After the session, he returns home and 1 hour later comes to conclusion he no longer believes in God. Thus, the devil is successful. The guy by his own will decided to reject God, only the data he was working was tampered with.

if from what ive repeated to you a few times you think i do not understand what you meant, then by all means explain it to me, however you cannot accuse me of strawman when i've used YOUR analogy of the bad devil guy. you are either arguing with deliberate intent to manipulate or are doing it unaware. i'm beginning to find you to be dishonorable.

and for the third time i'll say you've failed to convince me that that a hypnotic suggestion has significantly undermined free will in the way you outlined. hypnosis doesn't do what you say it does. if you think so, demonstrate it.

 

[Maxwell511]

You are nowhere near clever enough to try and adopt this smug, patronising approach.

I agree with you on this.

Please list the 'scientific studies on human reasoning' that you refer to and I will respond to them.

You want me to list an entire field of research? One is hoping that you are just ignorant and not well read. There is a field of study called Psychology.

Let's start small. You will forgive me since my hard drive died recently and I cannot give the actual paper. This is the best I can find on short notice. And also the conformity experiments. This sort of stuff shows that we ignore facts in the first place and this before our reasoning kicks in. Do you want more?

I am not as clever as you, however I would like to study you. The place I am going to work next week has a massive neuroscience department. As far as I can tell the entire university is built around the neuroscience issue. It would really help us if I could scan your brain. Since we are not as clever as you and we want to know how to be so.

 

[Upisoft]

if from what ive repeated to you a few times you think i do not understand what you meant, then by all means explain it to me, however you cannot accuse me of strawman when i've used YOUR analogy of the bad devil guy. you are either arguing with deliberate intent to manipulate or are doing it unaware. i'm beginning to find you to be dishonorable.

Your words are proof that you don't understand. You say I'm accusing you of using strawman because you've used my analogy of the bad devil guy. No, you don't understand. I agree with you use of the bad guy devil as correct. Your strawman was the idea that I'm saying that the hypnosis can be effective "for the totality of his existence". I'm saying no such thing.

and for the third time i'll say you've failed to convince me that that a hypnotic suggestion has significantly undermined free will in the way you outlined.

Do you agree it can be used to create false memories?
Lawsuits alleging FMS creation

 

[ShaunJ72]

Maxwell, you are brilliant and very special. I genuinely regret that I got you completely wrong.

There was me thinking you were an utter dick. I know!? Can you believe it?

I'm not sure how that happened?! Really Sorry Max.

 

[Maxwell511]

Maxwell, you are brilliant and very special. I genuinely regret that I got you completely wrong.

There was me thinking you were an utter dick. I know!? Can you believe it?

I'm not sure how that happened?! Really Sorry Max.

It is empirically verifiable that I am an utter dick. The fact that you reject that idea again shows me that you do not care for reality.

Again, why the hell do you think people think in the manner that you suggest?

 

[Seamus Riley]

Your words are proof that you don't understand...Your strawman was the idea that I'm saying that the hypnosis can be effective "for the totality of his existence".

refer back to where i said "in the way you outlined." that said, i followed your path fully to the point where you suggest free will has been undermined. from the devil guy to the planted suggestion to the subject supposedly making his own free will choice.

you have thus illustrated that either you do not understand me or that you are deliberately agitating the discussion.

Do you agree it can be used to create false memories?
Lawsuits alleging FMS creation

lol, science determined by courtroom cash awards now? weak. very weak.

i repeat, hypnosis doesn't do what you say it does. if it does, demonstrate it.

 

[Seamus Riley]

how about i end this right here and suggest that if hypnosis did do what you say it does, the subject willfully underwent hypnosis and is therefore subject to its possible pitfalls much the same way a driver is responsible for erratic driving after they chose to drink first. bad devil guy does his job, but hypnosis patient is responsible for its effects the same way alcohol did its job and the driver is responsible for its effects. free will intact. it was merely a bad choice.

 

[ShaunJ72]

It is empirically verifiable that I am an utter dick. The fact that you reject that idea again shows me that you do not care for reality.

Again, why the hell do you think people think in the manner that you suggest?

You don't have anything of substance in return do you? Either (a) you haven't got any cogently thought out opinions or ideas about human behaviour or (b) you haven't got the metaphorical balls to put your own opinions up to be viewed, judged and responded to. You haven't come up with anything at all, so which is it?

Sniping from the sidelines with nothing to offer except: "You are sooo wrong, ooh, look at you!", only supported by bizarre personal parables and this inane barely-humour is intellectual cowardice and just childish.

Grow some balls man.

What do you actually think Maxwell? Can we have an adult conversation?

 

[Maxwell511]

What do you actually think Maxwell? Can we have an adult conversation?

This is my opinion* based on what I have read and almost certainly due to my own experience and training:

Cognitive reasoning within human beings is based on an effort reduction principle. This makes complete sense to me from an evolutionary stand point since the brain requires a lot of resources and should not be used on evolutionary trivial matters. As far as I know, I am not omniscient on the subject, there are two types of reasoning used by people that have been scientifically established, one that could loosely be called intuition and one that can be called "traditional reasoning" or logical rationality. Logically rationality takes more effort and therefore the way people usually think is through intuition until that clearly does not work or there is some other good reason and then use logic as a fail safe. The minimal amount of effort is of course letting others doing the thinking for you and accepting that i.e. being susceptible.

From a less scientific stand point, Aristotle is said to have not believed that logic is how we think, he thought of it as a mechanism to determine truth. Godel, who showed the limits of logical reasoning, believed that intuition could transcend the limits of logic.

As far as know this is how intuition works, when exposed to new problem or ideas we subconsciously compare the problem to simpler or previously solved problems. Old/Simpler problems that may have nothing to do with the new problem. The solution to the simple problem is mapped with some tweaks as the solution to the new problem.

I know you don't like fables but this isn't really for you; if you took a child that owns a cat to the zoo and showed her a tiger and asked her what it ate it would probably "cat food". This is attribute substitution that I described in the last paragraph. If you did the same with an sound of mind adult, who had never heard of a tiger before, he would probably give a more accurate answer but he would still be using intuition.

It is difficult to assess that adults are using intuition most of the time because we are really good at it. We have a lot more experience and therefore a lot more attributes to substitute and therefore more likely to find a very close or correct answer through "illogical reasoning". Also the increase in attributes may cause conflict which will increase the likelihood of using the fail safe of logical thinking.

Our logical reasoning isn't prefect either, but it is less prone to error than intuition until we have practiced using logic on the sort of problems we are interested in enough. This is why when learning mathematics it is important to practice, think, and repeatably solve problems and then repeatably solve problems some more. You will eventually start intuiting the answer. This is when you become good or an "expert" at something.

While I said it is difficult two paragraphs up, I did not mean it is impossible. Psychologists use a method in experiments called priming to test for this. Priming is basically suggesting irrelevant attributes that will then effect the outcome of the persons decision, or opinion forming, even though logically they shouldn't. This is nothing new, politicians, lawyers et al. have be using this for centuries. I been watching Fox News recently, they are brilliant at priming. I'm torn between admiring the brilliance of it and my hatred of their politics.

Finally, we are animals, we can be trained to do things that we would not normally do. We can be trained to think logically when we usually wouldn't. I don't see a problem with this, however I do have a problem with thinking logically is the only way a person should think. I think these social attitudes predate science and could be the death of her if they gain ground again among scientific academics. The human my mind is not the arbiter of truth, nature is, and that is why we have natural philosophy as the most successful project in human history. Reason is an aid in the scientific search for knowledge, but it is not the backbone of it. Empiricism is. (Some reading if you are interested if you want to know how scientists actually think about the role of reason in acquiring knowledge)

That's my opinion, now can you answer my question? It was an sincere question although posed in an insincere manner.

*I am a post-doc at a public ivy in the US. I am actually very clever, now can I go back to talking nonsense?