4 ms·

The math for multivariate experiments has been well understood and applied since the early 20th century. Modern industry would not exist without it. The probl

by KK7NIL 2y ago

The math for multivariate experiments has been well understood and applied since the early 20th century. Modern industry would not exist without it. The problem with psychology experiments is that the mind has many hidden variables which cannot be easily accounted for.

ryandv 2y ago
Moreover hard science is more or less based on at least three things: objectivity, quantifiability, and empiricism. We suppose that objective phenomena exist and can be independently verified and confirmed by other observers, using quantifiable measures to agree upon exactly what it is we are observing when conducting an experiment. The issue is that the mind is by nature subjective and wholly private, inaccessible to outside observers. Further, whereas when conducting an experiment in physics where it becomes possible to separate the experimenter from the experiment (to an extent, observer effect and quantum mechanics notwithstanding), as regards matters of the mind the observer and the observed are one and the same of necessity; you are in fact part of the experiment yourself. > The problem with psychology experiments is that the mind has many hidden variables which cannot be easily accounted for. This is where the pillar of quantifiability breaks down, and barring advances in techniques for inspecting the brain with greater spatial and temporal resolution it's hard to see how one can quantify what cannot be directly observed. Empiricism is the only aspect of the three aforementioned that can still hold up within this domain, and there is a large centuries' long tradition of studying the mind subjectively, qualitatively (as opposed to quantitatively), and yet in a still empirical fashion with falsifiable hypotheses; various mystical and meditative practices exist in this space, such as the fire kasina practice, especially as formulated by a trauma physician [0] complete with falsifiable hypotheses and steps for independent reproduction. What distinguishes practices in this space from harder sciences is that the phenomena observed are subjective, not "out in the physical world," and there does not exist any instrumentation for measuring them apart from that of your own faculties of perception. As an aside I found the comparison to shamans and spiritual teachers in TFA interesting, since I have always considered psychology and spirituality to concern themselves with the same subject matter and problem domain of minds; one could say that they are both proto-sciences of mind, and psychology is the latest iteration of this tradition (though as TFA states somewhat misguided and out of touch with its roots in mysticism; on this latter point see Jung's Psychology and Alchemy for a discussion of where analytical psychology connects with the older esoteric traditions). [0] https://firekasina.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/the-fire-kasina.pdf https://firekasina.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/the-fire-k...
- KK7NIL 2y ago
  > The issue is that the mind is by nature subjective and wholly private, inaccessible to outside observers. Not by nature, it's not. Unless you define it to have some immeasurable spiritual quality to it which is obviously not experimentally discoverable and so of little use discussing here. > This is where the pillar of quantifiability breaks down, and barring advances in techniques for inspecting the brain with greater spatial and temporal resolution it's hard to see how one can quantify what cannot be directly observed. Pretty much every experiment has a massive amount of relevant states which we cannot quantify. There's a whole lot of quarks in 1 kg of steel but we don't need to know all of their states to measure macro quantities like its temperature and strength. The mind has proven very reluctant to this sort of useful and measurable macro properties. It's a typical case of a chaotic system. Perhaps innovations in the modeling of such complex systems (not too different from the advancements we're seeing in ML) will be the key to better insights into the mind.
  - ryandv 2y ago
    > Not by nature, it's not. Unless you define it to have some immeasurable spiritual quality to it which is obviously not experimentally discoverable and so of little use discussing here. There is no need to bring in "spirituality" (at least, as commonly and colloquially understood) or "souls" into the picture - see for instance qualia, whose existence is self-evident, and yet are also not amenable to examination by external observers. Irrespective of how much you can pick and probe at the brain and measure wavelengths of light, there is "something it is like" to actually experience the phenomenon of "red", and this experience itself is not readily accessible to objective/quantitative methods. > It's a typical case of a chaotic system. Perhaps innovations in the modeling of such complex systems (not too different from the advancements we're seeing in ML) will be the key to better insights into the mind. I could be convinced that minds are ultimately emergent phenomena of plain physical and mechanical processes which are too frighteningly complicated for us to analyze with contemporary methods.
    - KK7NIL 2y ago
      > is not readily accessible to objective/quantitative methods. Just because the mind is not readily quantifiable with current technology doesn't mean that it's subjective "by nature". > for instance qualia, whose existence is self-evident, No, it isn't and I see no way to test for "qualia" so, applying Newton's flaming laser sword, it's not worthy of debate. It's a very dangerous thing to draw conclusions about empirical phenomenon from metaphysics. I suggest you stick to the scientific method when trying to understand the empirical world, it has been far more successful than philosophical rambling.

by KK7NIL 2y ago

ryandv 2y ago

Moreover hard science is more or less based on at least three things: objectivity, quantifiability, and empiricism. We suppose that objective phenomena exist and can be independently verified and confirmed by other observers, using quantifiable measures to agree upon exactly what it is we are observing when conducting an experiment. The issue is that the mind is by nature subjective and wholly private, inaccessible to outside observers. Further, whereas when conducting an experiment in physics where it becomes possible to separate the experimenter from the experiment (to an extent, observer effect and quantum mechanics notwithstanding), as regards matters of the mind the observer and the observed are one and the same of necessity; you are in fact part of the experiment yourself. > The problem with psychology experiments is that the mind has many hidden variables which cannot be easily accounted for. This is where the pillar of quantifiability breaks down, and barring advances in techniques for inspecting the brain with greater spatial and temporal resolution it's hard to see how one can quantify what cannot be directly observed. Empiricism is the only aspect of the three aforementioned that can still hold up within this domain, and there is a large centuries' long tradition of studying the mind subjectively, qualitatively (as opposed to quantitatively), and yet in a still empirical fashion with falsifiable hypotheses; various mystical and meditative practices exist in this space, such as the fire kasina practice, especially as formulated by a trauma physician [0] complete with falsifiable hypotheses and steps for independent reproduction. What distinguishes practices in this space from harder sciences is that the phenomena observed are subjective, not "out in the physical world," and there does not exist any instrumentation for measuring them apart from that of your own faculties of perception. As an aside I found the comparison to shamans and spiritual teachers in TFA interesting, since I have always considered psychology and spirituality to concern themselves with the same subject matter and problem domain of minds; one could say that they are both proto-sciences of mind, and psychology is the latest iteration of this tradition (though as TFA states somewhat misguided and out of touch with its roots in mysticism; on this latter point see Jung's Psychology and Alchemy for a discussion of where analytical psychology connects with the older esoteric traditions). [0] https://firekasina.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/the-fire-kasina.pdf https://firekasina.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/the-fire-k...

KK7NIL 2y ago
> The issue is that the mind is by nature subjective and wholly private, inaccessible to outside observers. Not by nature, it's not. Unless you define it to have some immeasurable spiritual quality to it which is obviously not experimentally discoverable and so of little use discussing here. > This is where the pillar of quantifiability breaks down, and barring advances in techniques for inspecting the brain with greater spatial and temporal resolution it's hard to see how one can quantify what cannot be directly observed. Pretty much every experiment has a massive amount of relevant states which we cannot quantify. There's a whole lot of quarks in 1 kg of steel but we don't need to know all of their states to measure macro quantities like its temperature and strength. The mind has proven very reluctant to this sort of useful and measurable macro properties. It's a typical case of a chaotic system. Perhaps innovations in the modeling of such complex systems (not too different from the advancements we're seeing in ML) will be the key to better insights into the mind.
- ryandv 2y ago
  > Not by nature, it's not. Unless you define it to have some immeasurable spiritual quality to it which is obviously not experimentally discoverable and so of little use discussing here. There is no need to bring in "spirituality" (at least, as commonly and colloquially understood) or "souls" into the picture - see for instance qualia, whose existence is self-evident, and yet are also not amenable to examination by external observers. Irrespective of how much you can pick and probe at the brain and measure wavelengths of light, there is "something it is like" to actually experience the phenomenon of "red", and this experience itself is not readily accessible to objective/quantitative methods. > It's a typical case of a chaotic system. Perhaps innovations in the modeling of such complex systems (not too different from the advancements we're seeing in ML) will be the key to better insights into the mind. I could be convinced that minds are ultimately emergent phenomena of plain physical and mechanical processes which are too frighteningly complicated for us to analyze with contemporary methods.
  - KK7NIL 2y ago
    > is not readily accessible to objective/quantitative methods. Just because the mind is not readily quantifiable with current technology doesn't mean that it's subjective "by nature". > for instance qualia, whose existence is self-evident, No, it isn't and I see no way to test for "qualia" so, applying Newton's flaming laser sword, it's not worthy of debate. It's a very dangerous thing to draw conclusions about empirical phenomenon from metaphysics. I suggest you stick to the scientific method when trying to understand the empirical world, it has been far more successful than philosophical rambling.