How are scintific theories produced?
no, not that i can recall (with humans and something else i have). Although, i could be wrong, but i feel certain brains are "rigged," with certain capabilities, or a least more of a compensity to access them. So, to me its quite possible that i haven't or could never have any type of "psychic" communication with an animal; while still recognizing the fact that the possibility exists with some others.
B2b,
indeed my day was good (here it's 6:40 p.m.)
Your words are very flattering
, but I still insist that I have only written a very small fragment of my mentor's work, which involves all the factors that compose the theoretical work.
I would like to underline that the method I refer to (the one which my mentor used in order to improve the basic truth of psychiatry and of some other sciences) can be pplied only on scientific basic truths. In other words, it has nothing to do with social, political,religious and economic doctrines, models etc. I just wanted to make this clarification.
I am looking forward to exchanging notes with you
Beware, for Mark has accused me of plagiarism, I may steal your ideas
In order to "ëliminate risks and errors" we first must know which is the scientific basic truth we have accepted. Do not take this forgranted, because ,as Kuhn mentions, scientists, due to the teaching methods, learnt to serve "faithfully" the prevailing "paradigm", but they cannot even express verbally its content.
In order to test the quality of a basic truth we must
1) know its content, so that we can test it structurally
and 2) know its role in science, so that we can test it functionally (its effectiveness in the scientific work: does it work or not?)
In general, the effectiveness of a basic truth is tightly connected with its structural "completeness".
If a basic truth is complete (if it portrays all the basic elements of is subject, e.g. living cells) and "suitable" (if it gives to each elemet the role it plays in reality), then it is definiely effective in its work.
On the contrary, if it's incomplete, unsuitable or irrelevant to its subject, then it will be definitely ineffective. The science which is founded on a wrong basic truth won't be able to utilize the data and knowledge it produces, transubstantiate them into knowledge and comprehend the phenomena it deals with. I.e. Psychiatry is not able to interpret correctly any of the phenomena it studies (intellectual faculties and mental disorders), because its basic truth is wrong.
Similarly, molecular biology, due to the molecular basic truth (which is oviously incomplete, since it does not contain cells' endogenous fields and intellectual faculties) is unable to interpret correctly any of the activities of living organisms (biological phenomena).
If you are interested in a specific scientific basic truth, we could discuss about it.
Nowadays, science as a whole has enough knowledge to test and improve any scientific basic truth. After all, knowledge is the only factor that we can use in order to "eliminate risks, errors, etc". Arbitrary acceptances and subjective points of view are not very helpful
It's very nice talking with you, have a nice day (evening- night- whatever!)!
Ps Pathways to knowledge are several, but they all lead to the same destination. In any case, the first and the most decisive step towards the right direction is:
"WE must, with a view to the science which we are seeking, first
recount the subjects that should be first discussed. These include
both the other opinions that some have held on the first principles,
and any point besides these that happens to have been overlooked...People who inquire without
first stating the difficulties are like those who do not know where
they have to go; besides, a man does not otherwise know even whether
he has at any given time found what he is looking for or not;"
indeed my day was good (here it's 6:40 p.m.)
Your words are very flattering
, but I still insist that I have only written a very small fragment of my mentor's work, which involves all the factors that compose the theoretical work.I would like to underline that the method I refer to (the one which my mentor used in order to improve the basic truth of psychiatry and of some other sciences) can be pplied only on scientific basic truths. In other words, it has nothing to do with social, political,religious and economic doctrines, models etc. I just wanted to make this clarification.
I am looking forward to exchanging notes with you
Beware, for Mark has accused me of plagiarism, I may steal your ideas In order to "ëliminate risks and errors" we first must know which is the scientific basic truth we have accepted. Do not take this forgranted, because ,as Kuhn mentions, scientists, due to the teaching methods, learnt to serve "faithfully" the prevailing "paradigm", but they cannot even express verbally its content.
In order to test the quality of a basic truth we must
1) know its content, so that we can test it structurally
and 2) know its role in science, so that we can test it functionally (its effectiveness in the scientific work: does it work or not?)
In general, the effectiveness of a basic truth is tightly connected with its structural "completeness".
If a basic truth is complete (if it portrays all the basic elements of is subject, e.g. living cells) and "suitable" (if it gives to each elemet the role it plays in reality), then it is definiely effective in its work.
On the contrary, if it's incomplete, unsuitable or irrelevant to its subject, then it will be definitely ineffective. The science which is founded on a wrong basic truth won't be able to utilize the data and knowledge it produces, transubstantiate them into knowledge and comprehend the phenomena it deals with. I.e. Psychiatry is not able to interpret correctly any of the phenomena it studies (intellectual faculties and mental disorders), because its basic truth is wrong.
Similarly, molecular biology, due to the molecular basic truth (which is oviously incomplete, since it does not contain cells' endogenous fields and intellectual faculties) is unable to interpret correctly any of the activities of living organisms (biological phenomena).
If you are interested in a specific scientific basic truth, we could discuss about it.
Nowadays, science as a whole has enough knowledge to test and improve any scientific basic truth. After all, knowledge is the only factor that we can use in order to "eliminate risks, errors, etc". Arbitrary acceptances and subjective points of view are not very helpful
It's very nice talking with you, have a nice day (evening- night- whatever!)!
Ps Pathways to knowledge are several, but they all lead to the same destination. In any case, the first and the most decisive step towards the right direction is:
"WE must, with a view to the science which we are seeking, first
recount the subjects that should be first discussed. These include
both the other opinions that some have held on the first principles,
and any point besides these that happens to have been overlooked...People who inquire without
first stating the difficulties are like those who do not know where
they have to go; besides, a man does not otherwise know even whether
he has at any given time found what he is looking for or not;"
Morpheus,
Telepathy is one of the phenomena which are related to the function of mind but remain unexplained. Except for that, take into account imagination, intuition, predictions, etc.
Science is unable to explain and interpret these phenomena and arbitrarily "transfers"them to the sphere of metaphysics. Once again, the presence of the wrong basic truth impedes comprehension, despite the vast numbers of data it could use. All sciences which study the behaviour of living organisms (from single cells- amoeba etc- to mammals are full of evidence that demonstrate that organisms have the ability to directly communicate ("telepathically") and collaborate with each other, either they belong to the same species or not.
These data are incomprehensible and usually are ignored because of the presence of the wrong basic truths which prevail in the sciences which study the aformentioned activities.
When the right basic truth is discovered, all the intellectual faculties and functions (including telepathy) will be scientifically studied and explained.
Ps. I had telepathic communication with my dog, too. Unfortunately, I lost her one year ago
That's life
Telepathy is one of the phenomena which are related to the function of mind but remain unexplained. Except for that, take into account imagination, intuition, predictions, etc.
Science is unable to explain and interpret these phenomena and arbitrarily "transfers"them to the sphere of metaphysics. Once again, the presence of the wrong basic truth impedes comprehension, despite the vast numbers of data it could use. All sciences which study the behaviour of living organisms (from single cells- amoeba etc- to mammals are full of evidence that demonstrate that organisms have the ability to directly communicate ("telepathically") and collaborate with each other, either they belong to the same species or not.
These data are incomprehensible and usually are ignored because of the presence of the wrong basic truths which prevail in the sciences which study the aformentioned activities.
When the right basic truth is discovered, all the intellectual faculties and functions (including telepathy) will be scientifically studied and explained.
Ps. I had telepathic communication with my dog, too. Unfortunately, I lost her one year ago
That's lifehello, some of my experiences were in predictive dreams. It only happened a few times, the rest were "normal" dreams, without any other connections that i know of.
The most recent, i'm guessing happened just this last week. This one i am not so sure of however, but the possibility is there. For some reason i had a vivid nightmare of me going to war with Germany
. I had no thoughts of Germany in my mind whatsoever previous to my dream. I was in a field with German soldiers and they were chasing me. go figure? lol.
What strikes me is that it was clear to me that they were German soldiers, not just "soldiers" in general. I knew they were German.
anyhow, i woke up. did my things, & signed onto the computer. My homepage/startup page has a sort of immediate newscast on it, and the major daily story was something about something important going on in Germany. It's not often i ever see anything about Germany on the news, especially as the major story. I'll try to look it up, but the details i feel are less important. It's just that i thought it was well odd, and an interesting coincidence. This i couldn't say whethor or not it falls into the category, in comparison to my other few experiences that i know happened without a doubt; but i wonder about it.
and effie, my condelensces to your dog.
The most recent, i'm guessing happened just this last week. This one i am not so sure of however, but the possibility is there. For some reason i had a vivid nightmare of me going to war with Germany
. I had no thoughts of Germany in my mind whatsoever previous to my dream. I was in a field with German soldiers and they were chasing me. go figure? lol.What strikes me is that it was clear to me that they were German soldiers, not just "soldiers" in general. I knew they were German.
anyhow, i woke up. did my things, & signed onto the computer. My homepage/startup page has a sort of immediate newscast on it, and the major daily story was something about something important going on in Germany. It's not often i ever see anything about Germany on the news, especially as the major story. I'll try to look it up, but the details i feel are less important. It's just that i thought it was well odd, and an interesting coincidence. This i couldn't say whethor or not it falls into the category, in comparison to my other few experiences that i know happened without a doubt; but i wonder about it.
and effie, my condelensces to your dog.
oh my goodness, this is uncanning! I just looked up the headline i was telling you about and this is what it was: "EXCLUSIVE…AWOL US Soldier Seeks Asylum in Germany Over Returning to “Illegal” War in Iraq"
LOL, there has got to be a connection. I was the awol soldier in my dream!!!! (and the dream happened before the headline, not vice versa). I also remember a 3rd party in my dream, either they are who i was running to or running awol from. Now how could i be living his experience in this way? and why?
(effie, adding an apology for straying too far, i was just excited to share this, because of some of the themes going on in your thread, sorry if it was deterring from your original subject, & will stop my yammering now:)
LOL, there has got to be a connection. I was the awol soldier in my dream!!!! (and the dream happened before the headline, not vice versa). I also remember a 3rd party in my dream, either they are who i was running to or running awol from. Now how could i be living his experience in this way? and why?
(effie, adding an apology for straying too far, i was just excited to share this, because of some of the themes going on in your thread, sorry if it was deterring from your original subject, & will stop my yammering now:)
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Hmm! Personally I think that the Body with its three-interconnected systems is enough of an 'organ' to produce the intellectual faculties which we call Mind, and as such the Mind is the final recipient of the information with which decisions regarding this information are made.effie wrote:A_uk,
I think that we agree that brain is not the organ which serves intellectual faculties, as it does not have the essential properties. It is not the final recipient of information, nor the entity which processes and analyzes them in order to make decisions regarding the reactions of the organism.
I not sure what you mean by a substrate here? You are looking for somewhere where every 'memory' is 'stored' in its entirety? Like a library of some sort? This seems unlikely as given what we've learnt from the properties of computational 'neural nets' I'd have thought that memory works the same way, i.e. pattern-retrival by node activation due to stimulation inputs, so you're not going to find an objective 'store of memories' anywhere. Fredkin has some interesting ideas about how 'memory' functions and could also explain dreams at the same time.It has been already proved that different types of information (signals) reach brain, but science has not yet proved that they remain (are stored) in the brain. In order to find the noetic organ we need to locate the biological substrate on which information are stored. Once we find it, we will be able to understand how intellectual faculties are completed, how they are disturbed and what can we do to cure mental diseases.
I'm in sympathy with your observations of Psychiatry and find interest in the way you are using Khun's ideas to call for a paradigm revolution. I also think that exploring possible interactions of human EM fields may produce some interesting results, e.g. a 'sixth sense' or this 'cat telepathy' idea, but think that any information from such a source would still have to be represented within the five senses. If not we'd have words that correctly represent the experience.
a_uk
p.s.
I understand how Khun defined 'paradigm' and how and why you are using 'basic truths' in this sense.
Effie,
I'm trying hard to be sympathetic to your posts but I'm struggling. Perhaps it would be easier if you told us who these views are a reaction to. What research do you base your research on? You mention Kuhn in some places but only in the context of 'basic truths'. Are there any other philosophers of science you draw on?
I'm trying hard to be sympathetic to your posts but I'm struggling. Perhaps it would be easier if you told us who these views are a reaction to. What research do you base your research on? You mention Kuhn in some places but only in the context of 'basic truths'. Are there any other philosophers of science you draw on?
B2B,
very intriguing experience
In order to explain your dream (the reasons why you had it and how) we need to explain dreams in general. My mentor, in 1988 has written a book (" the perception of man") that explains these experiences, but I cannot yet explain it here.
A little hint: if our noetic organ is static, magnetic field, when we are awake we are able to keep it stable. When we fall asleep, our "program" is "released" and free to explore other frequencies. Imagine our mind as a tv receptor: when we change frequency, we are able to see things that we couldn't see before!
I know that all I have written seem very strange. Forgive me, but it took me several years to learn those things- I cannot find a way to transmit all I have learnt in some short posts
I just starting this website I have been talking about, so that my posts are coherent with each other and follow a "logical series".
Btw, this new perception regarding the noetic organ has been the basis on which my mentor has founded a therapy for people who suffer from mental illnesses (panic attacks, psychoses, etc), that is to say people who dream awake. As Freud had stated, ïf I had been able to interpret the mechanism with which dreams are produced, I would have easily succeded in explaining the mechanism with which hallucinations are provoked".
Ps. What has finally happened with your dream? Did you contact this man?
very intriguing experience
In order to explain your dream (the reasons why you had it and how) we need to explain dreams in general. My mentor, in 1988 has written a book (" the perception of man") that explains these experiences, but I cannot yet explain it here.
A little hint: if our noetic organ is static, magnetic field, when we are awake we are able to keep it stable. When we fall asleep, our "program" is "released" and free to explore other frequencies. Imagine our mind as a tv receptor: when we change frequency, we are able to see things that we couldn't see before!
I know that all I have written seem very strange. Forgive me, but it took me several years to learn those things- I cannot find a way to transmit all I have learnt in some short posts
I just starting this website I have been talking about, so that my posts are coherent with each other and follow a "logical series".
Btw, this new perception regarding the noetic organ has been the basis on which my mentor has founded a therapy for people who suffer from mental illnesses (panic attacks, psychoses, etc), that is to say people who dream awake. As Freud had stated, ïf I had been able to interpret the mechanism with which dreams are produced, I would have easily succeded in explaining the mechanism with which hallucinations are provoked".
Ps. What has finally happened with your dream? Did you contact this man?
A_uk,
if you are convinced that science has completed its work regarding the identity of the noetic organ- mind, then why:
1. does it continue working on the subject? What does it try to discover?
2. does it not interpret the phenomena (intellectual faculties and mental disorders) it studies?
Are you implying that all biological factors have been discovered and studied and that there is nothing more left for science to discover? Why are there innumerous laboratories around the world which try to discover where infrmation are stored?
The results of the specialized researches demonstrate that information reach brain but none of them has proved that information are stored in any part of the brain. Consequently, the inability of science to prove how and where info are stored "forces" us to continue the effort to discover the identity of the biological factor (entity) in which memory is stored.
I totally agree that neural nets do not have the required properties. I think that it has been proved that memory isn't stored in neurons, although the latter participate in the "memorization" process. However, the fact that we haven't yet the memory "store" does not mean that there isn't a memory substrate, since information are stored! In other words, it doesn't mean that the noetic organ is not a biological factor with physical and functional properties!!!
On the contrary, there are plenty of scientific evidence (which I have at my disposal and I am trying to present) which reveal the identity of the factor science has been looking for and the way in which it functions. Furthermore, I have papers which refer to the role of brain in the intellectual faculties. If you are interested I can send you the titles. (it's the first time in my life that I almost beg people to provide them with evidence- usually people demand evidence ).
Ps. We agree that body consists of "three interconnected systems", but I am not sure if we refer to the same systems. Which systems do you refer to?
if you are convinced that science has completed its work regarding the identity of the noetic organ- mind, then why:
1. does it continue working on the subject? What does it try to discover?
2. does it not interpret the phenomena (intellectual faculties and mental disorders) it studies?
Are you implying that all biological factors have been discovered and studied and that there is nothing more left for science to discover? Why are there innumerous laboratories around the world which try to discover where infrmation are stored?
The results of the specialized researches demonstrate that information reach brain but none of them has proved that information are stored in any part of the brain. Consequently, the inability of science to prove how and where info are stored "forces" us to continue the effort to discover the identity of the biological factor (entity) in which memory is stored.
I totally agree that neural nets do not have the required properties. I think that it has been proved that memory isn't stored in neurons, although the latter participate in the "memorization" process. However, the fact that we haven't yet the memory "store" does not mean that there isn't a memory substrate, since information are stored! In other words, it doesn't mean that the noetic organ is not a biological factor with physical and functional properties!!!
On the contrary, there are plenty of scientific evidence (which I have at my disposal and I am trying to present) which reveal the identity of the factor science has been looking for and the way in which it functions. Furthermore, I have papers which refer to the role of brain in the intellectual faculties. If you are interested I can send you the titles. (it's the first time in my life that I almost beg people to provide them with evidence- usually people demand evidence
).Ps. We agree that body consists of "three interconnected systems", but I am not sure if we refer to the same systems. Which systems do you refer to?
Rortabend,
welcome
First of all, I think that you should know that the ideas I discuss here are not exactly mine. I have a mentor who has come up with them and has spent several years teaching them to me.
His work is first born and regard all the factors which participate in the theoretical work (batteries included, as he likes to say). They are not reactions to anybody else's views. Basic truths are ONE of those factors. Except for them, there are many other theoretical factors which I haven't mentioned yet.
The field from which he has "pumped" his ideas is the regime under which function all normal sciences in all eras.
If you had read my posts you would have noticed that references to basic truths are very ancient (myth of Procrustes, Aristotle and so on). More recent references have been made by Lakatos and Kuhn (research program and paradigm, respectively).
Those references are a bit "shadowy", in the sense that research program and paradigm aren't defined properly. On the contrary, both LAkatos and Kuhn claim that science is unable to express verbally the basic truth it serves. On one hand they support that a possible improvement of those factors is equivalent to scientific revolution, but on the other hand they claim that there is no deductive method to improve this factor.
My mentor's approach is different from any other approach in the sense that it is accurate and complete.
Many times I have claimed that in this thread I have presented only a small piece of the puzzle. It took me several years to form a complete picture of my mentor's approach, so I totally understand any disagreements etc. It is impossible to form a complete picture out of fragmental references.
Consequently, I prefer specific questions or remarks to which I can try to answer properly. I think that it would be more prosperous for all of us to discuss a single subject at a time (e.g. how is a basic truth located, which is its role in science, how can we improve its quality and effectiveness, etc).
welcome
First of all, I think that you should know that the ideas I discuss here are not exactly mine. I have a mentor who has come up with them and has spent several years teaching them to me.
His work is first born and regard all the factors which participate in the theoretical work (batteries included, as he likes to say
). They are not reactions to anybody else's views. Basic truths are ONE of those factors. Except for them, there are many other theoretical factors which I haven't mentioned yet.The field from which he has "pumped" his ideas is the regime under which function all normal sciences in all eras.
If you had read my posts you would have noticed that references to basic truths are very ancient (myth of Procrustes, Aristotle and so on). More recent references have been made by Lakatos and Kuhn (research program and paradigm, respectively).
Those references are a bit "shadowy", in the sense that research program and paradigm aren't defined properly. On the contrary, both LAkatos and Kuhn claim that science is unable to express verbally the basic truth it serves. On one hand they support that a possible improvement of those factors is equivalent to scientific revolution, but on the other hand they claim that there is no deductive method to improve this factor.
My mentor's approach is different from any other approach in the sense that it is accurate and complete.
Many times I have claimed that in this thread I have presented only a small piece of the puzzle. It took me several years to form a complete picture of my mentor's approach, so I totally understand any disagreements etc. It is impossible to form a complete picture out of fragmental references.
Consequently, I prefer specific questions or remarks to which I can try to answer properly. I think that it would be more prosperous for all of us to discuss a single subject at a time (e.g. how is a basic truth located, which is its role in science, how can we improve its quality and effectiveness, etc).
hi eff, thanks. No, i haven't contacted him yet. I'm not sure it will do any good. Although, what i think it might have a connection with is my ongoing desire & thoughts on asylum.
Please don't take this as an insult, because i wuv ya so much:), but to supercede Froyd, i've found is as easy as ignoring him completely. And going the entire opposite direction. For example, what would be better, a hypotheses, or to actually live the answer the scientist is looking for.
Looking for a cure? Or saving a life?
Another example. What would be better? To live the dream or dream the dream. What would be better? To think of the touch, or feel the touch.
If you had an experience, so jolting. Would you look to Froyd? Or would Froyd look to you.
Thank you, best wishes, & g'day
Please don't take this as an insult, because i wuv ya so much:), but to supercede Froyd, i've found is as easy as ignoring him completely. And going the entire opposite direction. For example, what would be better, a hypotheses, or to actually live the answer the scientist is looking for.
Looking for a cure? Or saving a life?
Another example. What would be better? To live the dream or dream the dream. What would be better? To think of the touch, or feel the touch.
If you had an experience, so jolting. Would you look to Froyd? Or would Froyd look to you.
Thank you, best wishes, & g'day
B2b,
my mentor, as a doctor, found cure in order to save lives- so, in my opinion, there is no dilemma: we can look for cures in order to save lives! There is no contradiction and no need to choose between those options. We can feel, dream AND find ways to help (cure) each other.
Furthermore, as a psychologist, I know that only knowledge can save lives.
Have a nice day,
Effie
my mentor, as a doctor, found cure in order to save lives- so, in my opinion, there is no dilemma: we can look for cures in order to save lives! There is no contradiction and no need to choose between those options. We can feel, dream AND find ways to help (cure) each other.
Furthermore, as a psychologist, I know that only knowledge can save lives.
Have a nice day,
Effie
-
mark black
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:28 am
'The Perception of Man' - odd title. What does that mean? Your posts suggests it means 'how man percieves' but it can equally be read as 'how man is percieved.' Such ambiguity is unusual in an accademic title. Lets have a look. I'm putting it into google, no, amazon, no, library of congress... My imaginary mentor says your mentor is fictitious - and my mentor wrote a book called 'Why they lie' so she should know.
She suggests that it's a combination of three things: First, laziness. Second, subject fantasizes of being smarter than everyone else. And thirdly, lack of confidence in that fantasy in the prescence of intelligent and well informed people.
Psychology: sociopathic fantasist.
IQ: Med.
EQ: Low to N/A.
Comments: Subject uses mentor fantasy to externalize obvious inadequacy of own ideas.
mb.
She suggests that it's a combination of three things: First, laziness. Second, subject fantasizes of being smarter than everyone else. And thirdly, lack of confidence in that fantasy in the prescence of intelligent and well informed people.
Psychology: sociopathic fantasist.
IQ: Med.
EQ: Low to N/A.
Comments: Subject uses mentor fantasy to externalize obvious inadequacy of own ideas.
mb.
Mark,
an answer straight from the source (my mentor):
Doubting the existence or the value of something (or someone) you do not know about is the best method not to know anything- ever!
Another criterion from Mark: something that cannot be found in google does not exist. Hmmmm.... A solid argument, indeed!
(btw, "perception of man" is the title of the book that has been published ONLY in GREEK. I never said that it has been published in English, I just translated the greek title....)
Nevertheless, I really appreciate the fact that, while you had said that you'd stop discussing with me, you continue reading my posts. I feel so honoured
Well, up to now not once have you addressed substantial criticism regarding my posts. You always use witticisms with which you try to offend me. I feel that you are unlucky, because I will never be insulted... but you may try, if you want it so much!! (I understand that aggressiveness and complexes seek their way out- this is a TRUE psychological profile, from a real psychologist!). You seem like a wannabe psychologist (since you try so hard to form my psychological profile), so here's an advice for you: a real psychologist would never even dream of expressing such arbitrary estimations regarding somebody else's mental state.
Anyway, I would be happy if you wanted to contribute anything useful to this thread (no, personal insults are not useful- although I find them hilarious,even if they're addressed to me-, but scientific judgement is).
Effie
an answer straight from the source (my mentor):
Doubting the existence or the value of something (or someone) you do not know about is the best method not to know anything- ever!
Another criterion from Mark: something that cannot be found in google does not exist. Hmmmm.... A solid argument, indeed!
(btw, "perception of man" is the title of the book that has been published ONLY in GREEK. I never said that it has been published in English, I just translated the greek title....)
Nevertheless, I really appreciate the fact that, while you had said that you'd stop discussing with me, you continue reading my posts. I feel so honoured
Well, up to now not once have you addressed substantial criticism regarding my posts. You always use witticisms with which you try to offend me. I feel that you are unlucky, because I will never be insulted... but you may try, if you want it so much!! (I understand that aggressiveness and complexes seek their way out- this is a TRUE psychological profile, from a real psychologist!). You seem like a wannabe psychologist (since you try so hard to form my psychological profile), so here's an advice for you: a real psychologist would never even dream of expressing such arbitrary estimations regarding somebody else's mental state.
Anyway, I would be happy if you wanted to contribute anything useful to this thread (no, personal insults are not useful- although I find them hilarious,even if they're addressed to me-, but scientific judgement is).
Effie