|
| Thread: Can people change ? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
posted May 12, 2011 05:22 PM |
|
|
My thoughts.
Quote:
if it's so easy to change a person (by changing their emotions) using chemicals, then what is the value of a specific person?
It is not our personality that defines us as unique individuals. We do most certainly not represent the same personality from years apart, especially comparing childhood with adulthood. Still we may very well be the same person in behind.
Can one exist without a personality, even without emotions, thoughts, memory or will? Yes I think so. It would be similar to a person trapped to observe forever, without the ability to reflect upon what's observed or knowledge about anything.
Is a personality what is us? No I don't think so.
Quote:
Have you effectively killed yourself?
So from the above, I don't think so. But in others perception you may be a complete different person.
So those are my own thoughts on the concepts. I see emotions as tools, a way to save energy, a way to actually have free will. But it requires being smart about, probably smarter than me.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 05:27 PM |
|
|
I read that the US was working on a weapon which would allow them to control the mind of their enemies (making them less agressive), by using waves I think.
Quote:
1. Can people change their emotional responses to external stimuli?
I think buddhists say it is possible. there even were some experiments, that showed that trained buddhists monks were far better at controlling their emotions than average people, though don't know if they experimented enough to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
as you said, it has probably something to do with the way you perceive the stimuli, if you have been conditionned to think that something is bad, that thing will make you angry.
but I wonder if it applies to all emotions?
|
|
yaeliccc
Known Hero
Undead, but warm and fuzzy
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 06:06 PM |
|
|
|
No !!! we are all perky and beautiful why would we ever want to change, let the environment change and stay just as u r perfect
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 06:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1. Can people change their emotional responses to external stimuli?
Yes they can. Install a electric shock bracelet to the reaction of seeing pretty women. When you've been at it long enough, you'll get a fear reaction from seeing pretty women.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 06:39 PM |
|
|
And if you only had usual household tools how would you do that then?
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 07:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And if you only had usual household tools how would you do that then?
Ask a few university studetns if they could do that to you via "FOR SCIENCE!"?
____________
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 07:28 PM |
|
|
No problem, I can fix that for you if you bring me the stuff. 
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 07:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes they can. Install a electric shock bracelet to the reaction of seeing pretty women. When you've been at it long enough, you'll get a fear reaction from seeing pretty women.
like the pavlov experiment? but I doubt it. I think that for it to work, you must be unable to make the distinction between the pretty woman and the shock. anyone of us would know that it's the bracelet that's causing the shock, and not the woman, the only thing it would trigger is that we would just get rid of the bracelet.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 08:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yes they can. Install a electric shock bracelet to the reaction of seeing pretty women. When you've been at it long enough, you'll get a fear reaction from seeing pretty women.
like the pavlov experiment? but I doubt it. I think that for it to work, you must be unable to make the distinction between the pretty woman and the shock. anyone of us would know that it's the bracelet that's causing the shock, and not the woman, the only thing it would trigger is that we would just get rid of the bracelet.
Sure, but after long enough time you would actually get a mental imprint.
If you can't get rid of it, you will be changed by it.
Of course, when it is off, if the imprint is not deep enough, you can overcome it.
____________
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 08:07 PM |
|
|
Isn't the point that the reaction to the shock is always upon the perception of the hot woman. Isn't that the very definition of conditioning? You remove the shock, but the reaction remains.
I have no idea how the emotional response will be though. I imagine it'll feel a LOT easier to follow the reaction you've been conditioned too, have the conditioning happened for a sufficient long time. In that sense, I would guess there'd be a change of the emotional response as well, because it'll require more energy for the body to re-alter its new standard reaction.
Just guessing though.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 09:18 PM |
|
|
|
actually, it might make sense if you do not know what cause the shock. you will probably not be stupid enough to think it's because of girls (or will you?) but you'll still try to avoid them.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 10:27 PM |
|
|
|
But this isn't about lack of insight I think. If it was, you could make a false conclusion and it'd always be useless. It's about repeated environment and repeated stimuli I believe.
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 10:45 PM |
|
|
|
But you can't really compare dogs to humans Ohfor, many dogs are way cooler than us but still, it's safe to assume that at least some of us are smarter than dogs... At least I hope so, that's why that test was never experimented on humans but only on the poor "little Albert" who was just a toddler hence not even close to having a brain capable of thinking (no offense meant to all the toddlers reading this)
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 10:56 PM |
|
|
It doesn't matter if you know why it's happening. If it's unpleasant it's unpleasant. Emotional response gained.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 11:07 PM |
|
|
@OFFS
Quote:
It is not our personality that defines us as unique individuals. We do most certainly not represent the same personality from years apart, especially comparing childhood with adulthood.
True. So, in that case, are you the same person today that you were ten years ago?
In one of Richard Dawkins’ books – can’t remember which one – he recounted an interesting example that was originally put forth by someone else – can’t remember who – and it went something like this: throughout life your cells are constantly giving birth to new cells and dying, such that by the time you are an adult, you have zero of the cells you had when you were a child. Therefore one wonders: are you the same person if none of your biological material remains? The information remains – so is this what defines a person?
(I'll fill in those missing details later after I search through those books to find the information.)
Quote:
Can one exist without a personality, even without emotions, thoughts, memory or will? Yes I think so.
A body certainly can, but can a person? I’m not sure it’s quite so evident as you make it out to be.
@Fauch
Quote:
there even were some experiments, that showed that trained buddhists monks were far better at controlling their emotions than average people, though don't know if they experimented enough to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
The question is – are they controlling their emotions, or their responses to their emotions?
@Joonas
Well I think the original question was whether we can change ourselves, not whether someone else can change us.
Although, there’s something to be said for “conquering your fears”. I don’t think you have to come up with elaborate conditioning experiments to prove this. I think if I climb up enough mountains, I will no longer be afraid of heights.
In any case, I think the point is that you can condition yourself to resist an emotional response – in the same way you can become tolerant to a drug response. But is that really changing something fundamental about myself as a person?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 11:12 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 23:14, 12 May 2011.
|
not sure. if I remember the experiment, a bell indicated the time of the meal. in the end, the bell alone was enough to make the dog salivate.
but in the case of a human, remove the bracelet, and he will soon understand I think.
Quote:
If it's unpleasant it's unpleasant. Emotional response gained.
except when it stops being unpleasant?
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 11:35 PM |
|
Edited by Adrius at 23:36, 12 May 2011.
|
Our unconscious doesn't really care about rationality.
Our rational thinking is quite evolved indeed, but that one only applies to a conscious level of thinking.
Rational (conscious) level: I look at the woman and get a shock, I know I am part of an experiment, the woman herself is not what is causing the shock.
Unconscious level: Me look at woman, feel pain, woman bad.
Our rationality lets us overcome this kind of conditioning easier though, since we can force ourselves to recondition; replacing the bad feeling with a positive feeling. However, it is in quite a few cases hard, so the suggestion is still there and works the same as with dogs.
An example from my life:
My brother and I were cutting wood outside when he accidentally chopped part of his finger off. It all went pretty good, no major damage, yet whenever I hear the sound of the machine that we were handling, I cringe quite heavily. My senses tell me STAY THE **** AWAY, but on a rational level I can understand that if I am to overcome this burden, I need to subject myself to the sound until it is no longer unpleasant.
Animals that lack this level of rationality have a much harder time of overcoming this type of conditioning.
____________
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 11:46 PM |
|
Edited by smithey at 14:14, 13 May 2011.
|
Quote:
It doesn't matter if you know why it's happening. If it's unpleasant it's unpleasant. Emotional response gained.
It's not an emotional response but more of a physical one that is meant to teach you certain behavior, once you realize what is causing the pain (unpleasant emotion) you will not fear hot women but instead you will fear electric shocks or whoever is in charge of them, unlike dogs (as stated before) we don't associate pain with the accompanied factor (hot woman) but with the end game (el. shock), because unlike dogs are way of thinking is a bit more evolved.
edit: just as Fauch said, it worked for pavlov tests if im correct on the name with dogs, as well as it worked in the case of "Little albert" which was the only such test on a human but in that case it was a toddler and not a grown man who can actually use his brain to think.
Edit 2: Slavemasters used whips to forbid the slaves from doing certain things, slaves feared the whip not the action itself even though it was associated with the punishment, once they were no longer slaves they knew that doing something which would previously get them punished no longer applies now once they have been freed, that's the difference between humans and dogs, we understood the concept, dogs didn't and simply abolished certain behavior....
@ Adrius you're talking of an traumatic experience and the sound of a chainsaw is indeed the sound of what has caused that, you don't fear the wood when you see it even though it was associated to the trauma as well, nor do you fear your brother.
Counter example - I played basketball growing up, tore my ACL twice had three operations on my knees, whenever i see sports injury I feel disgust however I still love sports in a same manner as I would still love women once the punishment was abolished.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 11:53 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 23:55, 12 May 2011.
|
Quote:
The information remains – so is this what defines a person?
you are talking about memory? it may be thanks to the memory that we can define ourselves as a person. and consciousness of course, otherwise we would be like books. well, also, it seems we all have our own conciousness, since we don't feel what other people feel (some people claim that they can though) and we all have our own body, but the body part is questionnable. for example, if you cut your arm, it is just a piece of flesh, you don't have any feeling anymore in that part of the body. that's the same thing when you die, if you believe the concept of the soul.
Quote:
The question is – are they controlling their emotions, or their responses to their emotions?
the monk was named öser (they may have tried with other ones too)
the full text (there were several experiments) :link
Quote:
One of the most primitive responses in the human repertoire, the startle reflex, involves a cascade of very quick muscle spasms in response to a loud, surprising sound or sudden, jarring sight. For everyone, the same five facial muscles instantaneously contract during a startle, particularly around the eyes. The startle reflex starts about two-tenths of a second after hearing the sound and ends around a half second after the sound. From beginning to end, it takes approximately a third of a second. The time course is always the same; that's the way we're wired.
Like all reflexes, the startle reflects activity of the brain stem, the most primitive, reptilian part of the brain. Like other brain stem responses—and unlike those of the autonomic nervous system, such as the rate at which the heart beats—the startle reflex lies beyond the range of voluntary regulation. So far as brain science understands, the mechanisms that control the startle reflex cannot be modified by any intentional act.
Ekman became interested in testing the startle reflex because its intensity predicts the magnitude of the negative emotions a person feels—particularly fear, anger, sadness and disgust. The bigger a person's startle, the more strongly that individual tends to experience negative emotions—though there's no relationship between the startle and positive feelings such as joy.
For a test of the magnitude of Oser's startle reflex, Ekman took him across San Francisco Bay to the psychophysiological laboratory of his colleague Robert Levenson at the University of California at Berkeley. There they wired Oser to capture his heart rate and sweat response and videotaped his facial expressions—all to record his physiological reactions to a startling sound. To eliminate any differences due to the noise level of the sound, they chose the top of the threshold for human tolerance to huge sound, like a pistol being fired or a large firecracker going off near one's ear.
They gave Oser the standard instruction, telling him that they would count down from ten to one, at which point he would hear a loud noise. They asked that he try to suppress the inevitable flinch, so that someone looking at him would not know he felt it. Some people can do better than others, but no one can come remotely close to completely suppressing it. A classic study in the 1940’s showed that it's impossible to prevent the startle reflex, despite the most intense, purposeful efforts to suppress the muscle spasms. No one Ekman and Robert Levenson had ever tested could do it. Earlier researchers found that even police marksmen, who fire guns routinely, are unable to keep themselves from startling.
But Oser did. Ekman explains, "When Oser tries to suppress the startle, it almost disappears. We've never found anyone who can do that. Nor have any other researchers.” Oser practiced two types of meditation while having the startle tested: one-pointed concentration and the open state. As Oser experienced it, the biggest effect was from the open state: "When I went into the open state, the explosive sound seemed to me softer, as if I was distanced from the sensations, hearing the sound from afar." Ekman reported that although Oser's physiology showed some slight changes, not a muscle of his face moved, which Oser related to his mind not being shaken by the bang. Indeed, as Oser later elaborated, "If you can remain properly in this state, the bang seems neutral, like a bird crossing the sky."
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted May 13, 2011 12:09 AM |
|
|
@Corribus
Quote:
True. So, in that case, are you the same person today that you were ten years ago?
In one of Richard Dawkins’ books – can’t remember which one – he recounted an interesting example that was originally put forth by someone else – can’t remember who – and it went something like this: throughout life your cells are constantly giving birth to new cells and dying, such that by the time you are an adult, you have zero of the cells you had when you were a child. Therefore one wonders: are you the same person if none of your biological material remains? The information remains – so is this what defines a person?
It would be a valid statement if the change was done at once but basically what's going on with our bodies is (I'll simplify it) - human being is made of 100 parts, ATM 99 parts are unchanged while part number 100 is being changed, in a few weeks human is made of 99 previous parts and an additional part (number 100) which is slowly receiving information and becoming a part of the human being hence the change is minimal or better yet non existant, since you like math I will explain it like this - 1/9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 isn't equal to zero (when you look at the number) but at the same time is indeed equal to zero because it is so small that it becomes irrelevant, the same thing happens with regeneration of cells, the change is insignificant becuase it is continuous.
|
| |
|
|
