# Predictive-coding and the dissociated brain - The Debate



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Original thead here: http://www.dpselfhelp.com/forum/index.php?/topic/54768-predictive-coding-and-the-dissociated-brain/?p=376366

Theory with no biological basis in the form of Existentialism.

Talk about real neurobiology, real neurochemistry, real neuropsychiatry, real psychopharmacology.

If you wanna talk about ghosts and data collection great, but I think you'd be better off talking about ht2a inverse agonists and Ca- channel blockers and neurodegenerative disorders.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

Wow, what an insightful comment. I've given an overview of a lot of the science in this area and provide around 30 - 50 scientific papers and you think you're one vulgar word is some form of repost. Think again.

Predictive-coding has its basis in Bayesian mathematics and there is a good deal of evidence that sensory systems use probablistic processing - which may well be Bayesian (though does not have to be). I missed you're scientific papers / citations arguing for it not haveing merit. I have no idea what you mean (and I suspect you dont either) by 'real' areas versus what I posted and evidenced with all those citations and those are no where near extensive. Give them a read, you might enjoy them. I suspect a lack of 'real' scientific training in your comments. Am I right?

I've read the thread a number of times and I've not said anything about ghosts, so you're grasping at straws here and its a totally irrelevant comment that can be, and should be, legitimately ignored. You're attacking me and not the argument, which as many will know is a very weak form of thinking and argumentation. As for the the attempt at cellular psychobable.....the least said the better IMO. :huh:.

Like all scientific theories, predictive-coding is open to constructive criticism, development and further testing / refinement / and even rejection in the future. But there is nothing in your post that even remotely challenges it and I would not want anyone reading this to be swayed by your comment.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

I am challenging the theory, as exactly that: a theory.

I am telling you it's wrong and of pseudoscience.

If you don't believe me than perhaps Max Planck, Nobel Physicist, will enlighten you:

"My theories will be accepted only after my colleagues are dead."

----------------

I would study things like programmed cell death: not phenomenology: phenomena rather than philosophy.


----------



## TDX (Jul 12, 2014)

> I am telling you it's wrong and of pseudoscience.


This is an insightful and well founded critic... not.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Ok you sound like a valley girl lol.

http://www.dpselfhelp.com/forum/index.php?/topic/34697-possible-treatments-and-research/

http://hppdonline.com/index.php?/topic/1250-bit-of-an-idea-for-possible-cure-has-some-weight-to-it/


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

NOBLE VICTORY said:


> I am challenging the theory, as exactly that: a theory.
> 
> I am telling you it's wrong and of pseudoscience.
> 
> ...


No, you are not challenging anything - simply saying 'bollocks' is not a viable, sensible or scientific retort. So, please come back with a page of citations (as I did originally) and a well formed argument as at the moment - you're not actually saying anything....you're just ranting at your own confusion, which, as stated previously, can be legitamately ignored.

As I said - you're not a scientist / medic are you!!!! ^_^


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

No but I ran it past an M.D. of 49 years.

He said it is abstract and pedantic.

And the research papers have little bearing on anything remotely organic.

Also as we both looked at the new Mayo Clinic Journal, he sort of scoffed at your 'research papers' that you had provided, as essentially pseudoscience.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

For your concept, I would suggest this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Explained-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0316180661/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1470952555&sr=8-15&keywords=consciousness


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Also what is PLoS One Online Pubishing ?

Is this like the Journal of Johnny Cupcake's Neuroscience?


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

NOBLE VICTORY said:


> No but I ran it past an M.D. of 49 years.
> 
> He said it is abstract and pedantic.
> 
> ...


What? What sort of evidence or retort is that? I give you around 50 empirically produced papers, by multiple authors from around the world and you find one medic (not a scientist) who 'reckons' something.

Sorry, not good enough. By the way, you need to be clear on the differences between medics and scientists. Medics are unlikely to be educated in Baysian statistics or probabilistic processing so they have no knowledge whatsoever of the critical area being discussed here in this thread. One must wonder your motivations here.

Sorry, do try harder. Much harder. You have still not produced a single retort to back up your position and I just think its important readers know this. By all means tell your 'medic' to PM me or come to this thread. They'd be very welcome 

The remotely organic comment just tells me he / she has not read anything on PC for 25 years, and tell me, how is their apparently superior 'organic' approach working for them or their patients? BTW you're talking to someone right now with a background in all aspects of neuroscience including singular cell biology, neural systems, connectionism, and ionic and gial process (not to mention a background in neurocognitive processing, cognitive mechanisms, processing, awareness and consciousness). Science is very multi-disciplinary these days. However it is true, I'm no medic and certainly not an unread one.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

NOBLE VICTORY said:


> Also what is PLoS One Online Pubishing ?
> 
> Is this like the Journal of Johnny Cupcake's Neuroscience?


Oh, cherry picking are we? Its an open-access journal. Tell me, in the list of around 50+ journals provided (and again, a none extensive list) how many are in Plos One???

btw Karl Friston, one of the major researchers in this area and cited in that list, has been touted as being in line (possibly) for a Noble prize before the end of his career (he has numerous awards already). So if you're trying to besmudge this science, well, try again. But hey, you can always ask scientifically untrained medics right?


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Firstly:

Why are we on a road to the next retort?

I have nothing to retort. I let the facts speak for themselves.

Secondly:

A Medical Doctor, internist and surgeon since 1967 (licensed in NY and California), is hardly whatever poor connotations you want to put to the term medic. Just because you have some PhD. does not give you the right to criticize professionals, that of whom you do not know, who were practicing before you were a sperm.

Try to find studies in a real journal: NEJ of M, JAMA or Mayo.

-------------------

You don't even have a real doctorate in medicine, no wonder your focus is in philosophy:

'I'm touted for a Mega-Millions ticket; i feel it!'

Get off your soap-box, stop reading Sartre, and stop trying to salvage your shoddy theories from 2nd rate references.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Your main article was published through Plos One, exclusively, and not a printed credible source. Your main article, which if had been of any great importance, would have been published in something similar to the the NEJ of M.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Dr. B find a better tree to bark up, Fifi.

---------------------------

You will surely be debated into a corner and then I will have to give you Gesault Therapy when I'm donee

AND .....I haven't even begun to dig into you.


----------



## Nirvana (Jan 25, 2016)

this is ridiculous


----------



## TDX (Jul 12, 2014)

> BTW you're talking to someone right now with a background in all aspects of neuroscience including singular cell biology, neural systems, connectionism, and ionic and gial process (not to mention a background in neurocognitive processing, cognitive mechanisms, processing, awareness and consciousness).


Knowledge is power!



> By the way, you need to be clear on the differences between medics and scientists. Medics are unlikely to be educated in Baysian statistics or probabilistic processing so they have no knowledge whatsoever of the critical area being discussed here in this thread. One must wonder your motivations here.


I think that's a problem of the the study of medicine. They don't even have a basic course in statistics. But at least here in Germany the study is already crammed and more based on memorization than learning to think. The problem is that doctors must know very much and it already takes 6 years to complete, so there is not much room for improvement.



> The remotely organic comment just tells me he / she has not read anything on PC for 25 years, and tell me, how is their apparently superior 'organic' approach working for them or their patients?


As I understand it psychological problems can be approached scientifically by using different layers of abstration. For example psychology is the highest, while directly looking at the brain is the lowest, more a hardware approach. But even then abstraction most be used, because only that can make many problems feasable.



> So if you're trying to besmudge this science, well, try again


He is just trolling. I cannot understand why, but he is probably a member of the Zed anti-science club. He will never say anything meaningful against your arguments.



> AND .....I haven't even begun to dig into you.


Shut your trap!


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Dr. B is looking for a series of retorts to the things he says.

I just have no desire to retort him.

-------------------------

49 years of *practice* is not based in memorization.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Pick the topic and you can directly test my reference doctor via Skype at any moment.

Tell me when you would like to discuss the issue with the M.D. via Skype.

He will blow your mind in any of the aforementioned subjects.

[Statistics? That's a very mundane, facil subject. ]


----------



## Zed (Jul 25, 2015)

TDX said:


> He is just trolling. I cannot understand why, but he is probably a member of the Zed anti-science club. He will never say anything meaningful against your arguments.


FYI I'm not not anti science at all. I'm very interested in a lot of scientific things.. So, just like your mate Dr B, I see you have to resort to lying about me in an attempt to discredit me to make yourselves look superior... Yawn Yawn Yawn

When it comes to mental health though, I don't see science as having much at all to offer when it comes to helping people recover and that's the WHOLE purpose of this board. Theories didn't help in my recovery that's for sure - practical advice DID.



TDX said:


> Knowledge is power!


Yes, so they say.. and that's exactly why Dr B comes to this site... it's a place he can massage his ego and feel powerful.

Knowledge is not wisdom. Give me wisdom any day. You can take your little power trips and shove 'em.

Even though he claims to be an expert in DP research with decades of experience, if you look hard enough you'll find he actually has very little to offer in the way of practical advice to anyone who's suffering from the condition, nor has his field. And that's why I don't even bother reading what he has to say in the first place, and I wouldn't recommend anyone bother with him too much either. After all, the reason why this board exists is for sufferers to find help - and that sure as sure ain't happening when he or you are around. And TDX, you're living proof science isn't going to help..

You 2 are like some extremist religious nutter zealots, except you're into science.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

I'm sorry but I simply must respond even though we are all aware you are just trolling.

So here goes.



> Firstly:
> 
> Why are we on a road to the next retort?


There is no 'next' retort as you've not given one in the first place - try again, do try harder.



> I have nothing to retort. I let the facts speak for themselves.


You do have to retort if you want to be taken seriously. You came trolling into this thread claiming it was all bollocks. Now justify your position, scientifically with evidence and citations (as I've asked you to do repeatedly and you have not) as I did at the beginning. Please note, those references were to help people here read more about the idea for themselves. You've brought nothing to this discussion to help people here.

You've not actually mentioned any 'facts' at all.



> Secondly:
> 
> A Medical Doctor, internist and surgeon since 1967 (licensed in NY and California), is hardly whatever poor connotations you want to put to the term medic. Just because you have some PhD. does not give you the right to criticize professionals, that of whom you do not know, who were practicing before you were a sperm.


I explained to you that medics are not experts on detailed scientific theory - and it is true. They are, on the whole, just not trained in science unless they have taken upon themselves to specialise in science as a second degree or do additional training. Most medics dont do this. They are more concerned with medication than mechanisms. Until recently, they didnt really do maths and stats at all apart from rudimentary foundation stuff. And if your 'medic' has all that experience, chances are they went through a system not as extensive as today.



> Try to find studies in a real journal: NEJ of M, JAMA or Mayo.


I provide around 50 of them, go back and read. This just tells me you dont understand journals. You do know, dont you, that the most false positives reported in science are published in Nature? Of course you dont. Stop the cherry picking and deal with the issues.



> You don't even have a real doctorate in medicine, no wonder your focus is in philosophy


I have a real doctorate in science, I've never claimed to be a medic. I've stated this repeatedly. Please read and digest instead of ranting and trolling. Predictive coding is not a philosophical model and the fact you think it is not confirms even more that you're so out of your depth here its embarrasing.



> Get off your soap-box, stop reading Sartre, and stop trying to salvage your shoddy theories from 2nd rate references


I'm not a philosopher (so wrong there again), why are the theories shoody? You've never actually explained this, and the references are not second rate. So, lets hear your breakdown of the theory???

I thought not.....


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

NOBLE VICTORY said:


> Your main article was published through Plos One, exclusively, and not a printed credible source. Your main article, which if had been of any great importance, would have been published in something similar to the the NEJ of M.


Totally untrue. Go back and read. These ideas come, mainly, from Karl Friston and have been taken up by 1000s of others. Go read about Friston and then come back and apologise for getting it wrong again.

Peer-reviewed journals can be varied in quality, but i gave you around 50 of them and you cannot troll your way out of that.

From my original list you could have chosen



> Apps, M. A. J., & Tsakiris, M. (2014). The free-energy self: A predictive coding account of self-rec- ognition. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 41, 85-97. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.01. 029
> 
> Bechara, A., & Naqvi, N. (2004). Listening to your heart: Interoceptive awareness as a gateway to feeling. Nature Neuroscience, 7(2), 102-103. doi:10.1038/nn0204-102
> 
> ...


Some of the worlds leading journals there and I make no reference to Plos One. Although there are some good papers in that journal as well. Take a long hard look at the above, no cherry picking, and you will see the big hitting journals all represented. Not only is your argument intellectually weak as you're trying to attack science, but you're factually incorrect as well.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

NOBLE VICTORY said:


> Dr. B find a better tree to bark up, Fifi.
> 
> You will surely be debated into a corner and then I will have to give you Gesault Therapy when I'm don't
> 
> AND .....I haven't even begun to dig into you.


You're simply not endowed with the intellectual capacity to discuss things. Is it time for church?

All you've done is dig into me and the science and you're lied and deceived your way through the thread. Unfortunately for you, I spot it.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

NOBLE VICTORY said:


> Dr. B is looking for a series of retorts to the things he says.
> 
> I just have no desire to retort him.
> 
> 49 years of *practice* is not based in memorization.


You have no 'ability' to retort. Its not desire. You cannot come wading into a thread shouting 'bollocks' and not back it up. This is clearly a scientific thread about scientific theory and you came in and started trolling. Fact.

The members here, and the admins / mods - can all reflect on why you'd do that and your real anti-science agenda.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

NOBLE VICTORY said:


> Pick the topic and you can directly test my reference doctor via Skype at any moment.
> 
> Tell me when you would like to discuss the issue with the M.D. via Skype.
> 
> ...


What on earth are you talking about? The topic is this thread...... :wub: .....and the issues being discussed in it. Bring your medic to it to regail us all with their knowldege of predictive-coding and Bayesian statistical modelling applied to sensory systems and integration. Or better still, just leave them alone and acknowledge that you've made no contribution here, have just trolled everywhere, and are being corrosive to discussion. A number of people commented earlier about the thread (positively) and have PM'd me. All you need to do is go read the papers, but we both know you have no intention of doing so.


----------



## TDX (Jul 12, 2014)

> You do know, dont you, that the most false positives reported in science are published in Nature?


Did they really test this and compared it with other journals?

This reminds me to a publication about psychotherapy research where it was claimed that most naturalistic studies are wrong.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Dr. B, you have an agenda.

I have no agenda other than to inform people about facts, and to make sure nobody is triggered by your enigmatic, gordian-knot, circular-reasoning topics.

Like I said if you want a more pertinent, biological basis to the issue of looking for a cure for DP/DR or HPPD, look at these links that I had previously posted:

http://www.dpselfhelp.com/forum/index.php?/topic/34697-possible-treatments-and-research/

http://hppdonline.com/index.php?/topic/1250-bit-of-an-idea-for-possible-cure-has-some-weight-to-it/

http://hppdonline.com/index.php?/topic/680-dna-methylationepigenetics/?hl=epigenetics

----------------------

I refuse to engage in your sophistry, Dr. B.

----------------------

I implore you to put a stop to engaging me in this thread; I ask you to not quote my posts!

And please do not quote my posts out of context.

Thank you.

And Thank you everyone in the community.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Saying your sutra of shoddy theories is FOS is totally warranted.

Last thing I am is anti-science.

Hardly my keen interest in the study of medicine is anti-science.

-------------

Let me inform you that: it was widely accepted in science that Earth was flat during the Middle Ages.

I fear that you are a world-is-flat scientist.

------------

You are some kind of psychologist, yet you are unable to open your mind to other possibilities; you are latently of contempt and of defensiveness: which leads me to believe that you, as a person, have yet to handle a situation in a manner that is reflective of a human being with the confidence: that neither has to throw-around his weight nor throw text-assaults from a position of incredible defensiveness.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Dr B said:


> What on earth are you talking about? The topic is this thread...... :wub: .....and the issues being discussed in it. Bring your medic to it to regail us all with their knowldege of predictive-coding and Bayesian statistical modelling applied to sensory systems and integration. Or better still, just leave them alone and acknowledge that you've made no contribution here, have just trolled everywhere, and are being corrosive to discussion. A number of people commented earlier about the thread (positively) and have PM'd me. All you need to do is go read the papers, but we both know you have no intention of doing so.


Instead of denying the help of people who know more than you, why don't you open up to the possibility that perhaps someone knows more than you?


----------



## TDX (Jul 12, 2014)

> Let me inform you that it was widely accepted in science that Earth was flat during the Middle Ages.


1. Science as we know it today really started to exist in renaissance.

2. In the middle ages they didn't believe the earth was flat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Myth_of_the_flat_Earth



> You are some kind of psychologist, yet you are unable to open your mind to other possibilities, you are latently of contempt and of defensiveness: which leads me to believe that you as a person have yet to handle a situation in a manner that is reflective of someone with the confidence of a human being that neither has to throw his weight around nor throw text-assaults from a position of incredible defensiveness.


Looks like projection.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

TDX said:


> 1. Science as we know it today really started to exist in renaissance.
> 
> 2. In the middle ages they didn't believe the earth was flat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
> 
> Looks like projection.


Pythagorus...... Euclid, Archimedes, Aristarchus of Samos, Hipparchus, Eratosthenes, etc.

These are men of science over 1000 years before the Middle ages. AND their ideas are just as pertinent as they were when they were first discovered.

As for the world-is-flat idea in the Middle Ages, your wiki-reference details the opinion of Mr. Aquinas and Mr. Columbus. St. Thomas Aquinas is hardly someone anyone would consider a scientist; he was a Catholic-church-based philosopher and theologian.

And Columbus was a mere sailor.

-----------------

Furthermore, I have no dog-in-fight to argue over a projection you feel is relative to your observance as a trusted reference--as to even decide what Nike sneaker to buy, much less anything that includes anything that is of import to the DP/DR/HPPD community.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Nevertheless, everything pales in comparison to the Science that has manifested in the last 100 years (perhaps 200 years).

All you have to do is look in the bags of physicians throughout those years, and this shall immediately make it evident the changes necessary for the Science of Medicine and Pathology.

---------------

No one here is looking for answers in the stars.

We just want to feel good and be able to function competently as humans. We have little concern about cosmology when all we would like is a cure or treatment for our conditions.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

NOBLE VICTORY said:


> Dr. B, you have an agenda.
> 
> I have no agenda other than to inform people about facts, and to make sure nobody is triggered by your enigmatic, gordian-knot, circular-reasoning topics.
> 
> ...


You're misrepresenting and confusing yourself, but then, you have to do that dont you. I suggest you buy some mirrors for your house and take a long hard look. I have no agenda. I bring forward scientific advancements, discussions, knowledge. You just attack those threads and say 'bollocks' and then never actually say anything else. Let the record show, you've been invited, multiple times to bring your science (published science) to the table to support your position.

Another fundamental mistake you make. At no point in this thread are we discussing a cure for DPD so why on earth, unless you totally misunderstand, are you talking about cures???? This is a thread about an explanatory framework that has been proposed to explain some of the symtoms. And you dont even know that do you.....because you're ranting your own agenda. Just to be clear, predictive-coding theories are not a cure, they suggest an understanding of some disorders in consciousness. At the moment it has nothing to do with treatment, but may, like many scientific advancements, have implications in the future. You've clearly been ranting completely against your own confusion. Which is hilairious.

I'm happy for you to stop talking in this thread as you actually have nothing to say. One wonders why you fear knowledge.

I've never posted you out of context, you have no context. Evidence? Oh, dont bother, you have not done that throught this discussion so no need to start now.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

NOBLE VICTORY said:


> Last thing I am is anti-science.
> 
> Hardly my keen interest in the study of medicine is anti-science.
> 
> ...


You dont even know the difference between science and medicene and your comments in this thread provide clear evidence of that. You've not capable of reading what people say, you just want to attack me along with the other members here from your little cult congregation.

Let me inform you it was NEVER accepted as fact, in science, that the world was flat. It was religion that propagated that myth and this is a KNOWN fact. Read your history of science my friend, you've just made a classic fallacy that we teach undergraduates about in Year 1. Bring forth these scientific publications of the era that claimed this. Truth is, religion killed scientists for challenging the faith-based nonsense wisdom of the day.

You say I'm 'some kind of psychologist' - which is you attempting to put me down even in those few words. I am a cognitive neuroscientist which is both a form of psychology and neuroscience. If those words are too long for you - buy a dictionary. Everything else you say is a pure personal attack and you make this as a distraction because you cannot and have not provided any retort to back up your claims. Your reasoning is seriously flawed and you cannot be taken seriously.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

NOBLE VICTORY said:


> Instead of denying the help of people who know more than you, why don't you open up to the possibility that perhaps someone knows more than you?


Because on this topic, he does not. Why cant you accept that.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

NOBLE VICTORY said:


> Pythagorus...... Euclid, Archimedes, Aristarchus of Samos, Hipparchus, Eratosthenes, etc.
> 
> These are men of science over 1000 years before the Middle ages. AND their ideas are just as pertinent as they were when they were first discovered.
> 
> ...


You are clearly the most under-read person on this site. Science never made the claim the earth was flat or indeed, the centre of the universe. These ideas come from religion - the same organisation that killed people for developing science and alternate ideas (something you claim you want others to do.....such a contradiction). Think of that the next time you're at church.

A good read for you would be Richard Gregory's "mind in science" - top book that. Does not cover everything but good read.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

NOBLE VICTORY said:


> We just want to feel good and be able to function competently as humans. We have little concern about cosmology when all we would like is a cure or treatment for our conditions.


How does your unsubstantiated ranting, confusion, and cult-like agenda against science help people here feel good about themselves? I've had numerous PMs about this theory which suggests people find it very interesting. Go see the first couple of pages again, up to the point you stepped in and derailed the thread like a troll, which, I'm reminded is not supposed to be allowed on this site.

You have not helped anyone here. Now go buy those mirrors.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

TDX said:


> Did they really test this and compared it with other journals?
> 
> This reminds me to a publication about psychotherapy research where it was claimed that most naturalistic studies are wrong.


Yes, its a well supported opinion amongst scientists at the moment that some of the papers published in elite journals are false-positives. This is because they often only allow brief articles which do not allow for replication within the study - so they tend not to do it.

I know many scientists that say they will never publish in Nature or Science because of this. Dont get me wrong, there are some truly innovative studies in these journals, but that does not mean that being in these journals makes your work innovative per-se.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

You are so f'ing smug. You are giant know-nothing.

The studies you've presented are 2nd rate psychology papers that read like a Camus play. I can read about COMT, cAMP, MAO, dentate gyrus, ht2a inv. agon., even CBT, NLP, Gestalt and rational-emotive....but this shiitte reads like Sartre on an amphetamine binge.


----------



## thy (Oct 7, 2015)

NOBLE VICTORY said:


> You are so f'ing smug. You are giant know-nothing.
> 
> The studies you've presented are 2nd rate psychology papers that read like a Camus play. I can read about COMT, cAMP, MAO, dentate gyrus, ht2a inv. agon., even CBT, NLP, Gestalt and rational-emotive....but this shiitte reads like Sartre on an amphetamine binge.


So what was your point again?


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

1. Disclose the fact that Dr. B has given us sub-par studies that lack credibility.

2. To show that essentially Dr. B is to science what a fibromyalgia researcher is to the study of Internal Medicine.

3. I am in search for better treatments for dissociative disorders.

4. I have devoted the last 5 years of my life to uncovering better treatments.

[I don't need any scurvy hacks, whom frotheth at the mouth, giving me elocution lessons].


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Dr B said:


> You are clearly the most under-read person on this site. Science never made the claim the earth was flat or indeed, the centre of the universe. These ideas come from religion - the same organisation that killed people for developing science and alternate ideas (something you claim you want others to do.....such a contradiction). Think of that the next time you're at church.
> 
> A good read for you would be Richard Gregory's "mind in science" - top book that. Does not cover everything but good read.


You seriously have no clue.

I am a third generation atheist.

You need to pull your head out of your bum.

_____________

I AM better read than you. (... with your Somerset Maugham BS and your Dickens-dios). If you even slightly glimpsed at my book collection, your encephalitic brain would spin off its bobbleheaded top. [...like a bezel from a Jacob watch].

_____________

Look into the Handbook of Psychotopic Drug Overdoses by Nathan Kline.

or the Avesta.

Look into Avestan and Vedic-Sanskrit roots to Modern Western Language.

Look into Nathan Kline's discovery to the western world of Indian Rauwolfia serpentina and Reserpine:

and how it coincided chronologically with Leo Sternbach and his historical work as a dye chemist.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

> 1. Disclose the fact that Dr. B has given us sub-par studies that lack credibility.


Liar. You should be banned for that. You're just saying stuff over and over in the hope people will believe it - we dont. This is how uneducated you are on this matter. I never mentioned Plos One as a journal (you made it up), but even if I had, I'd have no problem with it. Secondly, I posted 50 odd articles in the first post, and then reposted this showing all the world leading journals - you're clearly not reading a thing and simply dont want to accept you've dug yourself into a big hole and now look silly. Journals like Nature Reviews, Behavioural Brain Sciences, TICS, and so on are amongst the best in the world and there were plenty of those in that list. You dont understanding publishing in science journals as you dont publish and are not a scientist. Your comments here, made repeadly, are fallacious and delusional.



> 2. To show that essentially Dr. B is to science what a fibromyalgia researcher is to the study of Internal Medicine.


A personal character assasination then? As we all suspected all along. Its just about you trying to have a pop at me, and nothing to do with this thread. You're trolling, and again, you should be banned.



> 3. I am in search for better treatments for dissociative disorders.


I'm not talking about treatments in this thread, you've been told this multiple times and yet you just ignore it and carry on with your delusion. You've also not said, explicitly what is wrong with this account. I've asked you three times now and you just go off on a tangent. Come on, lets hear your cogent analysis of the PC account.



> 4. I have devoted the last 5 years of my life to uncovering better treatments.


How can anyone who does not understand the basics recognise treatments? Sorry, this is delusional

Your final point I'll ignore - because you do need to be educated on these matters, even more so here, as many vulnerable people read these threads and its important they know you're out of your depth on this issue and that they should ignore you. Why dont you just stop talking as you're not actually saying anything.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

NOBLE VICTORY said:


> You are so f'ing smug. You are giant know-nothing.
> 
> The studies you've presented are 2nd rate psychology papers that read like a Camus play. I can read about COMT, cAMP, MAO, dentate gyrus, ht2a inv. agon., even CBT, NLP, Gestalt and rational-emotive....but this shiitte reads like Sartre on an amphetamine binge.


No it is not - but you clearly do not understand it. The studies are top-notch science, but I'll admit its too hard for some. So you attack the science as its too difficult to admit you've reached your ceiling.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

LMAO


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

In the spirit of Eric Berne and Thomas A. Harris M.D.: Take your dunce cap and go sit in the corner.


----------



## brill (Apr 17, 2016)

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=934567933339020


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

I was 2nd in Math in High School (with a knack for Logic and Statistics in my class): a class of 150 people (many of whom attended Ivy League schools).

Here is my opinion of a pragmatic view of this concept discussed in this thread:

1. In the Braitwaite paper, there are *only 62 participants in the study*. *This is a very small study group.*

'MATERIALS AND METHODS PARTICIPANTS Sixty-two participants took part in the present study. Of these, 47 (82%) were female and 60 (96%) reported that they were righthanded. None reported any personal medical history of seizure, epilepsy or were diagnosed as having migraine. All participants were undergraduate or postgraduate students (MSc/PhD) from the School of Psychology at the University of Birmingham, UK. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 28 years (average age of 21.5 years). All received course credit for taking part in the study'​​
2. Bayes is a 18th century English statistician, philosopher, and minister.

3. The Bayes' Theories proves syllogism. Bayes proves syllogism merely on the acknowledgment of its existence.

4. The papers presented in this thread tend to look for a unified theory of the brain. The issue is there is not *enough* chemistry and biological evidence for predictive-coding to be anything more than just a pedantic philosophical idea.

5. Human beings are not machines. Human beings are biological entities.

6. What differentiates the human brain from brains of other animals is that we are capable of abstract thought.

7. *The human brain is non-linear. *

8. The authors of the papers posted on this thread are generally looking a unified theory of the human brain.

9. The papers posted on this thread prove only one thing: Even though the human brain is non-linear, when studied, the human brain shows only* some* aspects of linearity opposing absolute randomness and entropy.

10. The papers posted on this thread basically say: It is a high probability that I am writing this post on Earth, on a computer, and that the writer is under the influence of the physical force of gravity.

Or in other word: If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck!​
11. The papers mention the idea of potentiality and kinetics in terms of plasticity.

12. The papers mention using a Y-axis that orientates the self (X-value) contextually, in reality, to qualify and navigate the self's place in Time-Space.

13. The papers indicate, to me, that while it is very daring to look for unified theories that it is not pragmatic or reasonable to believe that there are unified theories that match-up with Earthly Logic, Statistics, Quantum Physics, the Human Brain, and patterns in inorganic mechanical device.

14. The conclusion is the papers in this thread are *not even* novel. These papers are written by star-gazers.


----------



## Surfingisfun001 (Sep 25, 2007)




----------



## TDX (Jul 12, 2014)

In the uncomfortably numb paper it says that the subjective experience of emotion results from the recognition of internal bodily states in response to external objects or emotional stimuli and that the intensitiy is dependent on the sensitiviy of internal bodily response.

This is interesting, because it would predict if the sensitivity of bodily responses rises, than so would emotional experience. Maybe bodyscan meditation can increase the sensitivity? Or maybe I should repeat my chain ride experiment at the next carnival and focus on body states?

But could this even work for me? The problem is that the perception of my body is completely normal and there are no feelings of unreality.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

Apologies for being away. I've had the flu and in the middle of some large removals.....anyway, I will be back to answer the points above very soon. NV's comments are hilarious and show he knows nothing about statistics and I will prove this on my return (also a Wiki page level of information is simply not up to it for a conversation on this nature). Its the classic text book approach but also reveals no real scientific education. I will say more soon.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Statistics don't matter if the data coming in are wrong.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

You need to stop attacking people personally!

[You can attack points of argument, but you need not attack the person: especially in a civilized discussion].


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Tell me my points of argument that you believe are wrong.

[This is the mature way to do things].


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Essentially, what you are trying to prove is that Free Will does not exist, and you are trying to prove that change within one's own personal means is predictive and not particularly in the realm of complete randomness.

Now, while you are using math, we are working in the framework of the human mind and human decision-making, which is not bound by any thought policy beyond the abstract.

So, at this point, for your studies, you are entering into a space of social science.

Social science is essentially an artificial science.

So while you are entering into the realm of John Nash-type of math, there is less of an emphasis on transactional analysis and science outside the brain, for it is within the own brain that your perceptions of a pattern is formed.

Now if you are bound by a predictive pattern within your own mind, data from a fMRI, bound by this predictive pattern within the mind, leave it so that you have no other choice but to argue for lack of Free Will.

And THEREFORE, the whole matter becomes pedantic, and the data or the perception of data, incorrigible.

But can the study of anything in nature be outside the brain?

And therefore, you are negating the own abstract-reasoning nature that is perceiving the data, which is the sensory and processing mechanisms of the CNS, for something that does not exist without this abstract-reasoning. And THEREFORE, it becomes very Descartes. It becomes a turtles-all-the-way-down phenomenological naval-contemplation, where you believe you can empirically change or predict behavior, which is not necessarily bound by a pattern, given the abstract-thinking nature of the human mind (as long as one has the foundation of what is shown in Maslow's Pyramid).

So in a way, you are entering into a sort of SUPER-artificial science.

Give me ONE (1) example of how fMRI data are showing a predictive code in which we can consider empirical.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

I will be back. and no matter how much you vomit your uneducated nonsense I will retort with evidence based, educated evidence, and its important all the readers know, you're not that clever....feel free to keep posting as every time you do,,,,you just dig a bigger hole. You'll see soon enough. hahaha...soooooooo deluded.....


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Your data are mostly of psychology, not psychiatry.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Let us all make peace, Dr. B. You have a very well written study from 2013! Very very well written! I just have things I would like to discuss with you Dr. B that require no personal attacks. I hope you don't mind engaging in these talks; I feel talks such as these are important for the future of DP research and the development of informed DP patients.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Delusions tend to be a dysfunction of the D4 receptors of the D2-like family of Dopamine Receptors. [Note: It may also include auditory hallucinations.]

Auditory hallucinations tend to be from dysfunction of the HT2a Serotonin Receptors. [Note: Broad Treatment: typical antipsyches, atypical antipsyches. Selective Treatment: ht2a inverse agonist drugs]

Looks at these posts made by me [ -mg] and Visual and Qaiphyx in 2012:

http://hppdonline.co...t-to-it/page-12


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

I suspect the class was empty or the school has closed down. You display no true understanding and here is why



> 1. In the Braitwaite paper, there are only 62 participants in the study. This is a very small study group.


No it is not - in fact quite the opposite. Small by what standards? If you read the paper, and truly understand statistics you will see strong relaible effects. But the lovely bit you've omitted (if you're talking about the 'numb' paper), is the use of the analysis of the Bayes Factors, which is really strong evidence that these effects are very likely true. The fact you dont know this, and walked straight in a laymans view of statistics says it all. Do a google on Bayes Factor analysis....its a very convincing form or analysis and this was done in concert with frequentist stats - so two completely independent forms of support. You've provided no evidence at all that the sample was small - all you do is say things and never back them up. This paragraph here is me, backing my position up.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

> 4. The papers presented in this thread tend to look for a unified theory of the brain. The issue is there is not *enough* chemistry and biological evidence for predictive-coding to be anything more than just a pedantic philosophical idea.


Nonsense and untrue. Scientists, computational models, connectionism, neural net approachs all know and have shown, that neurons work probabilistically. You've not read the papers and lots of people do not subscribe to any unified theory approach while also subscribing to probabilistic coding. You've not read any of the work I've posted.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

> 5. Human beings are not machines. Human beings are biological entities.


Which is entirely conssistent with a bayesian approach - nothing you say here is arguing against this position.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

> 7. *The human brain is non-linear. *


and probabilistic.....these things can co-exist in some circumstances (i.e., level of explanation accounts). Another fallacious and irrelevant point.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

> 8. The authors of the papers posted on this thread are generally looking a unified theory of the human brain.


No. You're overstating and misrepresenting here. The vast majority of researchers subscribe to no such idea. You can accepted the principle of predictive-coding without unified ideas, none of those working in predicitve coding have proposed what you say and only around one or two people from baysian areas are exploring those ideas. Remember these are related areas, but also distinct as well. Like I say, you need to read more.



> 10. The papers posted on this thread basically say: It is a high probability that I am writing this post on Earth, on a computer, and that the writer is under the influence of the physical force of gravity.


​


> Or in other word: If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck!


No again, i dont think you appreciate how under-read you appear.



> > 11. The papers mention the idea of potentiality and kinetics in terms of plasticity.


This again is not true for the majority of the papers....you're misrepresenting again.

I could go on but its boring. You've not really read or understood any of it. You keep making sweeping statments and not once come back with any scientific citations to match the evidence I've produced. It is well known that those who are weak arguers, must misrepresent and mislead in order to make what seems like a point on the surface. But for those of us with an education, we see through it. Sorry, totally unconvincing and your lack of understanding on statistics is embarrasing for you.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

BODYLOAD said:


> Statistics don't matter if the data coming in are wrong.


The data arnt wrong - another assumption and sweeping statement


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

BODYLOAD said:


> You need to stop attacking people personally!
> 
> [You can attack points of argument, but you need not attack the person: especially in a civilized discussion].


You've never been attacked - not once. I've challenged your arguments every step and showed them to be factually incorrect or fallacious. Remember - you're the one wading in aggressively. I'm just better at this than you.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

BODYLOAD said:


> Let us all make peace, Dr. B. You have a very well written study from 2013! Very very well written! I just have things I would like to discuss with you Dr. B that require no personal attacks. I hope you don't mind engaging in these talks; I feel talks such as these are important for the future of DP research and the development of informed DP patients.


I've never attacked you, not once. But I will not tolerate your deception. I do not see any point in discussing this with you further. As I said weeks ago, let others discuss things as they seemed to be enjoying it before you showed your true colours and your messy intrusion into the debate.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

BODYLOAD said:


> Delusions tend to be a dysfunction of the D4 receptors of the D2-like family of Dopamine Receptors. [Note: It may also include auditory hallucinations.]
> 
> Auditory hallucinations tend to be from dysfunction of the HT2a Serotonin Receptors. [Note: Broad Treatment: typical antipsyches, atypical antipsyches. Selective Treatment: ht2a inverse agonist drugs]
> 
> ...


No, no and errrrr no. Does not work on any level as far as i see in terms of being an explanatory account. Of course, certain 'factors' may be part of the overall story - but this does not work for me.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

I think we've exhausted the matter and your repeated name changing is hilarious. Anyway, lets leave it and let others continue the debate if they want to. If anyone is reading this, and was interested in the cordial discussion before the trolling, PM me if you want things explaining. I'll do my best, though do be patient as I'm recovering from a bad chest infection and have good and bad days at the moment.


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709756/

https://books.google.com/books?id=hQonhv8ItqYC&pg=PR13&lpg=PR13&dq=Nathan+S.+Kline,+Jean-Pierre+Lindenmayer&source=bl&ots=vevAeerBLV&sig=RqOrN9e1rs6OKrHvJzHsY2CJnMg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi50OSf6YPPAhUrAcAKHZnzCLQQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=Nathan%20S.%20Kline%2C%20Jean-Pierre%20Lindenmayer&f=false


----------



## hidden (Nov 28, 2015)

Dr B said:


> You've never been attacked - not once. I've challenged your arguments every step and showed them to be factually incorrect or fallacious. Remember - you're the one wading in aggressively. I'm just better at this than you.


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

Again, let others come in now. You're just repeating your own confusion. I doubt people will come here to dicuss now, but that was your intention all along wasnt it. No worries. My invitation to other members to PM is still there if they dont have an appetite for posting here.

Admins - I'd still recommend locking the thread soon.


----------

