Do you think that your mind is inviolable?

Question

Do you think that some people have the capacity to read others minds?

Thanks a lot.

Answer 1

Yes indeedy JL it most certainly is. To know life and understand the world is to calmly stroll upon its many paths untouched or unsullied ...

Answer 2

Currently, yes. But with enough advances in technology, that will change.

Answer 3

Only those very close to you can 'claim' to read your mind...but for that also they need to watch for other signals like your body language and moods...at the most they can make a successful attempt!!!  

No one can read anyone else's mind,  unless you drop hints without actually knowing what you are doing.  

'Inviolable"?  I don't think any one has that kind of will-power or control or faith to remain unaffected by what's going around him/her.  We all get affected by other people's opinions/personality (Be it political,  philosophical or personal) to some degree...some more than the others.  Our mind is always absorbing such influences and thus goes our life full of twists and turns.

Answer 4

The mind is a cruel hoax your brain exacts upon you for it can not truly be said to exist.

Answer 5

Yes

Answer 6

No one can do this. But you can guess a bit.  

Answer 7

I thought inviolable meant impregnable to assault!!  So as much as I wish my mind was, I have to confess its not.  The world overwhelms me sometimes - but I've realised recently I'm one of the lucky ones. But sure a closed mind will eventually start to decline, and why would anyone want that?

As for reading minds, then yes I do believe others are more receptive to the thoughts and feelings of others.

Answer 8

Yes !!!!!

Answer 9

only a part is left inviolable

and yes when you know sb so much you can be able to read their minds=know their next move

Answer 10

I'm sending you a very interesting article.

Please, read it:

"This article is about the concept of the meta model in Neuro-linguistic Programming.  

USES

Therapy

The meta-model in neuro-linguistic programming (or meta-model of therapy) is a heuristic set of questions intended to elaborate and clarify information as well as challenge and expand the limits to a person's model of the world. It responds to the linguistic distortions, generalizations, and deletions in the speaker's language. The meta model forms the basis of Neuro-linguistic programming as developed by then assistant professors of linguistics, John Grinder and Richard Bandler .Grinder and Bandler "explained how people create faulty mental maps of reality, failing to test their linguistic / cognitive models against the experience of their senses."

The meta model draws on transformational grammar and general semantics, the idea that language is a translation of mental states into words, and that in this translation, there are unconscious processes of deletion (not everything thought is said), distortion (assumptions and structural inaccuracies) and generalization (a shift towards absolute statements). Likewise in hearing, not everything said is acknowledged as heard.

These language patterns were based on the work of family therapist Virginia Satir, gestalt therapist Fritz Perls and linguistic patterns from Transformational syntax. It is claimed that the Meta-model "yields a fuller representation of the client's model of the world - the linguistic Deep Structure from which the client's initial verbal expressions or Surface Structure, were derived" by offering challenges to its limits, the distortions, generalizations or deletions in the speaker's language. The reverse set of the meta-model is the Milton-model; a collection of artfully vague language patterns elicited from the work of Milton Erickson."

As you can see, the mind is not inviolable.

Answer 11

Note to Cappy,

Transformational  Grammar has been obsolete for many years. In the light of current work in Cognitive Linguistics, I am not sure the application in NLP of Deep Structure as it was imagined thirty years ago could be defended, even if Deep Structure per se could.

Who knows which of the myriad theoretical successors to Deep Structure would have any relevance to NLP as described in your quote? After all, the original problem with Deep Structure was precisely that it was an attempt to evacuate linguistic representation of meaning altogether, in order to obtain a strictly formal algorithm that covered everything. In the 50's, 60's and 70's, linguistics in America was dominated by attempts to reduce the entire field to a set of computer engineering problems. Deep Structure was a h**l-hole for all kinds of semantic issues that were effectively dismissed.

What is particularly galling about NLP is that it links linguistic and psychological forms with naïve straightforwardness, as in the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis of yesteryear, under which speakers of different languages were predicted to have different perceptions of reality in general. To my knowledge, this intuitively appealing theory has not been successfully applied once in seventy years to the analysis of any specific set of language data.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is also not consistent with a favoured component of the Chomskyan theory of Deep Structure, namely the notion of a specialized 'language faculty', claimed to handle linguistic representations independently of general cognition.

On the other hand, current work in Cognitive Linguistics has produced compelling evidence that much of linguistic structure is actually semantic, and that this semantic structure is part of general cognition, not of the 'language faculty', insofar as such a faculty can be shown to exist. These semantic structures, or rather the set of possible structures, are almost certainly universal. Current  theory thus differs sharply on various points from both Transformational Grammar and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

I can't imagine how NLP could draw on and reconcile these various frameworks in the light of current work, nor indeed how this was managed at earlier stages of their development.

In response to whether the mind is inviolable, I should say that it will be some time before the tools of linguistic science can be used properly just to promote plain old language learning and effective speech & writing, never mind telepathy.

Answer 12

huh?

Answer 13

Inviolable?   LOL

I'm afraid my mind gets f*cked on a regular basis.

And MOST people eventually develop a sense of what others are thinking.  Don't know if it's 'psychic' but it's very much what are minds are evolved for, which is to predict the thoughts and actions of others.