4 ms·

The article uses the word "mind" in its title, but the article is strict neuroscience, i.e. it discusses the brain from a biological perspective. The word "mind

by lutusp 11y ago

The article uses the word "mind" in its title, but the article is strict neuroscience, i.e. it discusses the brain from a biological perspective. The word "mind" never appears again. The mind (psychology) is not the brain (neuroscience).

arvinjoar 11y ago
A bit of a nitpick (but I guess that's the HN spirit)? Just different levels of abstraction. The dream would be to be able to put all these levels of abstractions together, and have good mappings between them. Basically, I think you're painting a false dichotomy. Just like the execution of a program can be described in Machine Code, 1's and 0's or even as electricity, or any other layer of abstraction.
- megalodon 11y ago
  I'm not so sure. The title should be relevant to the layer of abstraction used. You're talking of abstractions as if there is a beginning and an end level, but what if there isn't?
- lutusp 11y ago
  > Just different levels of abstraction. From a scientific perspective, it's much more important than that. Neuroscience has empirical evidence, theories, and is a science. Psychology has anecdotes, no testable, falsifiable theories, and, for lack of empirical evidence, cannot be a science. > Basically, I think you're painting a false dichotomy. So is the director of the NIMH: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h Quote: "America’s psychiatrist-in-chief seemed to be reiterating what many had been saying all along: that psychiatry was a pseudoscience, unworthy of inclusion in the medical kingdom." > The dream would be to be able to put all these levels of abstractions together, and have good mappings between them. Yes, absolutely, and I think this will eventually happen within neuroscience. But focusing on the mind, something inaccessible to empirical investigation, is not the road to that goal.
dang 11y ago
Ok, we'll s/mind/brain/, but please let's not have an off-topic thread about this.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  The HN title now differs from the article's actual title. How is discussion of an article's text 'off-topic', particularly when the discussion is entirely cogent and on point? If an article uses a word in the title, it should also occur in the text. Anyway, if you're concerned about effective downmodding, you should probably head over to https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=brazzledazzle https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=brazzledazzle where their last comment was a personal attack.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    The request was there because this [1] response was entirely predictable. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10877103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10877103 It's great to see lutusp back. It's a shame he comments on psychology articles. His comments on any other subject are interesting, fascinating, useful.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      What, exactly, do you see wrong with that response?

by lutusp 11y ago

arvinjoar 11y ago

A bit of a nitpick (but I guess that's the HN spirit)? Just different levels of abstraction. The dream would be to be able to put all these levels of abstractions together, and have good mappings between them. Basically, I think you're painting a false dichotomy. Just like the execution of a program can be described in Machine Code, 1's and 0's or even as electricity, or any other layer of abstraction.

megalodon 11y ago
I'm not so sure. The title should be relevant to the layer of abstraction used. You're talking of abstractions as if there is a beginning and an end level, but what if there isn't?
lutusp 11y ago
> Just different levels of abstraction. From a scientific perspective, it's much more important than that. Neuroscience has empirical evidence, theories, and is a science. Psychology has anecdotes, no testable, falsifiable theories, and, for lack of empirical evidence, cannot be a science. > Basically, I think you're painting a false dichotomy. So is the director of the NIMH: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h Quote: "America’s psychiatrist-in-chief seemed to be reiterating what many had been saying all along: that psychiatry was a pseudoscience, unworthy of inclusion in the medical kingdom." > The dream would be to be able to put all these levels of abstractions together, and have good mappings between them. Yes, absolutely, and I think this will eventually happen within neuroscience. But focusing on the mind, something inaccessible to empirical investigation, is not the road to that goal.

dang 11y ago

Ok, we'll s/mind/brain/, but please let's not have an off-topic thread about this.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
The HN title now differs from the article's actual title. How is discussion of an article's text 'off-topic', particularly when the discussion is entirely cogent and on point? If an article uses a word in the title, it should also occur in the text. Anyway, if you're concerned about effective downmodding, you should probably head over to https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=brazzledazzle https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=brazzledazzle where their last comment was a personal attack.
- DanBC 11y ago
  The request was there because this [1] response was entirely predictable. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10877103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10877103 It's great to see lutusp back. It's a shame he comments on psychology articles. His comments on any other subject are interesting, fascinating, useful.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    What, exactly, do you see wrong with that response?