> You have not ever specified how a model of memory, for example, cannot be falsified. Wait ... did I read that right? It's up to psychology's critics to ident

> You have not ever specified how a model of memory, for example, cannot be falsified. Wait ... did I read that right? It's up to psychology's critics to identify unfalsifiable claims, as well as face the classic impossibility of a negative proof, which BTW is a classic logical error? I imagine that psychologists would want to use positive evidence to shore up the foundations of their own field, by for example demonstrating the connection between a memory model and its biological foundation. On that topic, the recent drosophila study (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-unveil-the-first-ever-complete-map-of-an-adult-fruit-flys-brain-captured-in-stunning-detail-180985191/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-unveil-...), in which this tiny creature's entire brain was mapped in detail, is likely to be at least as revolutionary as the researchers claim, for the reason that nothing is left out. No guesswork -- memory, function, sensory connections -- simple, yes, but complete. It's noteworthy that this work relies entirely on biology, with no role for the idea of a mind. Eventually this approach will see psychology wither away, as did alchemy, once more scientific approaches became possible. In fact, now that I think about it, this neuroscience disregard for drosophila's mind ought to inspire criticism from psychologists on the ground that, according to psychology, the mind is an essential component of any valid study of brain function. > The dualist mind body is irrelevant to psychology. Of course it is. Because if this were not so, the field would collapse. The connection between mind and body is an article of faith among psychologists -- faith, not evidence. > Your current view of my field is archaic, confused, and frankly incredibly naive. That's quite the argument. Medieval and heartfelt. Now I have a question. Given the drosophila study -- a complete survey of a small creature's brain in which the function of all the elements is known -- how many years will be required for the nervous system of a larger creature, and eventually a human being, to be mapped and characterized in such a way that a falsifiable, biological basis for behavior is demonstrated, one that does away with the very idea of a mind as a temporary and unnecessary crutch? Given that inevitability, what will happen to psychology? I also wonder about this, a question having nothing really to do with our discussion -- will we fully map the human nervous system as to form and function, using increasing amounts of computer power, or will AI take over society beforehand, also relying on increased computer power? Which will happen first? Will we exhibit the wisdom required to curb AI, prevent it from overwhelming our lame biological processors? This last really is an open question, unlike the abandonment of psychology, which seems a foregone conclusion.