Dreams suck:(
- Thread starter Xavierblazer
- Start date
Xavierblazer
Vault Senior Citizen
Elissar said:
One baby a year, or do I just go as I find em?
The Vault Dweller
always looking for water.
Well...I suppose you could substitute a cabbage patch kid for the babies if you indeed want to avoid violence and perhaps imprisonment. Of course your dream's may not be satisfied at your switching of your sacrifice...
I think really I just find over-cute children's toys annoying and like seeing them destroyed...
Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
I think really I just find over-cute children's toys annoying and like seeing them destroyed...
Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
c0ldst33ltrs4u
Vault Dweller
Cock's Bullocks. Dreams are not the result of random impulses in the brain, they do have sense. Some dreams are pretty absurd because they were censored by the moral instance of the mind and the true content was allowed to slip into consciousness only in a disguised form.
As for the 7 years in Tibet thing... the dream fulfilled the wish in a phantasmic way because it could not be acted out in reality.... then comes the guilt for this wish and it's fulfillment wich can manifest through a constant feeling that the little rugrat is going to get hurt and excessive care for his safety.
actually Freud would suggest you actually read and understand some of his works before eating so much shit
that and getting some professional help.... fast!
q7fgth44rtkd8p said:
So you mean we have a smartass immoral sub-mind from which the conscious mind is protected by some third instance? What is there to support this theory? How is it preferable to simpler explanations that don't rely on supposed divisions of the mind?
c0ldst33ltrs4u
Vault Dweller
Actually, if you think it through you would realise that the field of consciousness is rather narrow while other tasks run in the background, only their effects are apparent.
The structure of the personality in psychoanalytic theory is threefold. Freud divided it into the id, the ego, and the superego. Only the ego was visible or on the surface, while the id and the superego remains below, but each has its own effects on the personality, nonetheless.
The id represents biological forces. It is also a constant in the personality as it is always present. The id is governed by the "pleasure principle", or the notion of hedonism (the seeking of pleasure). Early in the development of his theory Freud saw sexual energy only, or the libido, or the life instinct, as the only source of energy for the id. It was this notion that gave rise to the popular conception that psychoanalysis was all about sex, sex, sex. After the carnage of World War I, however, Freud felt it necessary to add another instinct, or source of energy, to the id. So, he proposed thanatos, the death instinct. Thanatos accounts for the instinctual violent urges of humankind. Obviously, the rest of the personality would have somehow to deal with these two instincts. Notice how Hollywood has capitalized on the id. Box office success is highly correlated with movies that stress either sex, violence, or both.
The ego is the surface of the personality, the part you show the world. The ego is governed by the "reality principle ," or a pragmatic approach to the world. For example, a child may want to snitch a cookie from the kitchen, but will not if a parent is present. Id desires are still present, but the ego realizes the consequences of brazen cookie theft. The ego develops with experience, and accounts for developmental differences in behavior. For example, parents expect 3-month infants to cry until fed, but, they also expect 3-year-olds to stop crying when told they will be fed.
The superego consists of two parts, the conscience and the ego-ideal. The conscience is the familiar metaphor of angel and devil on each shoulder. The conscience decides what course of action one should take. The ego-ideal is an idealized view of one's self. Comparisons are made between the ego-ideal and one's actual behavior. Both parts of the super-ego develop with experience with others, or via social interactions. According to Freud, a strong super-ego serves to inhibit the biological instincts of the id, while a weak super-ego gives in to the id's urgings. Further, the levels of guilt in the two cases above will be high and low, respectively.
The tripartite structure above was thought to be dynamic, changing with age and experience.
And the basis for this theory is the experience accumulated in years of analysis and has been carefully distilled to reach it's present form. And it keeps evolving...
The structure of the personality in psychoanalytic theory is threefold. Freud divided it into the id, the ego, and the superego. Only the ego was visible or on the surface, while the id and the superego remains below, but each has its own effects on the personality, nonetheless.
The id represents biological forces. It is also a constant in the personality as it is always present. The id is governed by the "pleasure principle", or the notion of hedonism (the seeking of pleasure). Early in the development of his theory Freud saw sexual energy only, or the libido, or the life instinct, as the only source of energy for the id. It was this notion that gave rise to the popular conception that psychoanalysis was all about sex, sex, sex. After the carnage of World War I, however, Freud felt it necessary to add another instinct, or source of energy, to the id. So, he proposed thanatos, the death instinct. Thanatos accounts for the instinctual violent urges of humankind. Obviously, the rest of the personality would have somehow to deal with these two instincts. Notice how Hollywood has capitalized on the id. Box office success is highly correlated with movies that stress either sex, violence, or both.
The ego is the surface of the personality, the part you show the world. The ego is governed by the "reality principle ," or a pragmatic approach to the world. For example, a child may want to snitch a cookie from the kitchen, but will not if a parent is present. Id desires are still present, but the ego realizes the consequences of brazen cookie theft. The ego develops with experience, and accounts for developmental differences in behavior. For example, parents expect 3-month infants to cry until fed, but, they also expect 3-year-olds to stop crying when told they will be fed.
The superego consists of two parts, the conscience and the ego-ideal. The conscience is the familiar metaphor of angel and devil on each shoulder. The conscience decides what course of action one should take. The ego-ideal is an idealized view of one's self. Comparisons are made between the ego-ideal and one's actual behavior. Both parts of the super-ego develop with experience with others, or via social interactions. According to Freud, a strong super-ego serves to inhibit the biological instincts of the id, while a weak super-ego gives in to the id's urgings. Further, the levels of guilt in the two cases above will be high and low, respectively.
The tripartite structure above was thought to be dynamic, changing with age and experience.
And the basis for this theory is the experience accumulated in years of analysis and has been carefully distilled to reach it's present form. And it keeps evolving...
Well, I asked you three questions and you responded with an exposé of psychoanalysis that really addresses none of them.
c0ldst33ltrs4u
Vault Dweller
no. there are three instances: id, ego and superego. all instances have some unconscious dimension. As for the immoral sub-mind: yes we all have "immoral" thoughts, phantasms and shit, and they are censored by the superego.
Decades of experience, research and hard work.
If the human mind is that simple then why can't we make programs that think for themselves, programs that can genuinely learn and create? The human being, not only the mind is much more complex than it seems. A simple explanation just would not do. It's that simple.
Good enough?
Finding 'evidence' for an already formed theory is often a lot easier, especially with a non-exact study like psychology, than to look at the facts and then derive a good theory from there. The division seems rather arbitrary, and to me at least, not really useful. Of course, I don't know much about psychology, so feel free to enlighten me as to why I'm wrong.
Eeeeeyech, please. It's hard to create a program which can learn from anything, because this has to be largely preprogrammed. There have been successes with programs that can learn, but they largely work with allowing the program to experiment and with giving it rewards when it succeeds at something. But this would support a simple theory for the mind which focuses on the human mind having goals, not on dividing it into three elements.
c0ldst33ltrs4u
Vault Dweller
Freud did that, he built his theory from scratch; all of his theoretical assumptions were based on his clinical experience.
Of course all the psychanalytical theories are just points of view, up for debate and constantly evolving. The thing is these theories are not all mighty, they explain some phenomenons, not all.
c0ldst33ltrs4u said:
None of which has been able to ground the psychoanalytical model in neurobiological realities.
c0ldst33ltrs4u said:If the human mind is that simple then why can't we make programs that think for themselves, programs that can genuinely learn and create? The human being, not only the mind is much more complex than it seems. A simple explanation just would not do. It's that simple.
"The brain is complex, therefore psychoanalysis is true"? That's a standard argument from ignorance.
c0ldst33ltrs4u said:Good enough?
Not really. Psychoanalysis is a shoehorn model which can be adjusted to fit anything under the assumption that the original model is valid. That's fine as long as people play with it as a therapeutical tool and don't call it science. If you're going to use it to make assertions about how dreaming works, however, you're going to need a better argument than "you see, there's the id and the ego". Those concepts are not themselves established, so you're just adding another layer of interpretation.
c0ldst33ltrs4u
Vault Dweller
And the years of research in the field of neurology have not been able to develop an exhaustive anatomy of the brain. It's more like: "we are pretty sure that this area does this, but we can't really tell."
the brain is so complex we can't build an artificial one despite of all the technological advances of our age. And psychoanalysis is not true because the brain is complex but because it tries to find the meaning of certain phenomenons, like dreams, when most other sciences say they are useless. Simply denying the fact that such a phenomenon is meaningless is ignorant.
true, it's more than science, it's an art.
can you prove that these instances do not exist?[/code]
c0ldst33ltrs4u said:
You already said that, although it's still not clear why.
c0ldst33ltrs4u said:
"Fairy tales are true because they try to find the meaning of stuff like trolls and dragons when most other MEAN sciences say they are useless!"
Sorry, that's not the commonly accepted definition of "truth".
c0ldst33ltrs4u said:
Why should I? They seem to be making a good enough job of not existing on their own.
c0ldst33ltrs4u
Vault Dweller
If you want so hard to not belive in this it's not my place to convince you of the opposite. It's a free world after all.
If you'd actually come up with anything resembling a decent argument, perhaps you could convince people. This isn't wanting to believe it isn't true, it's not seeing any reason or cause to believe it's true. Your arguments consist of saying 'It can explain certain phenomena, so it must be true!' which is a really weak argument.c0ldst33ltrs4u said:
Also, your response here seems to come down to 'I don't have anything to counter your arguments with, so I'm just going to claim that you're a silly, stubborn man who won't see reason.'
c0ldst33ltrs4u
Vault Dweller
more like: fine! have it your own way! I'm not the kind of guy that keeps on knocking at closed door for ever.
besides if he really wants to look into it and seek pro and cons for this subject he will read some of Freud's works or any other psychoanalyst. on the other hand if he doesn't want to find the truth he can cling to his convictions and that is that. my point was that it's all up to him. end of story.
Yes, but you're saying it in a way that means 'You're stubborn and you won't see reason, so fuck it.' And don't say that's not what you meant, because you just illustrated it again with 'if he doesn't want to find the truth'. He DOES want to find the truth, and you haven't given him any decent reason to believe that your beliefs are the truth.c0ldst33ltrs4u said:
This isn't a closed door your knocking at, but it'll remain closed if you keep knocking at it with poor arguments.
c0ldst33ltrs4u said:
Oooh, next up; convicting Saddam for having WMDs because he can't prove he didn't have them.
Also, knock it out, you two, either talk like adults or don't talk at all. Goes for you too, Sander, let it lie.