[third_I]

No, it's precisely the same idea.

Biology did not change. Perceptions and expression of it did change. It does not mean the inner biological processes are any different, just the way you consciously select what to say about them. Absence of words (context) means you cannot express certain things; does not mean you don't actually feel them. Romantic love for instance is a quite modern thing, the way we speak of it today. Does not mean people did not feel it before.

Please reconsider your take and vote, you misinterpreted my points I'm afraid. Or at least, make a worthy counter-argument, a click is simply too easy IMHO.

[lidHanteyk]

Oh, I didn't downvote you. I replied instead. I'm used to systems that punish voting and replying in the same thread. Indeed, I won't ever downvote folks like you, since I'm usually punished by that very same system. Instead, I will shove words into your ears and drag you, kicking and screaming, to reason.

I gave you a worthy counter-argument; I gave you a single-sentence dilemma which was intended to refute your entire platform. You may want to re-read Pirsig's thoughts on dilemmas [4] before you reply.

The entirety of psychology, as a theory, is based upon cultural assumptions about inner experiences. There are important arguments against the ideas that people have inner experiences [0], that people are thinking when they talk [1], that therapy is effective due to its design rather than due to being a safe place to reflect [2], and even that mental disorders exist as opposed to being part of the spectrum of the human condition [3].

If you cannot tackle these foundational issues at all times, then your arguments ought to be considered no more strongly than the original author, by your own words, since you are not a psychologist either.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo_bird_verdict

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanism

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Horns_of_a_dilemma

[third_I]

Oh I love that reply. Thank you for that.

Great food for thought. You do in effect widen the topic so much, the very axioms underlying my assumptions, and that's extremely valuable to me. I think I see your point, now. you took me off-guard, I wasn't expecting this direction and failed to see what you meant.

I will yield to your logic (in particular the last sentence). I may deplore that it makes the whole topic kind of moot, but that's my feelings, not an argument whatsoever (my bias shows I suppose).

Now, I will just reaffirm that I'm parroting much more expert views. Such topics are one of my pet peeves, been thinking about it quite deeply since I was 12-ish (37 now). Lots of reading over the years. Lots of discussions with 'experts'. I've no professional qualification in psychology however, that's true.

All these questions, "did we cognitively think differently?", "did we feel differently?", "were we in any way significantly different that a modern psychologist couldn't do their thing on a Classic Roman?", "have we changed so much that someone from the past would be lost in the modern world if they were raised in it?"... they all met a resounding "no".

That's what I was trying to express. Based on this unanimous, quite consensual view, how could something as "simple" and common as PTSD not exist back then? It's a really extraordinary claim, thus the burden of proof falls on the claimant, I reckon.

Whether or not we are zombies (I think we are, to a much larger extent than we'd be comfortable admitting for now), that zombie today is exactly the same as all zombies prior, and yet to come, for a long, long time (year 10,000 is too soon, 50,000 might be a low threshold unless we dramatically sped up genetic mutations and selection).

I don't have much more to say. I could probably write a short novel, but what's the point. I'm not even defending the point, just stating consensus. It is, as you correctly imply, not my place to put forward or argue such ideas with authority. But you'll have to go against the whole field of psychology to counter it (I will be eating popcorn as you drag them to reason ;-) )

Hopefully, this tempers a possibly exaggerated authority I may have suggested in my OP. I'll blame my writing style now and learn my lesson, I'll be more cautious and reasonable next time.

(I also stand corrected about the downvoting, so that's on me, my bad. Much respect for your approach, then.)

Now, I'm off reading all these nice links. Thanks again (upvoted both your posts, for a solid contribution to discussion, regardless of my opinion).