The answer is already "yes" but go.
The answer is already "yes" but go.
I believe different fields of psychology have different tiers of scientific veracity because I believe that biopsychology has a firmer empirical basis than social psychology and cognitive psychology.
Ultimately, I realize that even though we have more layers to peel in the more abstract forms of psychology, all forms of psychology are categorically scientific because they follow the scientific method and have a reachable basis of conclusion.
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see." - Schopenhauer
Many of its claims are freudaulant, and it is highly abused by popular psychology via psychologists, journalists, and people on the internet who don't even have qualifications. But when it concerns actual published research, it is not so dismal.
Psychology is not a science. Scientific concepts are generalizations about reality that have been abstracted from many concrete observations. They are useful for calling attention to aspects of personality and behavior that all people share.
However; how each of these abstracted scientific concepts function in a specific individual's personality and behavior is unique and can never be codified in all encompassing scientific concept. It is subjective, not objective.
As soon as you look as psychology as a science - you loose something and it put limits on the individual as not a unique/complex system. You must also have a subjective factor in psychology that is not present in hard scientific theories or laws.
there are those who argue that even mathematics is not a science from an epistemology POV (as in the context is important)
honest labor needs no master
Nothing good is a miracle, nothing lovely is a dream.
Επί πάντων μέμνησο τα έσχατά σου, και ου μη αμαρτήσης
When will people learn that not being scientific about something doesn't make it invalid........................................... .................................................. .................................................. ..............
The sensed world is the domain of science, and nothing in the sensed world attests to the existence of the mind. So no, psychology is not a science, unless you're talking about the branch of it that deals with observable behavior. That particular branch of psychology is really a form of physics, though. It doesn't deal with the mind at all, except in the same indirect way as all physics does.
Sensory experiences do not indicate the mind; the mind indicates them.Originally Posted by coeruleum
Of course not, but that's only because light is not a purely visual phenomenon.if we were all blind, that wouldn't make light not exist
Why are you saying this to me? I never claimed that I wasn't aware. And I think epiphenomalism is retarded.If you're not aware now, what are you? Would you allow me to do whatever I want to you, torture and use you in whichever way I wish like a machine or doll? At least become an epiphenomenalist for your own sake (I'm not an epiphenomenalist, but I find epiphenomenalism among people who don't think much about the philosophy of mind defensible.)
For an analogy: can you see shadows, can your hear silence? Yes, you can perceive the lack of a regular stimulus perfectly fine and even do scientific experiments on it. Mind is the same way. I don't have to be able to be like "and this is your soul I pulled out of your body" like in a campy horror movie to perceive mind with the senses.
My mind doesn't and can't have a location, so the answer is, was, and always will be "nowhere."Originally Posted by coeruleum
This is true.Originally Posted by coeruleum
There is always a consciousness perceiving a given a sensory experience. But it isn't true to say that the two (a consciousness and its sensory experience) are equal to each other any more than it's true to say that a camera is equal to the picture it has taken.Originally Posted by coeruleum
A mind can't be embedded in something.Originally Posted by coeruleum
If there were a universal mind, there would be no possibility of genuine communication.which is how we do things like "communicate" and "interact."
If you think it does, it does. But it doesn't necessarily.So, the part of my experience which attests to mind in myself also attests to mind in others.
If you say so.I can sense your thoughts even if you can't sense mine because of willful ignorance or what have you.
I know this because the mind is consciousness reflecting on itself. A mind without consciousness is therefore meaningless, incoherent, inconceivable.Originally Posted by coeruleum
Then I think you must mean something different by the words than what I mean by them.I actually don't think all minds are conscious at least all of the time, which is the basis for a lot of my highly unorthodox views on epistemology.
If the mind were located somewhere, we would have before us, where the mind should be, instead a sensory experience. The mind senses without itself being a sensed thing.You also shoo away the idea that mind can't have a location or be embedded in something without an explanation, which is my main reason for not addressing you, along with your "if you say so" in general.
I'm not a Cartesian except to the extent that my worldview acknowledges Cartesianism as being, like all positions, superficially true.You seem to be relying on a Cartesian
Your argument doesn't appear particularly unusual to me.shooing away my argument simply for being unusual.
Fedoras are really not my style, but thanks anyway.You lost the battle, yet you won the fedora.
When I am conscious of my consciousness, what is that I am, in being so, conscious of? Some thing or things mental. And where else does the mind appear except there in that type of act? How could I conceive of my mind without reflecting on myself? How could I reflect on myself without conceiving of my mind as the very thing reflected upon?Originally Posted by coeruleum
Consciousness does, but not the mind. The mind is constituted by the act of self-reflection.I think mind exists prior to reflection,
Perception, of which reflection is a form, is the key trait of consciousness.There's nothing obvious about considering the key trait of mind self-reflection.
Unconscious mind or thought is an oxymoron.I think there's unconscious mind and unconscious thoughts, for example.
Language can't exist without consciousness.consciousness can't exist without language
Last edited by coeruleum; 12-06-2019 at 06:13 AM.
Those are not my words. I make a distinction between consciousness and the mind, which means that there is no circular argument involved.Originally Posted by coeruleum
I don't know. I just am.Anyways, how are you on a socionics-based site without believing in the unconscious?
I don't feel that anything I said requires a substitute explanation. If you do, you're more than welcome to provide one.I can imagine valid substitute explanations, but I need to hear a specific.
I wasn't aware that this was some kind of contest. I've been approaching it as a more or less casual conversation.Congratulations on losing a debate big time
You haven't shown how that is the case. I would be most interested to see.Originally Posted by coeruleum
That's fine, but I don't.I've already said I view it as a debate
If you feel that someone dismissing your ideas is an act of violence, you're probably a bit too attached to them.the first adjective that comes to mind for you shooing away my ideas without addressing them is "violently."
2. What do you view this as, winning someone who's studied to your neckbeard ideas?
3. I view a jumping spider biting my finger as an act of violence because it is. Not all violence is threatening to me. The spider, however, is threatened by my mere proximity. You're not cute like a jumping spider, but the same applies. Anyways, being attached to ideas is a good thing if they're truths. Should I cut off my finger if a bug is threatened by it too?
I think you believe you've shown it. Do clarify if it suits your fancy.Originally Posted by coeruleum
lol... I already said that I view it as a casual conversation. And I am far from a neckbeard. I am a petite, graceful, and highly adorable male of the highest caliber.2. What do you view this as, winning someone who's studied to your neckbeard ideas?
First I was a neckbeard, now I'm a jumping spider. What is this strange alchemy?3. I view a jumping spider biting my finger as an act of violence because it is. Not all violence is threatening to me. The spider, however, is threatened by my mere proximity. You're not cute like a jumping spider, but the same applies. [...] Should I cut off my finger if a bug is threatened by it too?
How does being attached to an idea in your head do any good? Ideas don't accomplish a thing. Actions do.Anyways, being attached to ideas is a good thing if they're truths.