Apollo BBS Archive - March 1990

Apollo BBS Archive - March 7 - 10, 1990

Message: 63714
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: reading
Date: 03/08/90  Time: 06:10:00

 I cannot, nor do I attempt to speak for anyone else, but personally, if I
want to read a book on psychology, neurology or any other ology, I will go
to a library or bookstore and obtain the book. 
 I log onto Apollo to read some thoghts and opinions of other users, not
some misguided professor who has to publish something to maintain his status
around the campus.
 Just my 2 cents worth. Aimed at no-one in particular, just those whose
thoughts are apparently so barren that they have to use 3-6 messages
actually written by someone else just to fill space.

Message: 63715
Author: $ Shirley Bear
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bob/Bears
Date: 03/08/90  Time: 12:10:40

Yep! Bob, Teddy Bears are people too.   Yes I have lost IT.  I am sure that
90% of the people I know believe I have lost IT and there is no hope left
for me.  Oh, Well! Little do they know.  So my life revolves around Bears
it could be worse.
Anyways, good to have you back Bob.
Catch ya later.
                                      ***** Shirley *****

Message: 63716
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Zak on psych
Date: 03/08/90  Time: 16:32:36

Zak, the information you posted is nothing new to me.  I have
taken a college level course in psychology, and my text was
remarkably similar to yours.  Evidently, I comprehended its
contents to the satisfaction of the instructor, since I received
an A in the course (alternately, you might assert that I merely
did a thorough job memorizing the text).  That does not change
the fact that I *still* do not admit psychology to be a science.
That does not mean that I find psychology useless.  But you must
learn to distinguish between probable inference and rigorous,
scientific methodology.

"Then, from about 1920 to 1960, American psychologists redefined
psychology as the science of *behavior*.  After all, they said,
SCIENCE IS ROOTED IN OBSERVATION.  YOU CANNOT OBSERVE A SENSATION
, A FEELING, OR A THOUGHT; but you *can* observe how people's
*external* behaviors are affected by external stimuli."

By their own admission, then, the psychologists themselves
support my contention that one cannot define the interpretation
of behavior, in terms of feeling or thought, as a science!  That
does away with 95 percent of all psychology claiming to be
science.  As for behaviorism...I have no trouble with defining
classical behaviorism as a science: so long as its adherents
refrain from making any assertions about the mind (behaviorists
are notorious for making assertions about the passivity of the
mind relative to environmental considerations).
To define psychology strictly as behaviorism, then, is not merely
supererogatory, but oxymoronic, since the roots of the word
"psychology" clearly define the term as the study of the psyche.
If you wish to so define it, however, I will accept this -- as
long as you are willing to renounce the rest of your
equivocations.  Psychology, then, is merely classical behavior-
ism: the study of behavior in response to external stimuli. Fine.

As for Phineas Gage, any number of conclusions might be drawn, with varying
degrees of credibility.  Again, you are confusing behavior with mind,
probable inference with genuine science. It may very well be that hostility
is connected with the frontal lobe (though this is more a matter for
neurology than psychology): certainly, Mr. Gage sustained trauma to the
frontal lobe, after which his behavior changed radically.  Certainly, people
with a previous history of hostile behavior have been known to be "calmed"
by trauma to the frontal lobe. Perhaps it was merely that his inhibitions
were removed by the accident: before the accident, he was described as a
gentleman.  After the accident, he was publicly profane, expressed his
temper without any consideration for others, and chased women without regard
to conventional mores.  Perhaps the conclusion to be drawn is that
inhibitions are connected to the frontal lobe.  Hell, a lot of behaviors
and capacities are observed to correlate with various parts of the brain.
These are by no means worthless.  They are by no means scientific, either,
when used to interpret the mind. And how did his friends reach the
conclusion that Phineas Gage became enraged "for no reason"?  Reason is a
product of the mind, and they had no access to Gage's mind.  Perhaps he was
given to brooding over past abuses and indignities, an inner conflict which
might have manifested itself prior to the accident as pensiveness,
distraction, or melancholy, but which now, lacking the inhibitions which
dictated a more socially acceptable demeanor, resulted in sudden and
apparently unprovoked rages.

Have you ever observed the behavior of a sociopath?  And I do not
restrict this category to serial killers, or even to those
inclined to violence.  They have been variously described as
"charming", "intelligent", "pleasant", "cheerful", "good-natured"
and other complimentary terms.  Perhaps those making such
observations, which are of course based on the observation of
behavior, are lacking in perspicacity.  Perhaps they are willing
to be deceived.  Then again, perhaps one cannot draw scientific
conclusions about what goes on inside someone's mind (assuming
they have one in the ordinary sense) based on the way they act.
It is my own opinion that people are predisposed, genetically and
by experience, to associate certain patterns of behavior (be they
expressions, sounds, whatever) with certain internal states.
By presenting people with recognisable patterns of behavior,
they instinctively "fill in the blanks", presupposing the
existence of that which they cannot know: the internal state
of the observed.  When this inference accurately corresponds,
then such "psychology" is indeed useful.  But not scientific.

Message: 63720
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: My Dinner with...
Subject: Idiot Savants(cont.)
Date: 03/08/90  Time: 16:36:51

"Had the numbers any meaning, I wondered on the way home. Had
they any 'real' or universal sense, or (if any at all) a merely
whimsical or private sense, like the secret and silly 'languages'
brothers and sisters sometimes work out for themselves?  And, as
I drove home, I thought of Luria's twins -- Liosha and Yura --
brain-damaged, speech impaired identical twins, and how they
would play and prattle to each other in a primitive, babble-like
language of their own . . . (Having consulted tables of powers,
primes, logarithms and factors, I determined that) all the
numbers, the six-figure numbers which the twins had exchanged,
were primes. . . Had they somehow seen or possesed such a book
(a list of primes) as mine, or were they, in some unimaginable
way 'seeing' primes, in somewhat the same way as they had seen
111-ness or triple 37-ness?  Certainly they could not be
calculating them -- they could calculate nothing.
I returned to the ward the next day, carrying the precious book
of primes with me. I again found them closeted in their numerical
communion, but this time, without saying anything, I quietly
joined them.  They were taken aback at first, but when I made no
interruption, they resumed their game of six figures.

After a few minutes I decided to join in, and ventured a number,
an eight-figure prime.  They both turned towards me, then
suddenly became still, with a look of intense concentration and
perhaps wonder on their faces.  There was a long pause -- the
longest I had ever known them to make, it must have lasted half
a minute or more -- and then suddenly, simultaneously, they both
broke into smiles.
They had, after some unimaginable internal process of testing,
suddenly seen my own eight-digit number as a prime -- and this
was manifestly a great joy, a double joy, to them; first because
I had introduced a delightful new plaything, a prime of an order
they had never encountered; and secondly, because it was evident
that I had seen what they were doing, that I liked it, that I
admired it, and that I could join in myself.
They drew apart slightly, making room for me, a new number
playmate, a third in their world.  Then John, who always took the
lead, thought for a very long time -- at least five minutes --
and brought out a nine-figure number; and after a similar time
his twin, Michael, responded with a similar one.  And then I, in
my turn, after a surreptitious look in my book, added my own
rather dishonest contribution, a ten-figure prime.

There was again, and for even longer, a wondering, still silence;
and then John, after a prodigious internal contemplation, brought
out a twelve figure number.  I had no way of checking this, and
could not respond, because my book (which as far as I knew, was
unique of its kind) did not go beyond ten figure primes.  But
Michael was up to it, though it took him five minutes, and an
hour later the twins were swapping twenty figure primes, or so I
assumed, for I had no way to check.  Nor was there any easy way,
in 1966, unless one had the use of a sophisticated computer. And
even then it would have been difficult, for whether one uses
Eratosthenes' sieve, or any other algorithm, there is no simple
method for calculating primes.  There is no simple method, for
primes of this order -- and yet the twins were doing it.
. . . Such higher or deeper mathematics were conceived, in
principle, by Gauss in his Disquisitiones Arithmeticae, in 1801
. . . one has to wonder whether there may not be a conventional
arithmetic (that is, an arithmetic of operations) -- often
irritating to teacher and student, unnatural and hard to learn,
-- and also a deep arithmetic of the kind described by Gauss,
which may be truly innate to the brain, as innate as Chomsky's
'deep' syntax and generative grammars.

"This serenity was, in fact, interrupted and broken up ten years
later, when it was felt that the twins should be separated,
'for their own good,' to prevent their 'unhealthy communication
together,' in order that they might 'come out and face the
world...in an appropriate, socially acceptable way' (as the
medical and sociological jargon had it).  They were separated,
then, in 1977, with consequences which might be considered as
either gratifying or dire.  Both have been moved into halfway
houses, and do menial jobs, for pocket money, under close super-
vision.  They are able to take buses, if carefully directed and
given a token, and to keep themselves moderately presentable and
clean, though their moronic and psychotic character is still
recognisable at a glance.  This is the positive side -- but there
is a negative side too (not mentioned in their charts, because it
was never recognised in the first place).  Deprived of their
numerical communion with each other, and of time and opportunity
for any 'contemplation' or 'communion' at all -- they are always
being hurried and jostled from one job to another -- they seem to
have lost their strange numerical power, and with this their
chief sense of joy and sense of their lives.  But this is
considered a small price to pay, no doubt, for their having
become quasi-independent and 'socially acceptable'.

"One is reminded somewhat of the treatment meted out to Nadia, an
autistic child with a phenomenal gift for drawing.  Nadia too was
subjected to a therapeutic regime 'to find ways in which her
potentialities in other directions could be maximized'.  The net
effect was that she started talking -- and stopped drawing.
Nigel Dennis comments: 'We are left with a genius who has had her
genius removed, leaving nothing behind but a general defect-
iveness.  What are we supposed to think about such a curious
cure?'"

Message: 63725
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Paul
Date: 03/08/90  Time: 16:46:34

Tough dukeys.  Use the [S]kip key.
 
Perhaps you could tell me, as long as I have your attention...exactly how
does one spell "dukeys"?  Is it "dukeys", or "dookeys", or perhaps "dukies"?
I have been told that you are something of an expert on scatological slang.

Message: 63726
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann's Art
Date: 03/08/90  Time: 16:48:43

Ann, I recently viewed some of your computer art, and let me say, without
any exageration or flattery, that you are tremendously talented.  You could
easily be a professional artist.  Excellent use of light and color.  I'm
really quite impressed.

Message: 63727
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff on Paul
Date: 03/08/90  Time: 18:10:47

Hear, hear!  I enjoy the excerpts which users choose to share with us.

Reverend Beauregard Jackson Culpeper Dog, Colonel, CSA, retired

Message: 63728
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Dog on Jeff
Date: 03/08/90  Time: 19:03:16

Stout fellow!

Message: 63729
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Answer!
Subject: Jeff Beck
Date: 03/09/90  Time: 05:46:54

 In the first place, I have no idea where I achieved the rank of "expert" in
anything, let alone scatalogical slang.
 Secondly, never having heard the term dukeys, dookeys or dukies, I haven't
the slightest idea of what the correct spelling might be.
 Thirdly. I have been using the skip key, since I find your subject matter,
and the way you drag it out, to be classicly boring. But then again, it has
been over 45 years since I studied psychology, which, by the way, I consider
an imperfect science for two reasons. 1. It being a study of human
behaviour, it cannot be a perfect science, since human behaviour is
essentially erratic and therefore unpredictable in many cases, and.
2. In my humble opinion, no science is perfect, since all sciences are in a
constant state of change.
 I will now revert to my previous state of boredom. Back to the skip key.

Message: 63730
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject:  Geesh!
Date: 03/09/90  Time: 05:48:45

 Now we have a mutual admiration society! Jeffy and Beauregard. Well, they
probably deserve each other. (smile)

Message: 63731
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff/my art
Date: 03/09/90  Time: 07:34:48

Thanks a lot Jeff. Now if I could only get a job drawing or teaching drawing
programs on the computer I'd be happy. I just did send a reseme along with a
disk of four of my drawings to the Al Collin's school. I would truly like to
teach people to use art programs and you can learn faster from a demo then a
manual anytime. I believe that all people whether they think they have
talent or not can produce quality drawings if they know the basics. A
computer drawing program is SOOOOO much better than to pick up oils, water
colors and pen and ink and try to draw. so much is built in already. Do yo
draw, paint, etc? -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 63732
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann's Art
Date: 03/09/90  Time: 08:06:06

Given Ann's talent, (BTW, I agree with you), do you think that if she was
forced to communicate with others (for her own good) she would lose that
talent ? :-) Jest Wondering.

Message: 63733
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Answer!
Subject: Dog on Jeff on Paul
Date: 03/09/90  Time: 08:10:45

I enjoyed those excerpts immensely. It would be extremely interesting to
know how the brain works so that we could make learning much easier. I am
reminded of a guest on Barry Young who had a great talent for multiplying
and dividing extremely long numbers. He claimed that he "learned" how to
do it by himself, and that when he told his teacher about his method, he
was discouraged from learning arithmetic in his way and that he must use
the methods taught in schools. Perhaps when we learn how the brain really
works we will be able to do mathematics much more naturally and more easily.

Message: 63734
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Answer!
Subject: Paul (again) on JB
Date: 03/09/90  Time: 08:13:02

I'm surprised that you find this material boring. It induces a sense of
wonder and discovery into another facet of that marvelous organ, the brain.
Perhaps you should become more child-like with a child's sense of excitement
and things that are new.               

Message: 63735
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Ann
Date: 03/09/90  Time: 16:19:46

Well, good luck.  As for my artistic talents (or lack thereof) it should
suffice to state that I cannot draw stick figures without the aid of a
straight-edge.

Message: 63736
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Roger/last on Paul
Date: 03/09/90  Time: 16:21:10

No!!! He's already child-like enough as it is!  :)

Message: 63737
Author: Mike Carter
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann / Drawings
Date: 03/09/90  Time: 17:27:00

I found that using a computer for my Cartoon drawings was so much cheaper
than to go down and buy the shading sheets, the paper{ and the
sable brushe{..not to mention that{_ getting reductions is{very costlly
too..
Using the computer I have increased my profit margin selling the drawings
because I don't have as much expense into the materials.
The only DRAWback (he heh) is that drawing on the computer takes
5 to 6 times the amount of time to draw than it would normally using
the pen and ink methods.
 
Now that I have a VGA setup, maybe Cliff would open the UL and DL
sections to non status members.
 
Then again, I could be waiting until Dan Quayle is referenced as an
Old Man.

Message: 63738
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Last on Mike C.
Date: 03/09/90  Time: 17:37:43

        Drats!   I saw mike on, and was about to intervene to get his phone
number...and POOF!   He logged off.   "How dare he" I said to my self....
(just kidding)  Oh well....


        There are reasons I don't open the ibrary to Non-Members, but if
Mike would like a copy of Ann's drawings, I  would be happy to give you a
disk.   Do you have a 3.5 disk drive....  or just 5.250 drives?

        *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

Message: 63739
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Answer!
Subject: reading
Date: 03/10/90  Time: 00:14:15

     I cannot, nor do I attempt to speak for anyone else (and why would they
want me to?), but personally, if I want to fill 3-6 messages from a book
about psychology, neurology, theology, cosmetology or any other "ology," I
will log on Apollo and do so.  (As long as I'm not in the Phantom Zone or
something.)
     I log on to Apollo to read some thoughts, opinions, and occasional
transcribed material from books, written by other users, not by some
misguided user who says things such as the following:
     "...Some misguided professor who has to publish something to maintain
his $tatus, er, status around the campus."
     I mean, what is that supposed to mean?  Who is the "misguided
professor?"  Oliver Sacks?  It sounds like whoever wrote that quote has seen
D.O.A. one too many times.  Or perhaps there is a neurological impairment
there.  I don't know.

     Just my 2 cents worth.  Aimed at no-one in particlar (and ESPECIALLY
NOT Paul Savage!), just those whose thoughts are apparently so barren that
they have to write messages complaining about other messages just to fill
space.
 
     Zak

Message: 63740
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: imperfect science
Date: 03/10/90  Time: 01:04:47

     Paul, I disagree with your reasons for psychology being an imperfect
science.
     Your first reason is that human behavior is erratic, therefore it is
unpredictable.  In other words, human behavior is unpredictable, thus
unpredictable.  You might as well just say "Human behavior is
unpredictable," right?  
     This may be the case in many instances.  But there are other instances
where human behavior is very predictable.  Go look at Melissa Dee's messages
on JT's public domain.  Ever notice that in classrooms, most students choose
to sit in the same seats time and time again?  If somebody kills your cat,
would it be accurate to predict you would respond with behavior that
represents anger?  Of course it would.  Sure, you can't always predict human
behavior in all instances, but that is not what psychology claims to be able
to do.  
     I have to agree with your second reason, in itself, but not as support
for your argument.  You said that "psychology is an imperfect science"
because "no science is perfect."
     What does it mean for a science to be perfect?  Does that mean that all
its claims, every last one of them, has to be unquestionably true?  Does
that mean that it can't make mistakes from time to time (even though it
corrects them)?  Of course not.  Most science textbooks have the disclaimer:
"Do not believe everything you read in this book."  That's what science is: 
questioning, continually looking for new and more accurate answers, and new
methods of finding them.  This does not make science any less valuable.

Message: 63741
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Beck on psych
Date: 03/10/90  Time: 01:16:30

     I'm glad you got an A in your psych class.  I got an A as well, so en
garde!
     Your skepticism regarding psychology is so overdone as to render your
position pointless.  You might as well argue an evil-demon argument in which
you say that we can know nothing, because how can we trust our own
perceptions?  How do we know that all of our senses are not being controlled
by a giant, supersophisticated computer, or an evil demon?  How do you know
that you aren't the only "normal" one, and the rest of us aren't aliens who
are conducting a giant experiment on you, you lab rat?  (Secretly, we're all
talking behind YOUR back.)
     Likewise, how do we know that when somebody emits shrieks of pain, that
he is really feeling pain?  How do we know that when we see a child crying,
that the child is sad or hurt?  How do we know that...blah blah blah.  Sure,
you cannot observe a sensation, a feeling, or a thought.  Even at your level
of skepticism, empirically this is true.  The trouble is you are arguing
against a straw man -- who *are* these psychologists who purport to have the
ability to observe thoughts and feelings?  At best, they can only observe
outside behaviors that correspond to what we believe are the inside
behaviors that cause them.  (We believe this is so by our own personal
experiences of crying and feeling pain, laughing and feeling whimsy, etc.) 
Would it make you happier if all psychologists worded it more specifically? 
I.E.  "The electric shock given to John caused him to feel pain" turns to
"John responded to the electric shock by shouting loudly, 'OW, stop,
stop!'"???  Hint:  they already do.

     Perhaps it is too much for you for psychologists to even mention anger,
sadness, glee or pain.  But this is absurd -- we know these states of
feeling exist, and we know that usually, outside representations of them
correspond accurately.  If in a given experiment, evidence leads to doubt
that this is true (say a subject fakes his responses), then the experiment
would be useless, its results disregarded.  But still, perhaps this is too
much.  We need a specific example if we are going to get much further here.
     What about depression cases?  How accurate would a study be of the
effects of certain drugs on depressed people, if we could never be sure if
the depressed subjects were really depressed?  (Of course, they aren't
"depressed," they are "humans who claim to suffer the symptoms of a
behavioral state some refer to as depression," right?)
     But then we have cases like Phineas Gage.  Neurology.  You separate
neurology and psychology as if they were as far apart as classical and punk.
(Well, maybe you don't, but it sounded good.)  Rather, they are as
intimately connected as cosmology and astronomy.  Psychology would be
nothing if it didn't refer to resources such as neurology, sociology,
anthropology, and linguistics.  Psychology brings these realms together for
something that is, as you said, very useful.  
     By the way, your alternative analyses of Phineas Gage's condition don't
hold water.  To say that Gage's "inhibitions were removed" is ignoring the
facts of the case.  This man literally could not function in society.  He
ended up in a carnival freakshow.  Name some other freak accident not
connected with the brain (a spike through the pelvis?) that had this effect.

     Phineas Gage was not just naturally freaking out.  He was
neurologically impaired.  Poor Phineas.  If you can't agree to this, I have
to wonder what you're doing reading Oliver Sacks.  This is not probable
inference versus genuine science.  Okay, let me restate that.  ONE case,
such as Gage's -- we have probable inference (maybe).  Two or three other
similar cases -- we have even more probable inference.  Now let's heap
experiment after experiment (conducted scientifically, of course, with
controls, hypotheses and predictions).  What do we have now?  ("A mess" is
not an acceptable answer.)  We have very, very, very probable inference.  We
have cats that shriek and hiss when this area is stimulated, and people who
do the same. (We also have cats and people who cower in fear in the sight of
a mouse when certain parts of the amygdala are stimulated.)  How *probable*
does the inference have to get here?
     What is your definition of genuine science?  You draw a line somewhere
between "useful" and "scientific."  What IS science, if not useful?
Isn't that the whole point?  You say "a lot of behaviors and capacities are
observed to correlate with various parts of the brain.  These are [not]
worthless.  They are [not] scientific, either."  Why?  Why aren't the
correlations scientific?  I assume you think they are pretty accurate,
otherwise you wouldn't think they were useful correlations.  Since they are
accurate, they are scientific.  What point of yours am I missing?

     To sum up -- your point rests on one premise, that you can't associate
patterns of behavior with certain internal states.  It's invalid, you said,
it's illogical, it doesn't follow.  "John says he is angry.  John's face is
red and he is beating his fists on the table.  Therefore, John really is
angry."  That ONLY doesn't follow if John is lying.  So we have to assume
(correctly?) that most people don't lie about their feelings, at least not
the simple, momentary ones.
      I'm not sure what your point is here.  To me, this is a straw man
argument since I can't think of any psychologists (except Freud, who most
psychologists agree had a lot interesting things to say, but don't put too
much stock in) who have made claims that are based on any false assumptions
about internal states.  Jeff, PLEASE, let's get to the meat of the argument
-- describe an example of an experiment in which the psychologists drew
conclusions you found wholly disagreeable.  
     If we can't draw conclusions about internal states scientifically, yet
it is useful, then what pray tell is psychology?  An area of non-scientific
medicine?  A pseudo-science?  Yet it can't be a pseudo-science, for we know
that the claims of pseudo-science are almost always B.S., and the claims of
psychology often carry a lot of weight.   (Psychology is responsible for
defining addiction, and observing how it works.  Psychology is responsible
for accurate studies done on the effectiveness of different methods of
educating.)  ...Even if PSYCHology and behaviorism are oxymoronic, this
doesn't matter.
     The internal and external work together.  See beyond the outside.

Message: 63745
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Zak on Paul
Date: 03/10/90  Time: 03:22:54

I don't believe that Paul has a cat.  If he did, and someone were to kill
it, I think that he would most likely be pleased.

Message: 63746
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Zak/psych
Date: 03/10/90  Time: 03:41:37

The "evil-demon" question is a rather complex one, but has an answer, and as
an assertion is definitely rebuttable.  We can know certain things.  On the
concrete level, we can know our own existence.  But not form or location.
As for your other question, I don't KNOW that I'm not the focus of some
experiment.  Likewise, I don't know that I'm not dreaming, mentally ill and
hallucinating, or any of innumerable propositions.
I don't know that when someone shrieks, they are feeling pain.  As you said,
I can only assume this because of my own paradigms.  They are not
infallible, as demonstrated by the fact that they can be rather easily
fooled.  We see illusory human behavior every time we view a movie, and when
the actor is sufficiently talented, if it were not for the context in which
his actions were viewed, the deception might be total.  As it is, we see
various emotive images on the screen, and even though we know that what we
see is an illusion, we still respond as though it were real, if only for a
split second.
I am not arguing against a straw man.  You are arguing against a straw man
and accusing me of the offense.  I have never suggested that there are
psychologists who claim the ability to observe thoughts and emotions.  I
merely stated that interpretations of behavior in terms of the mind are
purely suppositious.  When these suppositions have, as far as can be
determined, a better chance of being true than false, then they may be
useful.  When they do correspond accurately to inner states, then of course
they are useful.  But not scientific.

Again, I don't believe you have been paying any attention to the point I'm
trying to make.  The point is not that it is useless to speculate about or
try to predict inner states by observing behavior, merely because such
speculations are not scientifically verifiable.  The point is that such
speculations are not scientifically verifiable; they are therefore
unscientific.  if you wish to define psychology as an art, fine.
It is, of course, silly to suggest that people should not be treated for
depression merely because we don't KNOW they are depressed, just as it would
be silly to suggest that people should ignore traffic control devices merely
because they are not sure that such devices exist.
 
As for Phineas Gage, I merely suggested an alternative explaination for his
radical change in behavior.  You did not refute that merely by pointing out
that he could not function in society (a statement which is both vague and
unverified).  His rages and unencumbered libidinism might well be explained
by an attenuation of his ordinary inhibitions, while other factors (I assume
that there are other factors, otherwise, where is your argument?) which
impair his ability to function in society might be related to additional
neurological damage.  I would remind you that brain damage is not necessary
to be a misanthrope.  Who knows?  Maybe after suffering such a grotesque
misfortune, he concluded that God was dead, and, lacking motivation to
behave in a Christian manner, became the cad that he always was.  Of course,
I'm being silly, but the point has been made.  (as for other examples, I am
not a student of weird neurological mysteries.)

I will not argue that behavior can be stimulated by stimulating the brain. 
I don't know about some of your examples, and although they sound spurious,
I'll take your word for it.  But again, so what?  You argue that because
behavior can be altered by stimulating the brain, and because Gage's brain
was damaged, that his hostility was some sort of robotic response to this
damage. Well, that's fine for speculation, but not for science.  Prove it. 
You can't, of course, because you don't know what was going on in Gage's
mind, and your speculation carries no more weight than mine.  Psychology is
NOT scientific, because its speculations (speculations which interpret
behavior in terms of inner states) are UNVERIFIABLE.

Finally, I insist that you stop this masturbatory self-aggrandizement and
actually read my posts.  Perhaps then you will be able to distinguish
between an academic point and a total condemnation.
 
Psychology can work, and when it does it is useful.  But psychology, because
it deals with speculations on inner states and their causes, based on
observation of behavior, can and routinely is abused and misused, by both
the blatant quacks and the status-quo.  Since speculations about the
interaction between your inner states and your behavior are unverifiable, I
have free reign to formulate whatever theories I please.  If I wish to
invent such entities as "the id", "the ego", and the "superego", or if I
wish to attribute your behavior to unconscious influences, I can do so, and
there is no way to verify these speculations.  It is all very well to say
that today, Freud is laughed at, but for a long, long time this was not so,
and during the time in which his theories were respected by the
psychological community, a lot of people were (mis)treated based on these
speculations.  This sort of thing continues to this very day, with qualified
psychologists, following whatever school of thought they are currently loyal
to, subject patients to analysis which is worthless at best, and often ends
up screwing them up as well as wasting time and money.  It is important that
psychology be recognised as an art, and not a science, for it is
particularly dangerous when science is used as a fetish to rationalise and
lend credibility to subjective, highly speculative theories.

Just a few decades ago, the psychological community wholeheartedly condemned
homosexuality as a form of mental illness; an aberation, a disturbance.  No
doubt there were thousands of homosexuals who sought counciling and were
treated according to these theories; no doubt they routinely accepted the
word of the "scientific" experts in submitting to this treatment.
These days, psychologists deny that homosexuality is an illness or a
perversion; it is merely an "alternative lifestyle."  
Contrast these paradigmatic changes with those which occur in hard sciences
like physics; the mere act of revision does not make a science worthless:
science is a dynamic process.  But in the case of the psychologists, where
is the new scientific evidence?  Where was the old scientific evidence? 
What changed?  Public opinion, that's what.

Message: 63751
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff
Date: 03/10/90  Time: 05:48:12

 Since I obviously worded my last post so poorly, let me try again, OK? My
apologies if I was misunderstood, and I accept the responsibility for poor
communications.
 Having said that, let me rephrase my opinion concerning long messages
copied out of books. Subject matter notwithstanding, my feelings are that,
if I am interested in a subject enough to read up on it or study it, I feel
that the library, or perhaps a bookstore, would be the proper place to go.
Or perhaps even enroll in a class on that subject in one of the many schools
available in the community.
 BBSes, generally, are sounding boards for people's opinions on matters of
mutual interest to those people using that facility. It is my personal
opinion (and wish) that messages on BBSes be kept as brief and succinct as
they can be, rather than long, multiple message readings from books.
 I am not trying to raise anyone's ire. I am merely expressing an opinion.
It would seem more appropriate to this particular media if  you were to
express your thoughts of what an author wrote than to go to extremes quoting
pages of the author's efforts. Just another thought. THanks for reading.

Message: 63752
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Question?
Subject: Roger #63732
Date: 03/10/90  Time: 09:04:14

Huh? What? I missed that post entirely. Care to define? -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 63753
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mike on com. drawing
Date: 03/10/90  Time: 09:07:50

I don't think computer drawings take as much time as say oils or water
colors. You are right about pen and ink though. That's my second favorite
way to draw - a pencil sketch and then go over it with India ink - adding
the details. You get paid for your drawings? How so - tell me! -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 63754
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul on long posts
Date: 03/10/90  Time: 10:10:24

Long posts copied from books often serve to whet my interest in a topic. At
the very least, they can be used as a basis for discussion, as they have
given common footing to all parties.

Message: 63755
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Answer!
Subject: Ann #63752
Date: 03/10/90  Time: 12:00:43

I was joking. see the ":-)" and the lousy pun "jest wondering". The
"joke" arose from the superposition in my mind of Jeff's post on
idiot savants and his praise of your drawing capability. In the
post on idiot savants he mentioned (or quoted, can't remember) that
an autistic? person drew beautiful pictures that amazed everyone. When
"cured" of his autism, he lost his ability draw beautiful pictures. That led
me to suggest that because you draw beautiful pictures that if you
were cured and able to talk that you would lose your ability. Since
you obviously have no problem talking, Ann, the question becomes 
a non-sequitur and , therefore, funny. 

Message: 63756
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: On the Lighter Side
Subject: Paul Savage
Date: 03/10/90  Time: 16:03:21

     I think you could save yourself a lot of time if you'd just [S]kip the
messages you don't like or uit from them, instead of complaining.

Message: 63757
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Zak on Paul on Zak
Date: 03/10/90  Time: 16:22:12

        
(1)  Paul has a right to his opinion...and can post it!

(2)  I don't think it was quite a complaint, but more like an explanation of
     the type posts he prefers.

(3)   Apro Poet took such criticism like a MAN!

(4)   The both of you keep posting............

                                *=* Thanks *=*
                                *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

Message: 63758
Author: $ Jim Lippard
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: science
Date: 03/10/90  Time: 16:29:10

If science requires verification by observation, then much of physics is not
science.

Message: 63761
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: On the Lighter Side
Subject: My new Gun...
Date: 03/10/90  Time: 18:18:10

        After getting my new weapon of over a week ago, I sent it out to the
'Gun Smith' for some fine tuning....  You know, combat sights, trigger job
and last, but not least... the Speed Button(tm) of Mr N. Ford.  Took this
baby out to a shooting area today, along with Steven Carls, to get it
sighted in, well...  what you never expect in Arizona is RAIN, and rain it
did.   The targets got soggy along with your ol'SysOp and Mr Carls, but not
before I got it at least a little sighted in doing head shots at 15 yards in
a nice grouping.
        
        The weapon specs: Smith & Wesson 625-3 45ACP 6 shot wheel gun with a
5 inch barrel.   As some of you know, ACP is generaly shot by autos and NOT
wheel guns. (six shooters)  There is a special 'full-moon' clip that you
snap the 45ACP round into that does the head spacing. The clip holds all six
rounds and the neet thing about this, is, it's just like a speedloader, but
it stays with the rounds when chambered.  And when you eject the rounds,
they stay together in this clip, making the pick up of your spent brass,
very easy. I have many clips, so I don't have to fiddle any between reloads.

        Maybe next week the sun will shine and I will get some much needed
practice to hone my skill, before I try to compete against some other VERY
good shooters on the combat range.... but so far, the new weapon looks
great.....  I wish I could say the same for the SysOp!

*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

Message: 63762
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Shirley
Date: 03/10/90  Time: 19:08:30

Re:  "I am sure that 90% of the people I know believe I have lost IT and
there is no hope left for me."

There is always hope Shirley.  Besides, what true American didn't start out
loving a Teddy Bear?

Message: 63763
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff Beck
Date: 03/10/90  Time: 19:11:53

Re:  "exactly how does one spell "dukeys"?  Is it "dukeys", or "dookeys", or
perhaps "dukies"?"

I thought he spelled it "Dukakis."  :-)

Message: 63764
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff
Date: 03/10/90  Time: 19:16:00

Re:  "Do you have a 3.5 disk drive....  or just 5.250 drives?"

Only the elite have 3.5 disk drives.