tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post7935058950510390160..comments2024-03-26T13:06:41.178-04:00Comments on Jagat: Freud, Sexuality and SpiritualityJagadananda Dashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-22607522365594260942010-01-31T16:51:32.497-05:002010-01-31T16:51:32.497-05:00I suggest you seek clarification regarding the res...I suggest you seek clarification regarding the respective roles of psychiatry, psychology, neuropsychology, etc., for the things you say are in almost total conflict with the theory and practice with which I work with on a daily basis.<br /><br />You may be interested in conferring with Dr. Walter van den Broek, a Dutch psychiatrist.Neural Outlawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12299570389772377623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-40224914524048930812010-01-17T08:54:07.954-05:002010-01-17T08:54:07.954-05:00Hesitant Iconoclast,
Thanks for your reaction. I ...Hesitant Iconoclast,<br /><br />Thanks for your reaction. I can see where it comes from and you obviously know more than your average person about psychology.<br /> <br />But still, as the trained psychologist you are, you jump to conclusions way to fast.<br /><br />First of all... I am not Shiva, not in any holistic sense and not in the internet-Shiva-commentator sense either.<br />Secondly it is kind of arrogant to assume I have all my findings from the internet only and do not keep myself up to date with new findings in the field. I work as a psychiatrist in a government run rehab clinic in Germany. So I do read up once in while.<br /><br />With all respect, since we coincidentally share some interests here, I am not convinced by what you have to say about the brain. I appreciate psychologists (neuro and alike) for their usefull work in research, statitistics and so on.<br />Concerning the elektrochemical workings of the brain and localizations my experience tells me to be more carefull and don't jump to conclusions too fast based on the newest discoveries (however fantastic they may sound). It could be just the pendulum swinging.<br />I have some problem with all the cognitive based computer models used as blueprints for the workings of the human brain. The two worlds are related, no doubt, since one, the human brain, invented the other, the no-brain-unconscious computer. To use the latter to explain the first is exactly what many cognitive psychologists do. Cognitive neuropsychologists then add the human brain to the equasion and there we are...<br />Again neurologists are more modest and also know more about the brain in a biomedical sense. Their research has more meaning to me. If the neuropsychologists are asked to shed their light on something it is usually if we are totally out of options and all the tarot-oracles are on a holiday.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-80828675314238120962010-01-16T19:52:59.988-05:002010-01-16T19:52:59.988-05:00Jagat, interesting link. Freud did make some inter...Jagat, interesting link. Freud did make some interesting remarks on religion. You may find this article interesting: <a href="http://www.tjhsst.edu/~jlamb/img090.pdf" rel="nofollow">The Future of an Illusion</a>.Neural Outlawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12299570389772377623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-28628995143697784452010-01-16T19:49:45.651-05:002010-01-16T19:49:45.651-05:00Sounds like the last anonymous is our old friend S...Sounds like the last anonymous is our old friend Shiva. As I mentioned, I have only spoken the fact concerning the currency of Freud's ideas in modern psychology and neuroscience. When I was undertaking my Bachelor's in Psychology, this is what I was taught about Freud: the <b>only</b> reason we were studying his ideas was simply to understand what they were, because he was an influential figure in the field for a very long time. We studied Jung too. Freud's ideas have since been shown to be bunk: there is no 'subconscious', no 'id', no 'ego', none of it. These terms (ego, etc) exist of course in the english language to denote various expressions of self and self-consciousness, <b>but as a way to understand the workings and structure of the mind</b> (which is what Freud tried to do), <b>it simply is invalid.</b><br /><br />When I went on to study cognitive neuropsychology, it was easy to see why. By learning about brain structure, we know that different areas 'specialise' in different functions. This is not <i>always</i> so when considering how brain regions efficiently work with one another, but it is enough to recognise that there are certainly 'hubs' of activity. When Shiva speaks of memory being a mystery, it isn't. The only mystery lies in the details of each brain interaction, but it enough to note that the bulk of memory-related activity involve the amgydala and hippocampus. So when Shiva says that Freud has yet to be falsified by neuroscience, this has no meaning. When the arguments about Freud's relevance rage in psychology, neuroscience makes the issue much simpler: There is no neuroscientific evidence for a 'subconscious', 'id', etc. Functions like memory <b>can</b> be traced to specific brain structures.<br /><br />It has little to do with early 20th-Century figures like Wilder Penfield and their discoveries, but everything to do with modern findings based on recent research. In many cases, but not always, new discoveries can overthrow old findings. This is certainly true of Freud. Perhaps one can pay more attention to new discoveries instead of educating oneself with internet articles and the like. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=why+freud+was+wrong&x=0&y=0" rel="nofollow">Why Freud was Wrong</a> may be a step in the right direction. <br /><br />As for the mentions of Deepak Chopra and quantum physics, there is nothing further to say about either of them.Neural Outlawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12299570389772377623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-9037310130336353812010-01-15T19:54:22.844-05:002010-01-15T19:54:22.844-05:00While we are on Freud, the following is interestin...While we are on Freud, the following is interesting. Thanks to Michael Valle.<br /><br />http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/01/freud-on-illusion-delusion-and-religion.htmlJagadananda Dashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-49666049167976170412010-01-15T04:12:04.840-05:002010-01-15T04:12:04.840-05:00'This is the simple fact that none of his obse...'This is the simple fact that none of his observations on the workings of the mind, subconscious, id, or whatever else, correspond to what we know of psychological or neurological function today.'(hesitant iconoclast)<br /><br />The above is not true. <br />His theory has yet to be falsified by neuroscience. Even the famous neurosurgeon Wider Penfield who used electrical stimulation to map the brain and whoes findings still stand today concluded:<br />"Because it seems to be certain that it will always be quite impossible to explain the mind on the basis of neuronal action within the brain, and because it seems to me that the mind develops and matures independently throughout an individual's life as though it were a continuing element,...... I am forced to choose the proposition that our being is to be explained on the basis of two fundamental elements."<br /><br />The ones actually in the field of neuroscience are a lot more modest about what they know about faculties like willing and deciding. Even the faculty of memory is still a great mystery. Memories are not located in the cortex, not in the hippocampus, but they have something to do with the process. How is still a big mystery. Penfield's discovery of experiential responses by electrical stimulation, put questionmarks behind some of the most referred theories of modern day cognitive psychology about memory, but not behind Freud's, because Freud's theory is more in line with modern day psychology of evolution (read Buss).<br /><br />So be carefull to arrogantly state that neuroscience is well on its way to map the brain. Some amazing discoveries are made about information processing and so on, but they are mostly based on the computer analogy, which cannot explain the workings of the more complex human faculties. <br /><br />Deepak Chopra uses quantumphysics to proof points and fool the ignorant. The ones that came up with quantumphysics in the first place are a lot more modest about what they know.<br /><br />"If anyone accepts this or not is not my concern, I've only spoken the fact. " (hesitant Icon)<br /><br />Who has the facts on his side is king of illusion.<br /><br />L.O.V.E. (Michael Jackson)<br />P.E.A.C.E. (John Lennon)<br />O.R.A.L.P.H.A.S.E. (Sigmund Freud)<br />O.C.D (Moi)<br />F.A.C.T. (Hesitant Iconoclaust)<br />S.A.H.A.J.I.Y.A (Jagadanandadas)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-7901658981971603652010-01-15T01:23:40.495-05:002010-01-15T01:23:40.495-05:00My experience is that ideas never entirely die, bu...My experience is that ideas never entirely die, but remain dormant until they come back in a slightly different form. The idea of a God in human form was dead and buried and now look, we are worshiping Radha and Krishna and we think we have the best understanding of God.Jagadananda Dashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-53786641430162699252010-01-15T00:21:08.927-05:002010-01-15T00:21:08.927-05:00Something which is dead better remain dead. Otherw...Something which is dead better remain dead. Otherwise it will be alive again. And that absolutely isn't according to current observations. Although it cannot be said that it won't be in accordance with future observations. Science has no limits.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-5223669466815549852010-01-14T18:59:54.025-05:002010-01-14T18:59:54.025-05:00I unfortunately omitted something: some freudian u...I unfortunately omitted something: some freudian understandings and (counselling) practices are still carried out in some psychiatric circles, but <b>only</b> in the sense of psychiatric counselling. As a way to understand the workings of the mind, etc., freudianism remains dead.Neural Outlawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12299570389772377623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-55842716182287318652010-01-14T18:49:34.365-05:002010-01-14T18:49:34.365-05:00Jagat,
Freudianism is dead. This is the simple fa...Jagat,<br /><br />Freudianism <b>is</b> dead. This is the simple fact that none of his observations on the workings of the mind, subconscious, id, or whatever else, correspond to what we know of psychological or neurological function today.<br /><br />It is true that his ideas continue to be influential today, and that is the only reason why his name still circles today and why his ideas are taught in University psychology degree courses: because for some time he was an extremely influential figure. His ideas, however, have been shown to be bunk.<br /><br />If anyone accepts this or not is not my concern, I've only spoken the fact.Neural Outlawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12299570389772377623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-11595304369215937692010-01-14T06:51:19.552-05:002010-01-14T06:51:19.552-05:00Freud's theory is far from dead. It is still a...Freud's theory is far from dead. It is still a widely used theory in scientific research (not just arts, film, philosophy and literature)<br /><br />It is mainly his psychoanalysis that came under fire. Some of his patients he claimed cured by psychoanalysis weren't cured at all. They became crazier as ever or just downward angry by all his suggestions. In Freud's view this anger was of course some form of transfer and thus proof of his theory. Malcolm Macmillan made nice studies about him in this respect<br /><br />Later behavorist scientists tried to discredit his theory further, but they weren't really succesful. Freud's theory still goes, but under many different names of course.<br /><br />You make a good point though about sublimation. Sublimation is something to be studied. Sublimation used to be considered as something that makes men succesfull if they succeed, and hopeless losers if they fail. Women are on the safe side.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com