Thread: February 1, 2019...

"I will leave you with one bit of advice: Don't think too highly of yourself or your opinions, and don't think for even a second other people think highly of you"

An interesting piece of advice, but one which like all of your arguments lacks rational, don't think for a second that other people think highly of me?

So no-one thinks highly of me? No-one at all? And you know this........... how? Oh wait i know! Its internal knowledge that was beamed into your brain! THATS IT!

Heh, well i'm afriad your internal knowledge doesnt quite stack up against the evidence. Whilst it is entirely possible that no-one on these boards thinks highly of me, i can tell you with a reasonable amount of certainty that most people I know think rather highly of me (and i'm rather proud of that).

There is a danger and i'm well aware of it, of allowing myself to slip into unquestioning confidence of my own opinions because i'm so good at seeing holes in theory (is that arrogant? i guess so but its true; i consistently point out problems with the explanations of chemistry theory that no-one else ever sees untill ive pointed out)

But because i'm aware of it, i guard against it, i constantly rethink through my reasoning for my beliefs, i take care NOT to lapse into the "i just KNOW" because i worked it once, reasoning that is not a far cry from what is used by those who hold irrational beliefs.

"BTW, you still haven't changed my mind, nor have you out-debated me IMO. You've just repeated yourself ignoring my points and thinking you've won the battle. "

Heh i didn't think i'd change your mind, whether i've "out-debated you" or not is not really for me to say, as for ignoring your points......... i rather think not, i've disected your posts line by line replying to each of them, you on the other hand have left aside huge swathes of argument when it suits you.

My repeition is because you have failed to grasp concepts that i have been attempting to explain, yes i repeat myself, i keep saying that the if someone says the Earth is flat he is WRONG, if someone says im actually made up of cement they are WRONG, but you don't like that, it doesn't agree with your academic relativism so you discard it.

As for "winning", that is not my intention, my intention is to push where i can for sanity, for rationality, and thats what i've done, whether or not in this specific instance it has done any good, i don't know. What i do know is that i have achieved alot following this course of action, far more than i ever thought i could do: i have shaped the ideas of almost every person who has got to know me well, in that sense i've already won, anything extra is just a bonus

Anyhow, this debate whilst frustrating (they always are), was not as frustrating as many.

I wish you well, bye.

Heh and now on to Stealth....

"Okay Clyde, cling to your instincts and emotions, which you are using to justify your stance"

And it starts, instincts? emotions? You think i'm using them to justify my stance do you? Care to provide an example? No didn't think so, because you can't, because i'm not using emotion but REASON.

" I do not deny science - I believe in it as much as I believe in God. But I have realised that the two are not separate - God is everything, including you, me, science, the earth, the solar system, the universe. "

Realised? Fascinating! And how exactly did you realise this? Did you just wake one day and "know", or is there some kind of reasoning akin to your excellent "love is energy" faff? Well either way merits the same kind of dignity i grant to g/f when she's telling me about her elves .

"Senses are only real to the senses - why cannot you conceive that there is more than your eyes, ears, mouth, touch are able to detect?"

I already know this, what we sense isn't real, it's all made up in our heads (though based on real phenomena) colours are merely arbitrary labels our brain uses for clarity yet they seem vivdly real to us. There are plenty of things that we cannot detect with our senses; microwaves, radio waves, ultrasonic sound, all manner of other things, that does not make irrational conclusions which are little more than random guesses about the nature of the universe any more valid.

"You claim that man has no spirit. What do you think a spirit is? No, don't give me some Hollywood version - I want the truth. Your spirit is everything about you - your id, your ego, and your superego"

Spirit is MEANINGLESS, it originally meant "wind", people came up with the term because the only discernable difference they could see between the living and the dead was that the living breathed, so they thought that there was some special magic wind that inhabited people that kept them alive, and when they died they breathed it out and it floated it away. Well guess what? We know why people breathe when they're alive now, that explanation is defunct, obsolete, and yet people basically still cling to it, oh sure they slightly altered its meaning, made it more vague, but its basically the same thing.

Everything about me is my brain, my personality, how i feel, how i sense, everything, its in the brain. Too much evidence to ignore, and believe in magic spirits which are simply old defunt explanations, which have no evidence supporting them.

"you want to tell me that Freud was a crackpot, or that Jung was a madman. Were they not scientists? Did they not speak truth universal?"

Almost all of Freud's conclusions have been dismantled, there is famous quote about Freud that says "He is the only genious to get almost everything wrong". AS for "speaking the truth universal", science is just made up of theories that fit data, they are constantly reevaluated, in light of new evidence, that is the power of science.

"Do not insult me by implying that I am on drugs"

If you were on drugs it wouldn't be so bad, atleast then you would have a decent excuse for this nonsense, alas it seems that is not the case.

"You talk about having a rational argument, and yet so frequently do you rely upon inane and clichéd assumptions"

Inane and cliched assumptions? Care to give some examples? Oh no didn't think so.

"You are too quick to label and judge."

I call a car: "a car", a mouse: "a mouse", and a crackpot: "a crackpot".

Good-day my dear crackpot .

Yes you are getting close. You are finally realising what I am saying - everything is in the brain. But the brain isn't just a lump of flesh, it is not just something, which sends and receives messages. We dream, we sleep, we have emotions, we analyse, we think. This is all part of the brain. The evidence support spirituality is your soul - your psyche .

Let me outline some very basic concepts about the brain, the psyche (this is based upon Carl Jung and his work on Personal Spirituality).

Your psyche is your personality as a whole. It is real (perhaps more so than the external world) and is the principal wholeness for the human person. The psyche has its own energy, the libido. This energy surfaces through the working of the opposites (e.g. - male/female, conscious / unconscious etc.). This libido is psychic energy. Do you understand now?

There are three parts that the psyche composes of: the ego or conscious (C), the personal unconscious (PU), and the Collective Unconscious (CU). Our consciousness is only one tiny part of our personalities. Consciousness has two orientations (both mutually exclusive) - Extroversion (orientation to the external world) and Introversion (orientation to the internal world). People have a mix of both, but as you may be aware, sometimes E is stronger than I, and vice versa.

E and I are developed through two modes: perceiving (the way we become aware of things, people, events, images etc.) and judging (the way we come to conclusions about what we perceive). Perceiving serves two functions - sensing (the five senses), and intuiting (seeing the situation in terms of inner meaning and possibilities). Intuition is rooted more in a persons unconscious (people know, but they can't say how they know). Judging, like perceiving, also has two functions - thinking (using logical process aimed at impersonal finding), and feeling (a valuing process - looking at events from a personal viewpoint).

Now that we've established what the psyche is (and all its components) we come to the issue of what a soul means. We are all individuals. While people may hold similar beliefs, ideals, and so on, we are all in essence individuals. At some stage in our lives we go through individuation. Individuation is a natural process whereby all that is within us that appears to be yearning to become recognised, accepted, reconciled, and integrated into our personality, forming a wholeness not existing previously. Our true self always wants to come forward. It wants to be accepted, and recognised. The PU comes to consciousness - the PU transforms our C.

This is often termed "midlife crisis" by modern psychologists. It can occur in early life, but it isn't that common due to the fact that the ego is strong, helping us to adjust to our daily lives. An example of this is during puberty, when we feel the desire to fit in to our peer group on some level.

This is a spiritual process - a spiritual journey if that helps you understand it better. It is a process of producing wholeness within us by reconciling the opposites within us:

Conscious/ P or Collective Unconscious
Male/Female
Good/Bad
Young/Old

This process allows the C to unfold - our ethical/moral thinking manifests its true self (often in opposition to collective thoughts). It is also a process of self-acceptance. Parts of the self that could not be accepted are now brought to the surface.

This journey is ultimately about the development of the true self - the true soul.

So I hope you can understand now the concept of what a soul is. Our brains consist of multiple layers of the self, where at its core is our true being. Spirituality is not some far off abstract concept - spirituality is about the reconciliation of the C and PU - who we pretend to be, and who we truly are. The term spirit I believe to be a soul, which is fully realised.

"Yes you are getting close. "

No i am most certainly not.

"You are finally realising what I am saying - everything is in the brain"

I'm not "finally realising" anything, i've known this for rather a long time.

" But the brain isn't just a lump of flesh, it is not just something, which sends and receives messages."

It is just as much a "lump of flesh", as any other part of you or I is a "lump of flesh", as much as a CPU is just a "lump of silicon".

"We dream, we sleep, we have emotions, we analyse, we think. This is all part of the brain"

TICK. and all due to to the "lump of flesh" that is our brain.

"The evidence support spirituality is your soul - your psyche ."

CROSS. What evidence?

"Let me outline some very basic concepts about the brain, the psyche (this is based upon Carl Jung and his work on Personal Spirituality)"

....

"Your psyche is your personality as a whole"

Yuck, "personality as a whole"? What does that mean, as opposed to like half your personality?

So your "psyche" is your personality...... moving on.....

" It is real (perhaps more so than the external world)"

Errr.... the external world is definitely real, your personality, whilst not being a physical "thing", is "real" in the sense that a computer program is "real".

" and is the principal wholeness for the human person."

These words..... they don't mean anything! "principle wholeness"? What the heck does that mean?

"The psyche has its own energy, the libido"

ENERGY is a SPECIFIC term, your personality does not have "ENERGY" associated with it, your libido is a biological drive to reproduce caused by neural and hormonal changes. Once again these words in the context you are using them mean NOTHING.

"This energy surfaces through the working of the opposites (e.g. - male/female, conscious / unconscious etc.)"

"working the opposites"........ heavens this gets more ludricrous by the line!

"This libido is psychic energy. Do you understand now?"

Do i understand now? Yes i understand, that this stuff is nonsense Just to recap here:

"principal wholeness for the human person"

-Meaningless.

"The psyche has its own energy, the libido"

-Evidence? Explanation? The fact that this contradicts neurology? and basic biology? and even physics?

"This energy surfaces through the working of the opposites (e.g. - male/female, conscious / unconscious etc.)"

-Evidence? Explanation? Theory? The fact that this contradicts neurology? Evolutionary biology? Psychology?

Oh yes i understand, i understand that these statements are not supported by a shred of eviden, are contradicted by everything we know about the body, the brain, and just about everything else.

Moving on......

"There are three parts that the psyche composes of: the ego or conscious (C), the personal unconscious (PU), and the Collective Unconscious (CU)."

Evidence? Explanation?.....etc.

"Our consciousness is only one tiny part of our personalities"

....... i'm a real bastard when i'm unconscious........

"Now that we've established what the psyche is (and all its components) we come to the issue of what a soul means."

Excellent so we are moving on from the peripheral nonsense, into the hardcore stuff......... bring it ON!

"We are all individuals"

Ok......

"At some stage in our lives we go through individuation"

Yes its called our birth.

"Individuation is a natural process whereby all that is within us that appears to be yearning to become recognised, accepted, reconciled, and integrated into our personality, forming a wholeness not existing previously"

We are individuals from the moment we are born, its not like we are wired into some hive mind untill some magic point of "individuation".

"Our true self always wants to come forward"

But our "fake self", is always stopping it! YES I'M WITH YOU NOW, I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT....... My true self has EMERGED...... no no hold on, that was just coffee high, my bad....

"This is often termed "midlife crisis" by modern psychologists."

Modern psychologists? What the HELL do they know? After all they don't base their conclusions on magic spirits, and etherial "psyches".

So, on the one hand we have the explanation that midlife crisis' are caused by mystical psyche, true self, semiconcious spirit.. blah, which lacks a single shred of evidence and is infact totally smashed by modern findings. And on the other we have the explanation that as people start turning middle aged they first start to notice the signs of aging, they are no longer quite as fit as they were before, they start showing more visable signs of aging, they notice that their preferences are beginning to change, as a result their own mortality becomes a lot more real to them, hence they begin to think about what they will have acheived with their life when they die.

No no that cant be it, that doesn't explain, the complete change in personality that occurs during middle age........ hold on a minute..........

" An example of this is during puberty, when we feel the desire to fit in to our peer group on some level."

Again with the nonsense explanation, during puberty a whole ton of hormonal changes occur, and people are exposed to very new very different social experiences, thats what governs the teen behaviour not magic "energy".

"This is a spiritual process - a spiritual journey if that helps you understand it better. It is a process of producing wholeness within us by reconciling the opposites within us"

More words that mean very little, you really like this "wholeness", stuff don't you, well, i recommend shredded wheat, I believe its got a lot of "wholeness" in it.

As for this "reconcilling opposites within us", well i'm sorry to tell you that i don't have a woman inside me (heh well i suppose you could argue that i have an X-chromosome, but that really would be clutching at straws), when people talk of a man's "feminine" side, they are merely referring to qualities that he may possess that are strongly associated with women, thats it, (so many things are much clearer if you are able to look PAST the language and at what it is actually attempting to describe).

"This process allows the C to unfold - our ethical/moral thinking manifests its true self (often in opposition to collective thoughts)."

What is with this " true self" stuff, there is no "true" self, there is no "false" self, (in fact there is no self at all, but that is a rather different debate), you have a personality due to how the neurones are linked together in your cerebral cortex, that in turn is due to genes and environment, it changes over time through two reasonably distinct processes first; one of simple growth, the second is through experience. Thats it, its not overly complicated (Well the workings are DAMN complicated, but understanding the concepts are not).

Your behaviour is governed by several factors a big part of which is your personality, that's it. No mystic energy, no psychic spirit, no soul, no "true" self, no "false" self, just plain biology.

"So I hope you can understand now the concept of what a soul is"

Oh yes, i understand.

"Our brains consist of multiple layers of the self, where at its core is our true being."

Our brains consist of neurones.

"Spirituality is not some far off abstract concept - spirituality is about the reconciliation of the C and PU - who we pretend to be, and who we truly are"

We don't decide who we are at all, we are made into what we are by our genes and by our experiences.

And now i'm going to rant (hah you thought i was ranting then):

[rant]
This is what happens when you sit back and think about things without ever testing your theories, you end up with nonsense. Now if we didn't know anything about the brain, and we had no concept of evolutionary psychology, physics, etc. then these theories would be perhaps more plausible (though it doesn't make the conclusions any more valid, the reasoning stinks), BUT we do so they're not.

You see, when science discovers that a theory no longer fits the facts, the theory is changed or chucked away, yet people CLING to old, OBSOLETE, theories that have been chucked hundreds of years ago (or never accepted in the first place), just because they sound nice!

I would also like to point out what should be fantastically obvious: You cannot POSSIBLY deduce anything about the workings of the brain by simple thinking about it, because all you have to go on is your subjective experience:

When someone throws a ball to me, and i catch it, my brain does a whole load of calculations to work out where I should put my hands, yet im completely oblivious to this, it "feels" as if i just "know" where to put them, so if i knew nothing about the brain i would perhaps conclude that i was being guided by a mystic force..... which would be TOTALLY wrong.

Thats a good example read it again, and again, now consider how ridiculous it would be for someone to CLING to their "mystic force" theory in light of the evidence provided by modern neurology. That is what you are doing, clinging to obsolete theory, in complete denial of all the evidence pointing the otherway. Sure it sounds nice, it might "feel" right, but it simply does not fit the evidence.

This is the danger of reading material and not knowing how to critically analyse it; something mind sound very nice, might "feel" very right, and might BE totally wrong, the only way we have to check is throught REASON, LOGIC, and DEDUCTION, so we slot it up against the evidence, we see how it ties in with what we already know about the subject matter, and if it is contradicted by everything we know, and it lacks any evidence we chuck it on the garbage heap along with theories of invisable elephants and mystic ball-catching forces.
[/rant]

Clyde you are an ignorant fool. If your brain was just a lump of flesh, and we had no soul, or levels of consciousness, how then could you be reading this?? Are you telling me you don't sleep? Are you telling me you have no emotions or feelings at all? After all aren't you the one getting angry with me? Argue your way out of that one! Hmm...You can't can you!

>>Modern psychologists? What the HELL do they know? After all they don't base their conclusions on magic spirits, and ethereal "psyches".<<

Do you know who Carl Jung is? Obviously not. He is one of the most respected psychologists in history, and his theories are widely accepted by scientists all over the world! But what would they know you say? A great deal more than you I'd wager. Next you'll be telling me that Stephen Hawking is just some dumb cripple!

Where I have made claims, you do have not provided a single solid argument against them apart from "that's not true, that's rubbish, what a load of crap". Quite sad considering you claimed that I was the one not providing any evidence - for crying out loud, go and get a book for psychology 101. These aren't fairly tales, which I'm telling you, they are accepted theories! I am not making these things up for heavens sake! Thousands of experiments have been conducted on the mind, all using scientific method. If you valued this method so highly as you claim, you would not be arguing that I am wrong.

You don't know anything about psychology. Please, buy or at least read a book on the topic (Introduction to Psychology by Rod Plotnik is a good one). You might learn something.

>>This is the danger of reading material and not knowing how to critically analyse it; something mind sound very nice, might "feel" very right, and might BE totally wrong, the only way we have to check is thought REASON, LOGIC, and DEDUCTION, so we slot it up against the evidence, we see how it ties in with what we already know about the subject matter, and if it is contradicted by everything we know, and it lacks any evidence we chuck it on the garbage heap along with theories of invisable elephants and mystic ball-catching forces.<<

What do you supply as evidence to disprove the given theories I mentioned? None! On what grounds of reason, logic, and deduction are you dismissing my argument? And please stop talking about invisible elephants floating above your head. Unless you are by chance a paranoid schizophrenic as well as an an ignorant person.

>>-Evidence? Explanation? The fact that this contradicts neurology? and basic biology? and even physics?<<

How. What does physics have to do with this discussion? Physics is concerned with the laws of nature, not that of the minds inner workings. Stick to the topic please.

Get your facts right before arguing on topics of which you know nothing. You are clearly very poorly read, something, which was evident from your first post in this discussion.

"Clyde you are an ignorant fool."

You know, i was just editing my post to make it less abbraisive, not because i really mind whether i offend people, but because it occured me that i could hit someone very hard, using a medium like the web. You see when i debate face-to-face i vary my tone (you need a hammer to smash through irrational imprinted beliefs, and a feather cushion to lighten the blow afterwards), depending on how my recipient reacts, to have their previous ideas smashed by me in an abraisive mood could be reasonably upsetting, which is why I do vary the tone when i argue with people.

Of course i can't do that over the web, i have no way of knowing people's reactions when they read my explanations, and so there is an off chance (it is rather slim, in fact i'd say it was damn near minute), that someone is merely ignorant, has formed their opinions due to simple lack of exposure to reason, and whom would immediately be swung round by the reason. Which is why i was editing my post, and why i breathed i sigh of relief when i read that line.

"If your brain was just a lump of flesh, and we had no soul, or levels of consciousness, how then could you be reading this?? Are you telling me you don't sleep? Are you telling me you have no emotions or feelings at all? After all aren't you the one getting angry with me? Argue your way out of that one! Hmm...You can't can you!
"

What makes you think you need a soul for anything of those things? Do flies have souls too? They sleep. Do computers have souls too, they can convert optical information into digital and do a whole load of stuff with it (what is reading if not that?).

The conscious mind is one of the last great problems yet to be solved, we do not fully understand it, but that does not mean we should invoke magic, invoking magic solves nothing, looking for real answers does. Again i point to the numerous magical answers that have cropped in the past to explain phenomena all ignored by science, all disproved by science.

"He is one of the most respected psychologists in history, and his theories are widely accepted by scientists all over the world! "

Excuse me while, a I laugh histerically, "his theories are widely accepted by scientists all over the world AAHAHAHAA, no, i think not. Find me a neurologists who believes in Carl Jung and you will also find someone who failed med-school. As for psychologists, well psychology still virges in some areas on pseudo-science for this very reason, some psychology is good, some bad, the good is accepted by science, (neuro-anatomy, biological basis of behaviour, and the better parts of evolutionary psychology), the bad is rejected.

"But what would they know you say? A great deal more than you I'd wager."

Undoubtedly, but they agree with me, find yourself a neuro-anatomy book text book, see anymention of Jungs stuff? Find a behavioural science text book, see any mention of Jungs stuff, go to a psychiatry lecture, or a neurolgy lecture hear any mention of Jungs stuff, (except in jest). No, you won't, because its nonsense, it has no evidence supporting it, and conflicts with everything we know about the world.

"Where I have made claims, you do have not provided a single solid argument against them "

Pardon me!? So when i said:

You: "The psyche has its own energy, the libido"

Me: "ENERGY is a SPECIFIC term, your personality does not have "ENERGY" associated with it, your libido is a biological drive to reproduce caused by neural and hormonal changes. Once again these words in the context you are using them mean NOTHING."

and "Evidence? Explanation? The fact that this contradicts neurology? and basic biology? and even physics? " thats not a solid argument? "

Thats not a solid argument?

You have not provided ANY rational behind ANYTHING you have said, no explanations of WHY, or HOW, nothing.

You state there is an invisable elephant, next to you, then when i attack your reasoning, you decide to describe in detail what you think the hair on its back knee looks like, thats not a defense, its an attempt to divert attention away from your lack of defense.

"Quite sad considering you claimed that I was the one not providing any evidence - for crying out loud, go and get a book for psychology 101"

I have read a reasonable amount of psychology, but avoid the nonsense parts, the parts that disagree with physics, neurology and everything else, it is no coincidence that you can take psychology as an ARTS degree, instead of a science one.

"aren't fairly tales, which I'm telling you, they are accepted theories!"

Accepted by who? People who study the brain? NOPE, people who study behaviour (as in behavioural scientists)? NOPE. No doubt you will find some texts within psychology documenting them, but at the highest level psychology is very scientific and in those circles it will be completely ignored.

"Thousands of experiments have been conducted on the mind, all using scientific method"

No scientific experiments have been done on the mind, not a single one, a lot on the hand have been done on the brain.

Find me a scientific experiment that has not been reduced to rubble, by the scientific peer review proccess that supports any of your claims. Can't? Didn't think so. It's all in exactly the same vein as my mystical ball-catching force.

"If you valued this method so highly as you claim, you would not be arguing that I am wrong."

Perhaps you are simply ignorant of the findings of science..... hmm there may be hope for you yet.

"You don't know anything about psychology"

I am by no means an expert but i don't need to be, i have a good understanding of biological principles, of neurology, and the conscious mind is my pet subject, I have been around the country attending lectures on it but philosophers, psychologists, psychiatrists, neurologists, and any other ists you can think of for the past 5 years or so, i've read several books, on the subject and many essays some of which were written by psychologists, oh and i covered animal behaviour in a reasonable amount of detail at A-Level and took it alot further than was required because i was interested in the evolutionary foundations of society.

I can tell you with certainty that what you have written is simply not true, it is magic, and magic is not real.

"What do you supply as evidence to disprove the given theories I mentioned? None!"

You expect me to provide you with an entire education on neurology? Not feasable, further more I don't NEED to provide evidence disproving your theory, (even though there is reems and reems and reems of it out there, and i would hope that most people have enough scientific knowledge to see that modern science has no room for magic "psyches") i simply have to point out that believeing in it is irrational since you have no evidence supporting it.

"On what grounds of reason, logic, and deduction are you dismissing my argument?"

There is no room for it in the picture of the human mind painted by neurology, and psychiatry and (the better part of) psychology. And most importantly physics, yes, physics is the real stumbling block, because physics precludes magic and your theories rely on it.

"And please stop talking about invisible elephants floating above your head"

It is a good example, i need to use it otherwise people forget that believeing in irrational things is infact ridiculous.

"How. What does physics have to do with this discussion? Physics is concerned with the laws of nature, not that of the minds inner workings. Stick to the topic please."

AHAHA, thats a good one, physics governs EVERYTHING in the universe, every single phenomena is the result of physics; the way the atoms in your cells interact is physics, the brain is made of MATTER, thats it, matter, matter obeys physics.

You seem to believe there is some kind of etherial energy/spirit/soul/magic uber thing, associated with behaviour hence associated with the brain. And that is where physics comes in and says "nuh-uh", you see, how exactly is your etherial psyche going to interact with the PHYSICAL MATTER in your head, huh? It's not, because doing so violates every law of physics, Paul Davies noted as much in his book on the subject.

Anyway YOU cited physics, YOU cited the conservation of energy, totally misunderstanding it, whether you were ignorant of what it is, or whether you were banking on my ignorance of the topic, i don't know, i'd like to think the latter but i fear the answer may be the former.

Science rejects the soul, because it requires magic to work, magic communication between the neurones in your skull and the etherial faff.

Oh and incidently if you don't think that physics has any effect on the "mind", then i wouldn't be afraid of getting shot in the head, after all physics has no effect right......

"Get your facts right before arguing on topics of which you no nothing"

Heh people get mad when you shoot down their irrationality, such a shame, how much progress could we make in such a short period of time if people did not tenaciously cling to things that have been shown to be invalid.

"You are clearly very poorly read"

Aha, thats a good one too. Yea i'm REALLY poorly read. *chuckles*. Being well read does not mean you have to believe everything you read.

Talking to you is akin to talking to a brick wall, but I'm sure you'd say something similar to me. Let's just agree to disagree - I don't really want to continue arguing with you because it won't resolve anything. I've tried to explain what I'm saying - accept it or don't, either way I don't care.

Ok but first let me tell you a little about psychology:

Psychology will merge with neurology, at some point in the future, that much is inevitable because they both describe the same things.

Now why is it we have two subjects describing the same things? Well the answer is people are impatient, basically neurology works from the ground up like any other science, assembling the building blocks, understanding the most basic principles first and the delving further into the complex.

The problem is that this takes a LONG time, and people wanted answers and want methods of altering and predicting behaviour immediately, so psychology turned up, psychology went from the other end, it looked at human behaviour without any understanding of the principles involved, initially merely to develop predictative techniques in order to aid people, but of course people in the field came up with their own explanations, but these explanations were like Jungs; meaningless, they were not based on any previous theory (because there was none) and further more they were impossible to test, the reason there are no scientific experiments confirming Jungs theory is because you can't do a scientific experiment on a theory that makes no predictions, and Jungs does not. However since psychology was not a science at this point, or even close to one it did not have to follow scientific principles and people came up with all kinds of theories, all of which are ignored today not only because they lack evidence but because there is no room for them in our modern understanding of the brain.

When neurology started gathering force psychologists realised they had to incorporate the knowledge and with it the principles, or face a head on confrontation with the scientific community one which they knew they would lose, and so for the most part they did, (but heavens many fought against it). Psychology has been gradually becoming more scientific ever since, they have encorporated parts of behavioural science, and evolution (in fact they incorporated evolution a little too readily, there are many evolutionary psychologist explanations for behaviour that are in fact waaaaay off the beaten track, and evolutionary biologists are constantly having to keep them in check) as well as neurology, and psychiatry.

Psychology is usefull, in that it provides certain ways to predict human behaviour, that afterall was the aim, and as it is incorporating more neurology (or merging more with neurology which ever way you look at it), it is becoming more usefull in terms of providing models capable of sustaining scientific analysis.

Psychology is not yet a fully fledged science, it has not yet totally adopted scientific doctrine, many psychologists still resist because they fear that their subject will be absorbed by neurology, they are right, it will, theres no way of avoiding that. But instead of fighting it, they should welcome it, for it heralds answers to questions that have dogged mankind for millenia, and which no doubt will be fascinating in themselves.