Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Addiction By Definition
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 71 of 331 (792624)
10-12-2016 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Phat
10-11-2016 3:07 AM


Re: Day 86
Phat writes:
Day 86 as I type this.
Go Phat, go!! You can do it!!!
I am involved in group therapy as well as working with a licensed addictions counselor.
Keep your head on your shoulders for the group therapy.
Having others around who also want to heal, and are around the same stage as you can be a powerful agent to help you in your journey.
Then again,
Having others around who may not be as strong as you can be a powerful agent to slipping back into trouble.
Group therapy has it's good parts and bad parts.
Just try to keep your head up and remained focused and do your thing and you should be fine!
Anxiety is harder to face since it cannot be defined.
Yup. It's a tough one.
Hopefully your counselor has some good advice.
Pretty much any advice dealing with controlling instincts is easier said than done.
Hopefully you can find something that resonates and motivates you.
For me, it's something along the lines of what they say in the Dune book series - "Fear is the mind-killer."
That is, when you're in trouble... the way to give yourself the best-chance to deal with it is to have a clear mind so you can think and make conscious decisions and avoid panic. Fear leads directly to panic, which is reacting instinctively and removing your mind (your best-chance to survive) from the equation.
Instincts give you *a* chance to survive the situation.
Your mind (thinking and making conscious decisions) gives you your *best* chance to survive the situation.
Good luck!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Phat, posted 10-11-2016 3:07 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 81 of 331 (793344)
10-26-2016 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Phat
10-25-2016 2:53 PM


Re: Day 100 and beginning to feel fear
You can do it, Phat!
Who knew that the new-you (one no longer in the habit of gambling and drinking) could come with some new-emotions?
Hang in there, and keep fighting the good fight.
100 days, whoo!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Phat, posted 10-25-2016 2:53 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 84 of 331 (793383)
10-27-2016 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Phat
10-26-2016 5:42 PM


Re: Day 100 and beginning to feel fear
Phat writes:
my hope and prayer is that by my journaling this stuff, perhaps others can someday follow the sober path.
Doing it for science!
Ha ha

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Phat, posted 10-26-2016 5:42 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 156 of 331 (797494)
01-22-2017 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Phat
01-21-2017 12:15 PM


Re: Irrationality and Addiction Day 188
Phat writes:
Day 188
Nice! Keep going! It only gets easier... I say without any personal experience in such things
Phat writes:
Has anyone noticed that as my brain is healing from my addiction, my irrational beliefs seem to have taken on a temporary emotional obsession?
Dont get me wrong...I am a believer as always, but my arguments seem petty, desperate, and not rational lately. I am attributing this to mental healing, though am at a loss to explain why I am getting worse.
I haven't noticed anything. And others seem to ring similar sentiments. Perhaps this is something you're only noticing from inside your own mind?
I would like to point something out, though:
...petty, desperate, and not rational lately. I am attributing this to mental healing, though am at a loss to explain why I am getting worse.
I have no issues labeling such traits as "worse." (But I don't see any of this in your posts).
My issue is that just before this you mention a "temporary emotional obsession."
I would like to point out that "emotions" never make anything "worse."
Emotions themselves are the way humans work... we have emotions, we're human.
The only "worse" thing emotions can bring is if you follow them without using your intellect to monitor and guide your actions.
For example: Road rage. Simply "following the emotions" of road rage is a bad thing. However, if you use your intellect to monitor and guide your actions, and accept the emotion for what it is - a human feeling of rage - you put that emotion to good use - focusing more on safe driving habits.
There's nothing "wrong" or bad about emotions. If there was, there would be something fundamentally wrong/bad about being human. Because humans have emotions.
There's only wrong or bad choices or actions following those emotions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Phat, posted 01-21-2017 12:15 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Phat, posted 01-24-2017 11:18 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 219 of 331 (830039)
03-20-2018 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Phat
03-19-2018 5:02 PM


Re: Day 91 and also Day 4
Phat writes:
Now, again resolved, strong, and sober, I begin to attack my other major addiction---to sugar, carbs, and unhealthy eating.
Yeah! Go Phat!!
The only gamble Phat should ever make... is betting on Phat.
You have absolutely no control over any of those other gambles involving money or health or sobriety or whatever other 3rd-party vice pulls at you.
But you have lots of control over Phat.
Phat's done it before, and Phat has the ability to improve Phat's environment. Therefore, Phat can do it again, and better!
Go Phat Go!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Phat, posted 03-19-2018 5:02 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 274 of 331 (850198)
04-03-2019 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Phat
04-03-2019 10:12 AM


Re: Addicted To Jesus
Phat writes:
What is it that "they" have in common?
The desire for the belief to be accepted as real.
This desire could be for many different reasons:
-personal, private mental-health reasons
-personal "afraid to be wrong" reasons
-controlling other people reasons
-monetary greedy reasons
...(I'm sure there's plenty more I'm not listing)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Phat, posted 04-03-2019 10:12 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 276 of 331 (850201)
04-03-2019 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Porkncheese
04-03-2019 10:42 AM


Re: Addicted To Jesus
Porkncheese writes:
The belief in no kind of God without evidence is just as irrational isn't it?
It would be, yes. But that's not what's happening.
How is it any different?
Holding a tentative position that aligns with all the available information/evidence is extremely rational.
It might very well be the definition of "rational."
For more information, please see:
I Know That God Does Not Exist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Porkncheese, posted 04-03-2019 10:42 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 287 of 331 (850446)
04-08-2019 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Porkncheese
04-05-2019 6:52 PM


Porkncheese writes:
Stile writes:
Holding a tentative position that aligns with all the available information/evidence is extremely rational.
So if an atheist tells me there is no God it would be rational for me to say there is according to your logic.
As long as you can show that God's existence aligns with all the available information/evidence - yes.
Unfortunately, we have searched for God for years and found "no God." In fact, everywhere we've been able to get a concrete answer - that answer specifically functions without the need for God.
Lightning - no God
Famine - no God
Plentiful food - no God
Love - no God
Hate - no God
Therefore, the rational position is to think that God does not exist.
It's easy to change, though - all you have to do is provide evidence that God exists. Then it would be rational to believe all the stories of "well, God just isn't there when you look for Him."
Without evidence of God's existence, though - it's rational to stick with the evidence we do have - "no God."
A tentative position would be agnostic as we don't have all the info/evidence available.
We don't have all the info/evidence for anything - but when we have a lot of info/evidence, it's rational to go with the evidence - "no God."
People have been searching for evidence of God for over thousands of years. If that's not enough info/evidence of "no God" for you - perhaps you're not being rational.
Eg. I have a beard. Do u believe me?
I don't know.
Post a picture - if you have a beard, I'll believe you. If not, I won't.
Or - let's say a vast portion of the human population diligently searched for the existence of your beard for a few thousand years - and no evidence of your beard could ever be found. And every time they found evidence - it aligned with you not having a beard (lots of pictures of you - but never a beard; your bathroom always has shavers and toiletries for getting rid of beards; your weekly garbage always has male facial hair in it.)
Do you think, then, it would be rational to believe that you didn't have a beard?
How rational would it be to believe you did have a beard in the face of such evidence?
Even if "your followers" (who actually never met you, and only started talking of you decades after your death) told conflicting stories of you having a beard? Even if there was "evidence" of you having a beard in the form of people finding pictures of you with a beard appearing in burnt toast?
I think the rational position is obvious.
Just as it is with God.
By all means, please continue this analogy where you having a beard is similar to God's existence. It provides for some very, very funny material.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Porkncheese, posted 04-05-2019 6:52 PM Porkncheese has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 301 of 331 (850683)
04-12-2019 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Phat
04-12-2019 9:40 AM


Re: The Science and Theory of Addiction
Phat writes:
I disagree. Not every decision that I make is rational. Some decisions are impulsive. Some decisions are fantasy based.
I think the difference is making a decision vs. a reaction.
Instinctual reaction = something you do as an impulse, something you don't use your brain in order to "choose" to do.
Decision = something you use your brain to choose to do. Although decisions may be 'impulsive' (made on little information) or 'fantasy based' (made on information that is not factual) - they are all still decisions that we choose - and we also choose when to make that decision... whether it's done on little information, or on information we know may not be verified against reality.
That is, if you decide to make an impulsive or fantasy based decision - it's still a 'rational decision' you're making... that is, you want to make this decision right away for whatever-reason-here (greed of short-term gain, desire of big-pay-out possibility...)
If you are not deciding to make an impulsive or fantasy based decision - then, obviously, it's not a decision - it's an instinctual reaction - a reflex.
If "the Beast" is used to represent anything above an instinctual reaction (reflex) - then it's being used as a scapegoat for the decisions you're making.
Phat writes:
Not every decision that I make is rational.
I think you're attempting to define "rational" to mean "every aspect of the decision is rational from beginning to end."
But that's not what a "rational decision" is meant to define - such a decision may not exist anywhere, anytime, on the entire planet.
A "rational decision" is one where you choose one thing over another for a specific reason.
Just because that reason is "greed" or "the possibility of a big pay out" doesn't mean you didn't "make the decision rationally."
It just means that you rationally-chose an irrational possibility.
It was still a choice - there's no such thing as a human reflex to put money in a one-armed-bandit and pull the lever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Phat, posted 04-12-2019 9:40 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Phat, posted 04-12-2019 10:59 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 306 by Phat, posted 04-13-2019 10:42 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 312 of 331 (850887)
04-16-2019 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by Phat
04-13-2019 10:42 AM


Re: The Science and Theory of Addiction
I think we're still very far apart on agreeing what "rational" means.
Phat writes:
Stile writes:
Instinctual reaction = something you do as an impulse, something you don't use your brain in order to "choose" to do.
Two examples:
  • Going to the kitchen and grabbing a bag of chips or your favorite comfort food with no rational regard as to the caloric value, nutritional value, or actual need for such food at that point in time.
  • Attending a Billy Graham crusade and being emotionally swayed by the message and then impulsively choosing to step forward and receive the free gift from Jesus Christ.
I don't agree with either of these examples as an instinctual reaction.
An instinctual reaction, to me, is something that happens without choosing to do so - like pulling your hand back when it touches something hot. Or jumping up when someone pops a balloon behind you.
But going to the kitchen and grabbing a bag of chips?
How is that done without choosing to do so?
You may do it without regarding caloric value or what it may do to your body.
But you're still deciding to walk to the kitchen, get a bag of chips, and begin to eat them - no?
Perhaps you do it "because I'm hungry and it's there" or "because I like the salty taste."
-These are rational decisions based on these desires.
If you're hungry - why isn't it rational to eat what's there?
If you want salt - why isn't it rational to eat something that's salty?
They are rational within their own context.
They are also "not good for you."
But just because there's a negative aspect involved does not make the edecision "irrational."
It only makes the decision "irrational if you hold being healthy over eating-whats-there or eating-something-salty."
The decision being rational/irrational is judged depending on exactly why the decision was made and how it was made.
That is, if "eating what's there" or "eating something salty" is a higher priority to you then "eating something healthy."
-Then it's entirely rational to eat a bag of chips.
To push this point to the limit, try this:
If you walk around your house 5 times in order to ward off the fluffy jiggle monster - this can be seen as "unproductive." And I'm sure some would even call it "irrational." - But what they mean is that this is "irrational in order to protect your house because fluffy jiggle monsters do not exist."
But what if you didn't know that fluffy jiggle monsters didn't exist?
If you think there actually is such a thing as a fluffy jiggle monster, and that walking around your house 5 times actually will ward it off... Then it is a "rational decision" to walk around your house 5 times to ward off the fluffy jiggle monster. - Based on the information and experiences you have available to you (feelings count as "information.")
It may not be rational to think a fluffy jiggle monster exists.
It may not be rational to think that walking around your house 5 times will ward one off.
But if you do think/accept such axioms (regardless of the reason) - then, based on that information - it is a rational decision to decide to walk around your house 5 times to ward off the fluffy jiggle monster.
Same thing with your Billy Graham example.
Being emotionally swayed (or following peer-pressure) is a rational decision.
It may be based on false/incorrect/irrational information when regarding something else as a higher priority - but if you accept that information (the emotional power, or the peer-pressure power), and you decide to act on it regardless of other priorities - that is a rational decision.
Neither of these can be considered "instinctual reactions."
Hence why I agreed that belief is irrational from a scientific perspective.
I think you're implying that "rational/irrational" is defined by being able to be verified/contradicted by factual reality.
But that's not what the word means.
It may be the "default context" used most of the time - but it is still only referring to a single context.
When used in such context - most people just leave off the ending in order to save time and everyone knows what they mean.
That is, "rational" is sometimes used to short-form "rational when identifying factual validation."
But "rational" itself means:
Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Notice that there is no mention of "validated against factual reality" - because that is not actually mandatory in order for a decision to be "rational."
The "reason or logic" isn't necessarily factual with reality - like the fluffy jiggle monster - as long as it's reasonable and logical based on the available/accepted information - it's "rational."
In the case of the bandit, it was more of an impulse based on Brainlock. Why would anyone ever willingly give a bandit any money?
Again - not an impulse in the sense of an instinctual reaction.
This is a rational decision.
People willingly give a bandit money in the hopes of a large payout.
This idea itself (if done over and over) can cause the brain lock - but it's still all rational decisions based on the reasoning of the accepted information ("I will win the big payout!")

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Phat, posted 04-13-2019 10:42 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Phat, posted 07-08-2019 10:16 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 315 of 331 (857394)
07-08-2019 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by Phat
07-08-2019 10:16 AM


Re: The Science and Theory of Addiction
Thugpreacha writes:
A child can rationalize having candy before dinner. So can an adult, but adults usually have more experience with such decisions and adjust their rationale accordingly. Anyone can want (or think they need) a drink of alcohol...but given the information available concerning the long range effects on the individual, the rational mind adjusts its choices accordingly whereas the animal brain plugs its ears.
I think you are oversimplifying things.
Please understand that the following words all have their own definitions and do not necessarily overlap (although it happens on occasion
Rational
Instinct
Right
Wrong
True
False
Once you understand that a similar experience: "Feeling thirsty and choosing to drink some water" can easily be instinctual one time, yet a rational decision another... then you can proceed in this vein of thought.
Without understanding that... you're simply a bull in an antique shop crashing towards the conclusion you've (somehow) already decided is correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Phat, posted 07-08-2019 10:16 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024