Master Trolls

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 21, 2009, 02:46:00 PM

In my opinion, RET is second only to pyschiatry in terms of shaky foundations, but that's another discussion. Suffice to say I've often seen it indulge peoples' problems instead of curing them, with very negative results.

Psychoanalysis dies the death of a thousand qualifications, a psychiatrist or psychoanalyst can read meaning into whatever phenomena they want, modifying their theory all the time so that it never fails to provide an (empty) explanation of what is presented to it.

Same with globularism.

Indeed, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 21, 2009, 02:46:00 PM

In my opinion, RET is second only to pyschiatry in terms of shaky foundations, but that's another discussion. Suffice to say I've often seen it indulge peoples' problems instead of curing them, with very negative results.

Psychoanalysis dies the death of a thousand qualifications, a psychiatrist or psychoanalyst can read meaning into whatever phenomena they want, modifying their theory all the time so that it never fails to provide an (empty) explanation of what is presented to it.

Same with globularism.

So when using the output of an organic computer to determine its programming wouldn't require an adjusting of theory?

Psychoanalysis dies the death of a thousand qualifications, a psychiatrist or psychoanalyst can read meaning into whatever phenomena they want, modifying their theory all the time so that it never fails to provide an (empty) explanation of what is presented to it.

Same with globularism.

Same with FET. Even more than with globularism.

Quote from: J. McIntyre on July 21, 2009, 02:50:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 21, 2009, 02:46:00 PM

In my opinion, RET is second only to pyschiatry in terms of shaky foundations, but that's another discussion. Suffice to say I've often seen it indulge peoples' problems instead of curing them, with very negative results.

Psychoanalysis dies the death of a thousand qualifications, a psychiatrist or psychoanalyst can read meaning into whatever phenomena they want, modifying their theory all the time so that it never fails to provide an (empty) explanation of what is presented to it.

Same with globularism.

So when using the output of an organic computer to determine its programming wouldn't require an adjusting of theory?

What do you actually mean?

Quote from: Raist on July 21, 2009, 03:03:57 PM

Quote from: J. McIntyre on July 21, 2009, 02:50:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 21, 2009, 02:46:00 PM

In my opinion, RET is second only to pyschiatry in terms of shaky foundations, but that's another discussion. Suffice to say I've often seen it indulge peoples' problems instead of curing them, with very negative results.

Psychoanalysis dies the death of a thousand qualifications, a psychiatrist or psychoanalyst can read meaning into whatever phenomena they want, modifying their theory all the time so that it never fails to provide an (empty) explanation of what is presented to it.

Same with globularism.

So when using the output of an organic computer to determine its programming wouldn't require an adjusting of theory?

What do you actually mean?

that there is no set method for helping adjust an organic computer that is programmed by trial and error along with experience.

If you don't understand that, "Brains are complicated and diverse"

I don't think the mental health infrastructure is normally quite as mercenery as to consider its patients as there for "programming".

Anyway, aren't we careening off topic? Let's get back to the original point, which is yes, there are Flat Earthers, and they are here.

I don't think the mental health infrastructure is normally quite as mercenery as to consider its patients as there for "programming".

Anyway, aren't we careening off topic? Let's get back to the original point, which is yes, there are Flat Earthers, and they are here.

I agree if you wish to continue to discuss the validity of psychologists start another thread.