OG 79

[micht]

When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply,"No." Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is dissociated from the part that replies.

Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted explanation described above?

(A)Why does the part that replies not answer,"Yes"?
(B)why are the observed facts in need of any special explanation?
(C)Why do the subjects appear to accept the hypnotist's suggestion that they are deaf?
(D)Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the same way in the situation described?
(E)Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?



ANS: (A)

誰幫我裡解一下這一題~~@_@

[魚]

When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply,"No." Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is dissociated from the part that replies.

Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted explanation described above?

(A)Why does the part that replies not answer,"Yes"?
(B)why are the observed facts in need of any special explanation?
(C)Why do the subjects appear to accept the hypnotist's suggestion that they are deaf?
(D)Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the same way in the situation described?
(E)Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?



ANS: (A)

誰幫我裡解一下這一題~~@_@

micht , try to check the BF sentence again , i mark the key word now.
it's the reason why. :)

[micht]

deaf 和 reply disassociated?

為什麼reply不會答YES? 如果disassociated?? 不知道自己deaf?? or

請~魚~~用金指~點通我一下~~

[魚]

沒關係 ,再來 ,沒說完全是我不好 :-$ (想偷懶)

妳看 , 文章中說, self of Hy 已經 dissociated into separate parts.

但是 , 妳看 , 如果這些Hy 如 explaintion 所assert的 各部分都已經各管各的了.

那 "意識" 應該跟"真實"是分開的

她們應該搞不清楚 自己是不是deaf .


所以 如果這個explination成立 ,現唱應該是亂七八糟 一團

有人說 YES , 有人說NO , 有人胡說八道說 : 我是海珊我是海珊

有人說 : 我是周星星 我是周星星 .........

大概是醬子, 希望夠清楚. :-$

[Jessy]

魚~~ 這個解釋夠經典 (Y) (Y) (Y)

[micht]

呵~~~~ 原來是降阿~~~~~^_^!! 了

thanks 魚 好怪的題目~@_@~之前老師有講可訴忘記了

[agk99]

魚這樣子簡直是來亂的

micht乖，你直接看解釋很清楚地
題目中不是告訴你，看到這些人回答NO 科學家就下結論，原來腦子是被割成兩塊的
一塊是會回答的，一半是真的聽不到的

請你削弱他

那麼，既然有一半會回答，那應該這一塊是和聽不到那塊分開壓，為什麼講NO
要講yes呀

[micht]

魚這樣子簡直是來亂的

micht乖，你直接看解釋很清楚地
題目中不是告訴你，看到這些人回答NO 科學家就下結論，原來腦子是被割成兩塊的
一塊是會回答的，一半是真的聽不到的

請你削弱他

那麼，既然有一半會回答，那應該這一塊是和聽不到那塊分開壓，為什麼講NO
要講yes呀

嗯..江璞的筆記也訴這麼說 什麼頭腦分兩塊

一邊reply 一邊deaf?

reply不知道deaf那邊發生什麼事
所以 人家問"你聽的到嗎?" reply則回答"NO"

Weaken
reply繼然聽不到 為什麼要回答"NO" 而不是"YES"呢?

agk99是不是這樣
結論是 如果真的分開來的話~~ reply 應該會同時說 "NO YES NO YES"


什麼題目呀~@_@

[魚]

:'( 我不是來亂滴耶 ,


Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is dissociated from the part that replies.
翻譯 : 被催眠者的自我分成好幾個部份,而這些部分跟”負責回應”的部份是分開的


The explanation’s obvious weakness, therefore, is that it fails to indicate why the part that replies would reply as if it were the part that is deaf.
翻譯 : 這個explanation’s obvious weakness就是it fails to indicate為何負責 “”回答””的那塊 會回答出 “我是籠子”

=>因為,如果各項機能都已經分開了 那 意識區 (自己是巃子) 與反應區(聽到訊息後回答)應該沒有連結作用
也就是說 反應區並無法得知 “自己是不是籠子”


參考一下吧

[Behemoth]

魚這樣子簡直是來亂的

micht乖，你直接看解釋很清楚地
題目中不是告訴你，看到這些人回答NO 科學家就下結論，原來腦子是被割成兩塊的
一塊是會回答的，一半是真的聽不到的

請你削弱他

那麼，既然有一半會回答，那應該這一塊是和聽不到那塊分開壓，為什麼講NO
要講yes呀

嗯..江璞的筆記也訴這麼說 什麼頭腦分兩塊

一邊reply 一邊deaf?

reply不知道deaf那邊發生什麼事
所以 人家問"你聽的到嗎?" reply則回答"NO"

Weaken
reply繼然聽不到 為什麼要回答"NO" 而不是"YES"呢?

agk99是不是這樣
結論是 如果真的分開來的話~~ reply 應該會同時說 "NO YES NO YES"


什麼題目呀~@_@

米客踢你都想的很通透了啊~~

就是既然是分開的,那他為什麼會回答no呢

因為分開的,那這一塊跟另一塊就不相干了

那問聽不聽得到應該就要回答yes啊,因為要回答no的那塊根本聽不到嘛,他要怎麼回答呢

[soami]

小弟的看法是

題目說到一群被催眠成聾子的人，被催眠師問聽不聽的到他們可以回答(照常理來說聾子是聽不到任何聲音的)

而科學家爲了解釋聾子為什麼可以聽到聲音並且回答，提出被催眠者的腦子分為二部份，一部份可是真的聾了，另外一部份是清醒可以回答問題的。


　題目問如何ｗｅａｋｅｎ科學家的論點？

　選項A：為什麼清醒的那部份不回答yes

如果真如科學家所說，清醒的那部份負責回答同時也負責聽，如果被催眠師問到聽不聽的到? 清醒的那部份應該回答yes，我
聽的到(正常反應，因為我沒聾阿 ~~~)，而不是no，推翻了科學家的論點。

呼呼 ~ 想了好久 有錯請指教 :P



　

[marchmarch]

(E)Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?
請問E選項要如何翻譯呀？ (Y)

[soami]

(E)Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?
請問E選項要如何翻譯呀？ (Y)

為什麼每個被催眠的人腦部同樣都是分成這幾塊？ :P

[micht]

When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply,"No." Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is dissociated from the part that replies.
Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted explanation described above?

(A)Why does the part that replies not answer,"Yes"?

前面大家已經清楚解釋了一番

今天再讓我回頭看看這一題..........

當某人被催眠師催眠說他聾了 但當被問"你聽到到嗎?"
此人回答"聽不到"
一些thoerists試著想解說為何 被催眠聾了的人 還可以回答"我聽不見"
thoeorists指出~這是因為 被催眠的人身體各部是分開的 (就當它算是靈魂出竅好了) 因為被分開 所以負責回答的那個part不知道身體某部份聾了

可是這也很奇怪 既然分離了為什麼 負責回答的那part會回答NO 不是YES?
分離了那根本不知道到底應該要回答YES or NO. 因為根本不清楚到底發生什麼事?

[soami]

When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply,"No." Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is dissociated from the part that replies.
Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted explanation described above?

(A)Why does the part that replies not answer,"Yes"?

前面大家已經清楚解釋了一番

今天再讓我回頭看看這一題..........

當某人被催眠師催眠說他聾了 但當被問"你聽到到嗎?"
此人回答"聽不到"
一些thoerists試著想解說為何 被催眠聾了的人 還可以回答"我聽不見"
thoeorists指出~這是因為 被催眠的人身體各部是分開的 (就當它算是靈魂出竅好了) 因為被分開 所以負責回答的那個part不知道身體某部份聾了

可是這也很奇怪 既然分離了為什麼 負責回答的那part會回答NO 不是YES?
分離了那根本不知道到底應該要回答YES or NO. 因為根本不清楚到底發生什麼事?

這個題目會讓人想太多，先不管聽到聲音的人知不知道他被催眠了，
只要被問到你有聽見我說話嗎，只要能聽的到的人都會回答yes !!

我想waken論點就是在這：聽到的聲音的人會回答說他是聾子他聽不到嗎?