3 ms·

Minds aren't scientific, so psychology isn't scientific. It's that simple; you've fooled yourself into thinking that you have "a mind", a supposedly-measurable

Minds aren't scientific, so psychology isn't scientific. It's that simple; you've fooled yourself into thinking that you have "a mind", a supposedly-measurable durable part of your personality which persists beyond the mere meat of your brain and neurons, not unlike a soul.

Delk 5y ago
How are you going to fool yourself, qualitatively and subjectively, that you have a mind if you don't have something capable of qualia in the first place? I'm not trying to argue for some kind of an immaterial soul, or claiming that all of psychology is scientific (many theories, at least as it appears to a layman, aren't). And sure, a durable personality and various other mental models we have might be illusions to varying degrees. But if the lower-level immediate experiences are treated as a real (if emergent and somewhat culturally dependent) thing, I don't see why higher-level mental phenomena such as the common need for a durable sense of self couldn't be treated as real as well.
jhgb 5y ago
> Minds aren't scientific What does that even mean? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
jacobrussell 5y ago
I’m not a psychologist, but I don’t think psychology is entirely comprised of studying “the mind” or the super ego/sense of self that you are referring. Specifically with human behavioral biology, it is concerned with what happens with synaptic responses influencing an action, hormonal responses influencing synapses, biological inputs (senses) triggering hormonal responses, environmental stimulus influencing the senses, and so on and so forth. It is very much rooted in evolutionary biology, and doesn’t touch on whatever is “beyond the meat.” That being said what do you have to say about certain personality categorizations like the big five which were determined based off of statistical clustering [0]? Is this not science for some reason because it includes personality? [0] http://socpers.psihologietm.ro/PDFs/Sava%20&%20Popa%20(2011).pdf http://socpers.psihologietm.ro/PDFs/Sava%20&%20Popa%20(2011)...

Delk 5y ago

How are you going to fool yourself, qualitatively and subjectively, that you have a mind if you don't have something capable of qualia in the first place? I'm not trying to argue for some kind of an immaterial soul, or claiming that all of psychology is scientific (many theories, at least as it appears to a layman, aren't). And sure, a durable personality and various other mental models we have might be illusions to varying degrees. But if the lower-level immediate experiences are treated as a real (if emergent and somewhat culturally dependent) thing, I don't see why higher-level mental phenomena such as the common need for a durable sense of self couldn't be treated as real as well.

jhgb 5y ago

> Minds aren't scientific What does that even mean? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

jacobrussell 5y ago

I’m not a psychologist, but I don’t think psychology is entirely comprised of studying “the mind” or the super ego/sense of self that you are referring. Specifically with human behavioral biology, it is concerned with what happens with synaptic responses influencing an action, hormonal responses influencing synapses, biological inputs (senses) triggering hormonal responses, environmental stimulus influencing the senses, and so on and so forth. It is very much rooted in evolutionary biology, and doesn’t touch on whatever is “beyond the meat.” That being said what do you have to say about certain personality categorizations like the big five which were determined based off of statistical clustering [0]? Is this not science for some reason because it includes personality? [0] http://socpers.psihologietm.ro/PDFs/Sava%20&%20Popa%20(2011).pdf http://socpers.psihologietm.ro/PDFs/Sava%20&%20Popa%20(2011)...