Medical Formation of EGO: Modern Psychology Perspectives

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

I'll just add a short note to this, since you're interested in what "modern" psychology says on the topics discussed here. Modern psychologists (at least those with a strong scientific training...there is still a camp of psychologists stuck on Freudian theory and lacking in scientific approach to the subject) will acknowledge that there is no way to directly answer these questions, and thus such things are limited to speculation. We can only study the observable behaviors of animals, which is limiting. As a more accessible example, you walk into a room and see a friend of yours staring somewhat blankly at the wall. Can you tell if he is thinking about anything in particular? Without the ability to ask him to tell you, you don't know. He could be thinking through a problem that needs solving, or repeating terms he needs to memorize for a class over and over, or thinking about what to get for dinner, or fantasizing about your girlfriend, or just so tired/bored that he really doesn't have a single thought in his mind, or is just idly watching a spider walk across the wall.

This is what it's like trying to observe and interpret animal behaviors. We can determine the neural pathways involved and distinguish between purposeful and reflexive behaviors, and try to study the context of the behaviors, and what it takes to disrupt the behaviors, but none of that can answer whether there are actual "thoughts" as we'd relate to thoughts, or what they might be.

If that is the modern approach I must laugh at all modern pyschologists. Also, the example you give of a person staring at a wall is so bland that I'd outright dismiss it. There are several more colorful examples of interesting, if not intelligent, or 'soulful', instances where animal behavior is more than just instinctual survival. I will name a few in rapid succession: 1) Chimps that can add, subtract, multiply and even divide, 2) Walrusses that are trained to do push ups and sit ups, 3) Dolphins that rescue humans from attacking sharks, 4) The african lion who gives up his kill to three approaching hyenas, but never to just two. All of these examples could be interpreted as non-intellectual, non-soulful examples if one's subjectivity is so inclined. They are not concrete, they are not scientific, and they are not to be taken as proof. But these are quite convincing illustrations in my opinion that animals are smarter and more conscious than humans presently think.

Quite honestly Moonbear, I've always like you and your posts, which is why I was a bit saddened to see your reply.

No one here is claiming pychology to be a science and I certainly would never claim it to be. Its like sociology in that respect. Its called a soft science but really the term science is a misnomer and its validity does not compare to mathematics or physics in terms of predictions and fallsifiability. That's why I think your 'staring at a blank wall' example and in general, your entire comment diminishes the progress of this thread so far.

Please don't be insulted by me, its not my intention. I think Freudian and Jungian theories on pyschology are the best we have and any modern theory that does not at least use these as a cornerstone, are pretentious and on even shakier ground. PLEASE DON'T HIGHJACK THIS THREAD, WE WERE HAVING SO MUCH FUN!

Thanks.

 

[Moonbear]

If that is the modern approach I must laugh at all modern pyschologists. Also, the example you give of a person staring at a wall is so bland that I'd outright dismiss it.

Why? Simply because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions? That's not science. This is a science forum and all you've been talking about has been beliefs without any scientific basis whatsoever. Modern psychology IS scientific, not the hocus pocus you've been conjuring.

There are several more colorful examples of interesting, if not intelligent, or 'soulful', instances where animal behavior is more than just instinctual survival. I will name a few in rapid succession: 1) Chimps that can add, subtract, multiply and even divide, 2) Walrusses that are trained to do push ups and sit ups, 3) Dolphins that rescue humans from attacking sharks, 4) The african lion who gives up his kill to three approaching hyenas, but never to just two. All of these examples could be interpreted as non-intellectual, non-soulful examples if one's subjectivity is so inclined.

All are examples of classical conditioning.

They are not concrete, they are not scientific, and they are not to be taken as proof. But these are quite convincing illustrations in my opinion that animals are smarter and more conscious than humans presently think.

You just said it yourself, your interpretations are not scientific. They are wishful thinking.

Quite honestly Moonbear, I've always like you and your posts, which is why I was a bit saddened to see your reply.

Sorry if you weren't prepared for a real, honest answer from someone familiar with modern psychological studies.

No one here is claiming pychology to be a science and I certainly would never claim it to be.

Yes, I AM claiming psychology is a science. If you don't want to talk about the scientific approach, then this discussion has no place here.

Its like sociology in that respect. Its called a soft science but really the term science is a misnomer and its validity does not compare to mathematics or physics in terms of predictions and fallsifiability. That's why I think your 'staring at a blank wall' example and in general, your entire comment diminishes the progress of this thread so far.

No, I'm attempting to bring this thread back to reality. Your misconceptions of psychology is something the field is still struggling to overcome among many people, and allowing those misperceptions that it is somehow not based in falsifiable science is not going to help that.

Please don't be insulted by me, its not my intention. I think Freudian and Jungian theories on pyschology are the best we have and any modern theory that does not at least use these as a cornerstone, are pretentious and on even shakier ground.

We have come a LONG WAY since Freudian and Jungian theory. Those theories are horribly outdated.

PLEASE DON'T HIGHJACK THIS THREAD, WE WERE HAVING SO MUCH FUN!

Thanks.

If you want to play guessing games, or share your belief systems, take it elsewhere. If you want to talk science, please continue.

 

[RVBuckeye]

hello Order and Moonbear,
I just want to jump in here quickly before I head off to work (sorry I haven't replied earlier) but I'm actually happy to see Moonbear's contributing to this thread. I actually feel partly responsible for taking this thread in the animal consciousness direction, but here's why I think it must be addressed in the overall topic of ego formation (as Order put it). We've been talking about the ego as if it is the mental representation of our physical selves. We've been talking about those mental representations as essentially being able to "see" mental images and "hear" what we call an inner monologue. I've been using the word 'conscious' (as defined in detail by Julian Jaynes in link on page one) (or 'florid thought' as used by Daniel Dennett) as being able to see and hear those two mental representations. What we've been talking about recently is whether or not which animals, if any, have this ability as well. I'm more inclined to believe they don't, Order is arguing that some might. The problem is that since other animals cannot communicate using a language (if they are even capable of something we can even call a language), we are stuck using anecdotal evidence to argue those points. That's more for the philosophy section, imo. (Order, I see you're discussing a similar topic elsewhere in the philosophy section and I might jump in there later)

Now to hopefully add some more direction here I might ask a question stemming from the problem I brought up earlier. What exactly is the role of language in the forming of this mental phenomena? I am not able to conjur up mental images of any time period of my life before I was able to speak, yet, I am able to perform actions that I learned prior. Is there any correllation there? Would you say that is the starting point for those pshychologist that argue that the role of language is essential to ego formation?

Hope you don't mind I've jumped in here, Order.
edit: grammer

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

@Moonbear

Sorry, I forgot of the famous 'staring at the wall experiment' that you cited, where is the arixv link please? You speak of psychology as a science and how my posts contains very little experimental citations, and admittedly you are correct. Then you proceed to bash my entire post, offer your own example loaded with your own preconceived notions and list no citations or example of modern pyschology. Hmm. I am not sure what your profession is or what experience you have in 'modern psychology', which you have yet to define or state some of its tenets, but from what I've read, most progress in psychology is in pharmacology. For example, the use of certain agonist and antagonistic drugs used to block certain neuronal receptors in an attempt to see which behaviors these drugs shut off, or heighten.

This thread is getting off topic anyways, the original question was how does the ego form and we should get back to this. Please provide us with an executive summary what modern psychology has to say about the formation of the ego, that would help us get this thread back on track.

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

hello Order and Moonbear,
I just want to jump in here quickly before I head off to work (sorry I haven't replied earlier) but I'm actually happy to see Moonbear's contributing to this thread. I actually feel partly responsible for taking this thread in the animal consciousness direction, but here's why I think it must be addressed in the overall topic of ego formation (as Order put it). We've been talking about the ego as if it is the mental representation of our physical selves. We've been talking about those mental representations as essentially being able to "see" mental images and "hear" what we call an inner monologue. I've been using the word 'conscious' (as defined in detail by Julian Jaynes in link on page one) (or 'florid thought' as used by Daniel Dennett) as being able to see and hear those two mental representations. What we've been talking about recently is whether or not which animals, if any, have this ability as well. I'm more inclined to believe they don't, Order is arguing that some might. The problem is that since other animals cannot communicate using a language (if they are even capable of something we can even call a language), we are stuck using anecdotal evidence to argue those points. That's more for the philosophy section, imo. (Order, I see you're discussing a similar topic elsewhere in the philosophy section and I might jump in there later)

Now to hopefully add some more direction here I might ask a question stemming from the problem I brought up earlier. What exactly is the role of language in the forming of this mental phenomena? I am not able to conjur up mental images of any time period of my life before I was able to speak, yet, I am able to perform actions that I learned prior. Is there any correllation there? Would you say that is the starting point for those pshychologist that argue that the role of language is essential to ego formation?

Hope you don't mind I've jumped in here, Order.
edit: grammer

You pose an interesting question. Perhaps language is a requisite for the ego to form, I'm not sure. Nor do I know any papers that explore this question. Maybe Naom Chomsky could shed some light on this subject. I would offer my opinion on how the ego forms, but others may lock the thread if I don't cite a paper to back it up.