So...Psychology: science or not?

[MattusMaximus]

I said it once and I'll say it again:

The problem is about Consciousness

I think one of the most interesting & current paradigms in psychology is that of cognitive psychology and/or neuropsychology. Essentially one of the principles is that "mind" or "consciousness" is the result of an emergent phenomenon due to the interaction of billions of neurons and glial cells. To me, the thing that separates this field from earlier fields of psychology is the fact that we can now use technologies such as functional MRI to actual study mental processes in situ. So, in my admittedly uninformed opinion, I would now say that cognitive & neuro-psychology seem to be the most scientific that psychology has ever been.

I've just recently been learning about this - I think it was Steven Pinker's work that got me interested in the first place.

 

[Dancing David]

You are right! I definitely don't!
(Science, by the way, does not "assign a meaning to 'temperature'". It finds out what heat (and the lack of it) is.)

Thank you, you prove my point, first you refuse to define what the 'mind' might be, so then you can sit on your glass hill and not have to defend any notions that you might have from critical examination.

then you totaly have a private defintition of what science is,

here is the capsule version:
a. humans have thoughts and perceptions
b. some thoughts and perceptions have validity to predicting the observed behavior of reality
c. science is a method through reduction and replication of determining the benefit of the model for predicting the behavior of reality.

Um, your definition of temperature is rather, uh vague, temperature is a gradient used to measure the kinetic motion of a gas, fluid or solid, orginally usually through the expansion of a fluid or air in a closed cylinder or globe of some sort. More moderm methods may involve the interaction of electrical currents and the resistance gradient to determine the kinetic motion of the molecules being measured.

See you don't get it do you, so maybe start with 'heat'. There are no absolutes, except for the behaviors of the objects in reality. The words only take meaning through definition, which is idiomatic, contextual and self referential but ultimatly only getting meaning from reference to the behavior of objects.

So , no defintion for mind, then no way to measure it, is there? So that makes it nice and safe and also not open to verification as a predictor of the behavior of reality.

 

[Dancing David]

I said it once and I'll say it again:

The problem is about Consciousness

Oh great, you define it and then we can discuss it in science terms?

Okay?



Behaviorism doesn't have a problem with it, philosophy does.

 

[GreyICE]

It seems logical to assume the mind exists. Occam's razor demands it. If individual minds don't exist, there's an awful lot of trouble going on to make it look exactly like individual minds do exist. The simplest explaination is that we each have an individual mind, and they share certain characteristics.

 

[Jeff Corey]

... To me, the thing that separates this field from earlier fields of psychology is the fact that we can now use technologies such as functional MRI to actual study mental processes in situ.

No. We are studying behavior, not mental processes. Studying the output of a single neuron is still studying the behavior of some organism. As well as studying the release of neurotransmitters or the key peck of a pigeon in an operant conditioning chamber.
It's all frigging behavior. Observable behavior.
Never mind.

 

[Jeff Corey]

It seems logical to assume the mind exists. Occam's razor demands it. If individual minds don't exist, there's an awful lot of trouble going on to make it look exactly like individual minds do exist. The simplest explaination is that we each have an individual mind, and they share certain characteristics.

Cut that out.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I said it once and I'll say it again:

The problem is about Consciousness[/URL]

So, what's the problem? I'm conscious right now. Later I probably will be unconscious for about 7 hours and then, conscious again. Unless the trouble and strife has a snoring episode where she sounds like she's about to inhale her epiglottis.
Behaviorists have no problem with admitting we are conscious. We know there are many ways to operationally define and measure various aspects of it. We consider thinking to be a private event, as yet unmeasurable by Homeland Security.
And we don't believe that appealing to mentalistic explanations helps us to understand the material word we reside in.

 

[GreyICE]

Cut that out.

 

[Jeff Corey]

What? You don't like Occam jokes? I never thought he was that sharp.

 

[GreyICE]

What? You don't like Occam jokes? I never thought he was that sharp.

I totally need a :groan: smilie for exactly this.

 

[MattusMaximus]

No. We are studying behavior, not mental processes. Studying the output of a single neuron is still studying the behavior of some organism. As well as studying the release of neurotransmitters or the key peck of a pigeon in an operant conditioning chamber.
It's all frigging behavior. Observable behavior.
Never mind.

I suppose I should clarify what I mentioned before about functional MRI studies of the brain. There must be some kind of stimulus and response involved - which, if I recall correctly, is like the meat & potatoes of behaviorism - but what is different is that instead of simply examining the external manifestations (your pigeon pecking the key, for instance) what the neuropsychologists are doing is examining what's going on inside the brain and nervous system as the stimulus & response is working out.

So in one sense behaviorism is scientific in that you can conduct controlled experiments to examine certain phenomena. However, behaviorism strikes me as more empirically-based; because of its deeper analysis of cognitive functions in situ with the stimulus & response, it seems to me that neuropsychology is addressing more fundamental questions beyond simple empiricism.

However, bear in mind that I'm no psychologist. I'm just going on what I've learned recently about the field - so take what I have to say with a grain of salt.

Now, as to the entire question of "mind", I think I'll have to agree that before that whole question can be hashed out we'd need to have a working definition first of what "mind" is. Anyone got an idea where to start on that?

 

[GreyICE]

I suppose I should clarify what I mentioned before about functional MRI studies of the brain. There must be some kind of stimulus and response involved - which, if I recall correctly, is like the meat & potatoes of behaviorism - but what is different is that instead of simply examining the external manifestations (your pigeon pecking the key, for instance) what the neuropsychologists are doing is examining what's going on inside the brain and nervous system as the stimulus & response is working out.

So in one sense behaviorism is scientific in that you can conduct controlled experiments to examine certain phenomena. However, behaviorism strikes me as more empirically-based; because of its deeper analysis of cognitive functions in situ with the stimulus & response, it seems to me that neuropsychology is addressing more fundamental questions beyond simple empiricism.

However, bear in mind that I'm no psychologist. I'm just going on what I've learned recently about the field - so take what I have to say with a grain of salt.

Now, as to the entire question of "mind", I think I'll have to agree that before that whole question can be hashed out we'd need to have a working definition first of what "mind" is. Anyone got an idea where to start on that?

I'm going out on a limb here and saying 'that thing we think with.'

 

[MattusMaximus]

I'm going out on a limb here and saying 'that thing we think with.'

Okay, but what constitutes "thinking"? What are the actual physical & cognitive processes involved in "thinking"? This is why I find the stuff that neuropsychologists are doing to be fascinating - it seems to me that they're trying to address these sort of questions in a quantitative manner.

 

[GreyICE]

Okay, but what constitutes "thinking"? What are the actual physical & cognitive processes involved in "thinking"? This is why I find the stuff that neuropsychologists are doing to be fascinating - it seems to me that they're trying to address these sort of questions in a quantitative manner.

I'd say you're asking to define what they're studying by developing a complete theory for exactly how it works. It's like developing a Theory of Everything so you can define physics.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I'd say you're asking to define what they're studying by developing a complete theory for exactly how it works. It's like developing a Theory of Everything so you can define physics.

Ah, I think I see your point here. I suppose that if you think of "mind" as the sum total of cognitive processes, then you're right - though some people might adhere more meaning to the term than that.

The thing that still confuses the heck out of me is looking at the question either through a reductionist lens or an emergent-process lens. In other words, do you look at it as breaking down the "mind" into little pieces and seeing how they work or can you not really do that because a "mind" is basically non-existent until you have some certain minimal amount of neural connections and it is therefore an emergent phenomenon.

I freely admit that I'm swimming in ignorance on this one. I just find the whole discussion fascinating.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm going out on a limb here and saying 'that thing we think with.'

Okay, so why not just call it a brain, why add the ghost in the machine?

 

[Dancing David]

I'd say you're asking to define what they're studying by developing a complete theory for exactly how it works. It's like developing a Theory of Everything so you can define physics.

Not really, it is asking for a defintion. Otherwise there is nothing to study.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I suppose I should clarify what I mentioned before about functional MRI studies of the brain. There must be some kind of stimulus and response involved - which, if I recall correctly, is like the meat & potatoes of behaviorism - but what is different is that instead of simply examining the external manifestations (your pigeon pecking the key, for instance) what the neuropsychologists are doing is examining what's going on inside the brain and nervous system as the stimulus & response is working out...

The point is, that is still behavior. I have a colleague who studies the release and reuptake of certain neurotransmitters. It's what the body does.
And by the way, when you refer to "some sort of stimulus and response involved", you may be be referring to Watson's early 20th century S->R model. That should not be confused with Skinner's R->S (reinforcing stimulus) operant conditioning.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Oh great, you define it and then we can discuss it in science terms?

Okay?

Er.... no. I don't think I wanna define it now. I'm sort of intimidaded by you at this point.

But according to Dennet, "Real consciousness" can be defined in the same way "Real Magic" can be defined.

"Real magic, in other words, refers to the magic that is not real, while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic."

So I guess we replace the constants (we replace "done" with "measure" to keep the contextual coherence) and the final result would be... um...

"Real consciousness, in other words, refers to the consciousness that is not real, while the consciousness that is real, that can actually be measured, is not real consciousness."

.... according to Dennett.

And I could agree, in principle.

Behaviorism doesn't have a problem with it, philosophy does.

But Dennett doesn't seem to have a problem with it and yet he's a philosopher.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

So, what's the problem? I'm conscious right now. Later I probably will be unconscious for about 7 hours and then, conscious again. Unless the trouble and strife has a snoring episode where she sounds like she's about to inhale her epiglottis.
Behaviorists have no problem with admitting we are conscious. We know there are many ways to operationally define and measure various aspects of it. We consider thinking to be a private event, as yet unmeasurable by Homeland Security.
And we don't believe that appealing to mentalistic explanations helps us to understand the material word we reside in.

I wasn' t speaking of a problem in that sense. I was speaking generically about how some people perceive "consciousness" and the different types of arguments that can outcome out of that.

In other words, I'm not arguing in pro or against anything. I just bring out mr Dennett because I find him relevant to the topic.