"Psychology" without Sentience?

[Chili]

I note that some authors use the word "psychology" to include the study of "minds" without any required implication of subjective experience or sentience.

Which definition of psychology is being referenced? Is there a better term that might be used here?

[Spectrum]

Psychology is the science of behavior and mind, embracing all aspects of conscious and unconscious experience as well as thought.

Psychology = 'behavior' and 'mind' definitely involved sentience and subjects.

I note that some authors .....

Which and any reference or links?

[Chili]

"in the study of the mind, sentience floats in its own plane, high above the causal chains of psychology and neuroscience." - Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works

I'm really mostly thinking of this - and then I was inclined to think from reading it that this approach must be common in academic scientific "psychology".

[Atreyu]

How do you understand "sentience"?

I can tell you this: modern psychology makes a basic error in attempting to study "mind" or "psyche" by studying others. In reality, one can only study one's own "mind" or "psyche". It can only be inferred in others....

[Chili]

How do you understand "sentience"?

I can tell you this: modern psychology makes a basic error in attempting to study "mind" or "psyche" by studying others. In reality, one can only study one's own "mind" or "psyche". It can only be inferred in others....

Isn't it being picked up and dusted off as a science? Then you have to have a lab and watch people behave.

[Spectrum]

"in the study of the mind, sentience floats in its own plane, high above the causal chains of psychology and neuroscience." - Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works

I'm really mostly thinking of this - and then I was inclined to think from reading it that this approach must be common in academic scientific "psychology".

Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.[1] Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia").
In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that require respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights and also the anti-abortion movement because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights.

In philosophy and certain models of psychology, qualia are claimed to be individual instances of subjective, conscious experience.

What is define as sentience cover all psychological elements and even qualia [a model of psychology]

So general it is difficult to view how 'sentience' could be separated from 'psychology'.

In general psychology encompass a very wide field covering very extensive human elements from general behaviors of humans to neuro-psychology, evolutionary psychology, etc.

Psychology also include genomics, e.g.

The theory behind cognitive genomics is based on elements of genetics, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, cognitive psychology, behavioral psychology, and neurophysiology. Intelligence is the most extensively studied behavioral trait. In humans, approximately 70% of all genes are expressed in the brain.

It is difficult to understand Pinker from merely one statement. To understand Pinker properly we have to read his book thoroughly.

As it is I cannot understand how 'sentience' could be separated from 'psychology'

[Burning ghost]

Chili -

I guess it's simply because psychology can be applied to group dynamics and individuals. Given that we are essentially social animals a lot of the empirical data we use comes from behaviorism.

Just mentioned to Lucy recently that psychoanalysis tends to deal more with individual subjects whereas the more physical sciences tend to shine through more obviously in group dynamics. Essentially though, I don't see how psychology can be taken seriously if the social aspect (a very strong part of being human) is completely ignored.

"Sentience" is just another one of those words thrown around with slightly different meanings dependent upon the context.

[Chili]

Most people I encounter - including some professionals - seem quite content to merely assume that human behaviors are *evidence* of sentience - though as neurobiology marches on, this becomes less coherent.

[Sunkith]

I am sentient. I know that.

[Chili]

I am sentient. I know that.

I can relate. The question is, when one is wearing a white coat and calling one's actions "science" is that enough to conclude others are sentient ?

[Consul]

I note that some authors use the word "psychology" to include the study of "minds" without any required implication of subjective experience or sentience.

Which definition of psychology is being referenced? Is there a better term that might be used here?

Cognitive psychology or cognitive science as the study of the cognitive mind (cognition, intelligence) has been accused of neglecting consciousness/experience.

"cognitive psychology: an approach that aims to understand human cognition by the study of behaviour; a broader definition also includes the study of brain activity and structure."

(Eysenck, Michael W., and Mark T. Keane. Cognitive Psychology: A Student's Handbook. 7th ed. New York: Psychology Press, 2015. p. 1)

"cognitive science (narrowly construed): An interdisciplinary field focused on the understanding of intelligence, primarily human cognition but also animal cognition and artificial intelligence. Contributing disciplines include cognitive psychology, artificial intelligence, linguistics, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, developmental psychology, education, and neuroscience."

(Frankish, Keith, and William M. Ramsey. The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. p. 314)

-- Updated October 21st, 2017, 7:40 am to add the following --

"Sentience" is just another one of those words thrown around with slightly different meanings dependent upon the context.

A sentient being is one capable of having (subjective) sensations.

[Chili]

Both "cognitive" and "psychology" when used by normal humans or human dictionaries, seem to refer to something occurring subjectively.

[Consul]

Both "cognitive" and "psychology" when used by normal humans or human dictionaries, seem to refer to something occurring subjectively.

In cognitive psychology/science the dominant model of the mind is the computational one, according to which (animal) minds are natural CPUs, i.e. information-processing systems, with mental functions being "computations over mental representations." But such cognitive processes can take place nonconsciously, so critics have objected that the conscious mind (consciousness) is something in addition to the (purely) cognitive mind, such that the former is not reducible to the latter. A purely functionalist-computationalist theory of the mind just leaves out consciousness.

Cognitive psychology/science deals with issues such as the following:

* perception (perceptual recognition)
* attention
* action
* memory
* learning
* language (perception of, comprehension of, production of)
* thinking
* reasoning
* problem-solving
* decision-making

Perception needn't be conscious perception, but it is arguable that there is no such thing as nonconscious thought, and that the subconscious information-processing or representation-using in the brain isn't properly called thought.

[Chili]

In cognitive psychology/science the dominant model of the mind is the computational one,

Here we're back to what I frequently call out as "circular thinking".

Normal humans and human dictionaries refer to "mind" as something involving subjective experience.

It appears that in this field, in this use of mind, the primary essence - as understood by people - is being removed, and the word "mind" is still used without it.

This appears to me as sloppiness at best, obfuscation at worst.

[Consul]

In cognitive psychology/science the dominant model of the mind is the computational one,

Here we're back to what I frequently call out as "circular thinking".

Normal humans and human dictionaries refer to "mind" as something involving subjective experience.

It appears that in this field, in this use of mind, the primary essence - as understood by people - is being removed, and the word "mind" is still used without it.

This appears to me as sloppiness at best, obfuscation at worst.

Well, it all depends on the definition of "mind". For example, Descartes thought that mind = consciousness, which equation turns the phrase "nonconscious mind" into a contradiction in terms. And, indeed, the question as to what is genuinely and distinctively mental about nonconscious brain processes or states is a very good one. For reductive materialists, the mind = the brain, and given this equation the distinction between conscious mind/brain processes and nonconscious ones does make sense.

If we conceive of the mind as a complex of (nonsubstantial) mental phenomena, then, depending on how broadly or narrowly the concept of a mind is defined, there are either one, two, or three basic kinds of mental phenomena:

1. occurrent conscious mental events/processes (experienced/felt sensations, emotions/feelings, cogitations/thoughts/imaginations, conations/volitions)
2. occurrent nonconscious mental events/processes (subexperiential/subphenomenal, computational/informational/representational neurocognitive processes)
3. dispositional (nonconscious) mental states (memories, beliefs, knowledge, preferences, interests, desires, etc.)