Philosophy Discussion Forums

Vodoman wrote:Can the subconscious mind be explained in terms of Science. Yes I think it can as nonlocality or the non changing constant in a changing system by which all scentinant life gets its consciousness or observation. So local observation is a constant by virtue of its Connection to the nonlocality of the subconscious mind.

This is curious as to my knowledge science makes no claims of knowledge or properties of the conscious. And science makes especially no claims where it connects to the body. Hence, locality, and state of constancy, of the mind where sentient life creates consciousness out of impulses are not scientific concepts. Ergo science makes no claims of knowledge of the subconscious mind.

I indeed agree that in epistemology (generating philosophical systems), Freud had, still have and all points that he its gong to have for a long time a major influence inside both continental and analytical philosophy, even inside the realm of philosophy of science & Philosophy of Mind or even things like the use of tiefenpsychologie in philosophical anthropologies it´s “ok” if is understood has an epistemological tool but with a huge Caveat

For methodology (generating scientific theories) Freud, psychoanalysis and “dynamical clinic" don´t fit the minimum criteria even considering naive empiricism and ex vitro procedures to be called a valid theory, not even a working hypothesis.

For Math, the mathematical framework in psychoanalysis since Lacan don´t fit the conjecture-proof-theorem schema

in statistics clinical meta analysis put psychoanalytic therapies in the realm of "illness remission by chance”

in historical terms the letters of Sigmund Freud and the careful follow of his famous patients (like Ana O or the man of the rats) put Freud has a malpractitioner and a fraud that in modern times wold have ended in Jail and the prohibition of medical practice for him.

Freud also said that the devolvement of Neuroscience will provide the evidence of his theories and that didn´t happened, in fact the contrary

In conclusion, I don´t mid if philosophy uses Freud lineage to generate philosophical systems, but those systems will be and endless source of conflict with other academia (science, Math, Techné & in a lesser degree ars

Jan Pahl wrote:in statistics clinical meta analysis put psychoanalytic therapies in the realm of "illness remission by chance”

Well, only if you define very loosely.

The problem is that mental illness has a very high spontaneous remission rate overall, and treatment of it if often unsucessful. What most treatments are very good at is keeping the patient's head above water by helping to manage the problem.

However, if you're really interested only in remisison rates, it's worth noting that:

1) (neo)Freudian psychotherapy is more effective than other treatments for depression, and most neurotic illness, as shown by the clinical meta-analysis studies you're referring to. Note that by other treatments I'm including clinical treatments and drug therapies as well as other psycho-therapies.

2) It has a statistically significant effect both compared to controls, and to other therapies.

Or to put it another way, meta-analysis shows that it works, and is more successful for particular conditions than other medical treatments.

Jan Pahl wrote:Freud also said that the devolvement of Neuroscience will provide the evidence of his theories and that didn´t happened, in fact the contrary

I'm not aware of any neuroscience developments that actively contradict Freud. Can you share?

Oh, and I didn't really get the point the OP was making either. There's a lot of stuff there, but I'm not sure where it's all leading.

Togo Different diagnosis implies different prognosis and different aetiologies, obviously not all clinical therapeutical techniques can work with the same effect in different pathologies, specially if the patient need´s drug treatments or if the decease is simply chronic and remission is impossible, only meliorate the quality of life.

Behavioural, cognitive & cognitive-behavioural treatments are the ONLY ones that have a positive effect, this is so real that the American Psychological association (APA) and the standard DSM V for the diagnosis and treatment of patients NEVER EVER mention psychoanalytic and Dynamical psychologies. In fact Psychoanalysis is recognised has a therapy like Buddhist meditation or whatever, but not a science.

Read some of the history of scientific and experimental history of psychology and psychiatry and you will find that Kraepeling, Wundt, Ramon y Cajal, Weber, Fechner, Pavlov, and other are the founders of psychology and psychiatry, bu on the contrary Freud is the founder of Psychoanalysis ,a cult-pseudoscience that is marginal since the 50ties except in France and Argentina. Seek for more in the book Le Livre Noir de la Psychalayse (The Black Book of Psychoanalysis) that have chapters of the forensic and historical research made by Catharine Meyer, Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen, Jean Cottraux, Didier Pleux & Jacques Van Rillaer

By the way I am very familiar with the crappy side or abuse of meta analytical and other statistical tools with “large effect sizes” not only in psychoanalysis, but inside Astrology, Parapsychology, Homeopathy, hypnosis, etc. and I am not interested in that, if you like those things, you are free to believe it if you will, has I said in a previous post, Philosophers have the freedom to use psychoanalytic thinking if authors likes to do in other to construct

Obviously you don´t follow neuroscientific research because you did not understood the lack or large gap of empty set of neuroscience data and past or modern psychoanalytical crap....there are outside a immense continent of new knowledge in neuroscience, for example the use of algebraic topology modeling the brain structural changes in-vivo is quite exciting them I don´t have the time to spend my time with stupid things like "crocodile mothers" responsible for autism when we know for sure that things like the levels of prenatal testosterone have much more explanatory power than the unnecessary blame of the "croc" mother of an autistic child by a psychoanalyst

The main lesson that should be taken from this thread is that psychology is a dead (false) branch of science.

And one of the reasons is the doings of men like Freud. He, like all other modern "psychologists", makes the classic mistake of not understanding the following truth:

A true practice and understanding of psychology cannot be begun from scratch....

Atreyu wrote:The main lesson that should be taken from this thread is that psychology is a dead (false) branch of science.

And one of the reasons is the doings of men like Freud. He, like all other modern "psychologists", makes the classic mistake of not understanding the following truth:

A true practice and understanding of psychology cannot be begun from scratch....

Psychoanalysis is not recognized has psychology since 60 years ago but only has a "therapy" but therapies can be anything, there even exist philosophical therapies conducted by trained philosophers whit equally no real effect on patients like psychoanalysis and the area is growing for Philosophers to be a great source of Jobs...Does that also means that Philosophy is Dead?

Real experimental psychology results are successfully used every day in things like pharmaceutical research, consumer behavioural analysis, Robotics, Neuroscience, Forensics & Criminology, Machine learning, and a large etc them Why do you say so loosely that things like Matching law, Rescorla-Wagner learning models, the experimental links that unite ethology singh, goal and consumatory behaviours with condicional and operant schedules, the inverted "u shape" of basal activation versus performance and a to much large to put in detail real (following scientific methods) psychology at the level of "dead science"

This is the kind of statements that makes people like Hawkings wrongly believe that Philosophy is dead, and I can´t blame those people if Philosophers jump from support pseudoscience in psychology like the "marxist - Lacanian psychoanalysis" of Slavoj Žižek all the way to deny all psychology or even lie with crappy Story telling (not history) like Foucault and his obsession of put psychology and psychiatry, or even all medicine at the level of "bourgeoise power tools" and fictional "knowledge" so fanatically that he died without treatment from AIDS denying he had AIDS

Fan of Science wrote:The difference between a truth claim and speculation? That makes no sense. A statement is either true or false, and makes a truth claim. So, the statement that today is July 28, 1776, is a statement that has a truth value, which is false. Since a truth claim may be false, why are you contrasting truth claims with "speculation"? One may speculate while making a truth claim. Newton's law of gravity makes a truth claim, and is false. Did Newton "speculate" in making his truth claim? Not at all. He drew some inferences, and made some thoughtful insights into what was going on, he just didn't have all of the facts yet. On the other hand, one could speculate what the winning lottery numbers are and turn out to be right. So, you are not making sense by contrasting truth claims with speculation as they are not concepts that are at odds with each other. A logician, mathematician, or philosopher would know this. So, what do you teach?

This short paragraph brings us to a profound concept relevant to our existence, which is that virtually any proposition has a "truth value" in space and time. Similarly, any "fact" or "constant" (oxymoron to reality) is only relative truth to the observer in given space and time.

The main lesson that should be taken from this thread is that psychology is a dead (false) branch of science.

Speaking as someone with very little knowledge of psychology, who therefore has to fall back on general knowledge and common sense, it seems to me absurd to make the blanket assertion that psychology, as a science, is dead.

Presumably, unless all human behaviours are completely random, indistinguishable from rolling dice, they will always be amenable to analysis using scientific methods to at least some extent. And presumably that analysis would be called "psychology". Human behaviours are, of course, not completely random. Obviously they're not completely predictable either, but they do have elements of predictability. They do have patterns. And anything with a pattern is amenable to analysis using scientific methods.

This seems so obvious that I guess I must have missed something?

Jan Pahl wrote: Real experimental psychology results are successfully used every day in things like pharmaceutical research, consumer behavioural analysis, Robotics, Neuroscience, Forensics & Criminology, Machine learning, and a large etc them Why do you say so loosely that things like Matching law, Rescorla-Wagner learning models, the experimental links that unite ethology singh, goal and consumatory behaviours with condicional and operant schedules, the inverted "u shape" of basal activation versus performance and a to much large to put in detail real (following scientific methods) psychology at the level of "dead science"

Steve3007 wrote: Presumably, unless all human behaviours are completely random, indistinguishable from rolling dice, they will always be amenable to analysis using scientific methods to at least some extent. And presumably that analysis would be called "psychology". Human behaviours are, of course, not completely random. Obviously they're not completely predictable either, but they do have elements of predictability. They do have patterns. And anything with a pattern is amenable to analysis using scientific methods.

This seems so obvious that I guess I must have missed something?

Yes. What you guys are 'missing' is the proper definition and understanding of what psychology is.

Psychology is the study of the psyche. Period. Literally. If the psyche is not being studied, then whatever is going on cannot said to be "psychology". At best it could be called something like "experimenting with various approaches and methods with the goal of someday understanding what the psyche is, i.e. of finding the psyche, of defining it, so that then it can be studied and possible modified". Then, once the psyche has actually been properly defined and observed, a study is possible (psychology). Then psychology can begin. Until then, it's simply not possible.

Analyzing behavior, manipulating people (even ideally), experimenting with various drugs (pharmaceutical research), robotics, neurology (this is actually physiology), finding out who committed a crime, analyzing consumer behavior and trends, and most importantly coming up with clever sounding theories like Matching Law and Rescorla-Wagner learning models --- none of these things are actually the practice or study of psychology. In spite of all these theories and methods, the psyche still cannot be defined or classified, let alone observed. So there is no "psychology" here. At best, it's "grasping at straws".

And this is so because modern "psychology" attempts to define, study, and even perfect the psyche before they have even ever observed it.

And that is so because modern "psychology" doesn't know how to observe it, what to look for, what methods to use, or even how to best approach the issue.

And that is so, because of what I said earlier: A true practice and understanding of psychology cannot be begun from scratch. Without special knowledge and instruction, a man cannot properly define, observe, or study his own psyche (and a study of others' psyches is impossible). He has to be shown how to do it, otherwise he will not know where, or even what, he is searching for....

Psyche = the human soul, mind, or spirit.

Yes, as you say, if we take it literally then "psychology" is the study of this particular thing. But if it's just another word for "mind" then I don't really see why all those studies you mentioned don't count as psychology. Working out that there are patterns in people's behaviours, as a result of patterns in their thoughts, surely constitutes working out something about the patterns in their mind. A.K.A. their psyche?

Steve3007 wrote:Psyche = the human soul, mind, or spirit.

That "definition" is utterly useless, because it merely takes an unknown term and attempts to define with other equally vague terms. This is equivalent to what I've said here time and time again - like defining x and y by saying 'x=y' and 'y=x'. This doesn't help us understand either in the least. What in the world is a 'soul', a 'mind', or a 'spirit'?''

The best way to define the psyche, at least for someone who hasn't begun seeing and studying it within themselves directly, would be to say that the psyche is the part of ourselves which is perceived/cognized to be internal, as existing inside us. As opposed to to phenomena which we assume to be outside of ourselves. For example, when you perceive a tree, you perceive it as not being "you". It is outside of you, not part of you (at least that's how you see it). However, other phenomenon, mainly thoughts, feelings, movements, and instinctive functions (heartbeat, etc), are perceived as existing within oneself. They are perceived as being a part of yourself. They are "you". Your psyche, in its totality, consists of all of those "internally perceived" phenomena. The tree is not your psyche. Your thoughts and feelings about the tree, and your direct sensory perception of the tree (color, shape, smell), is your psyche.

Steve3007 wrote: Yes, as you say, if we take it literally then "psychology" is the study of this particular thing. But if it's just another word for "mind" then I don't really see why all those studies you mentioned don't count as psychology. Working out that there are patterns in people's behaviours, as a result of patterns in their thoughts, surely constitutes working out something about the patterns in their mind. A.K.A. their psyche?

'Mind' is not a bad substitute word. However, the problem with your position is that the Mind is never really studied. Studying "behavioral patterns", which are assumed to be based on thoughts, isn't good enough to be psychology proper. Psychology properly is the direct observation and study of the "mind" or "psyche", and this can only be done by oneself. A man can learn to observe and study his own psyche/mind, but it is quite impossible for him to learn how to study others' psyches/minds. By definition, the psyche is "internally perceived". Being able to directly observe and study others' thoughts and feelings would be akin to acquiring the power of telepathy. Not absolutely impossible, but nothing can be achieved until one has first learned how to observe and study his own thoughts and feelings. Until one knows oneself, one cannot get to know others.

And this latter point is another reason why modern science cannot practice psychology. It would not be considered "scientific" to study internally perceived phenomena. My definition of psychology runs directly counter to the modern idea of "being objective". Science only studies tangible phenomena. Even when science proposes abstract concepts, like atoms, subatomic particles, and photons, they still look for some image on the screen in order to verify their existence. Science does not study intangible phenomena like one's own thoughts and feelings. They will usually try to reduce it to something tangible which they then study. For example, since scientists would say it's "subjective" or "unscientific" to study one's own thoughts directly, they instead study the firing of neurons, and through the tangible try to study the intangible. Modern science doesn't understand the principle that one can study so called "subjective" phenomena objectively, i.e. that it is possible for one to study oneself objectively (at least if it is known how to do it). A person can learn to be objective about any phenomena under consideration, both those said to be outside of oneself ("objective") as well as those that are said to be inside of oneself ("subjective"). Because the truth is that both orders of phenomena are really subjective....

Atreyu:

That "definition" is utterly useless, because it merely takes an unknown term and attempts to define with other equally vague terms. This is equivalent to what I've said here time and time again - like defining x and y by saying 'x=y' and 'y=x'. This doesn't help us understand either in the least. What in the world is a 'soul', a 'mind', or a 'spirit'?''

I think you have a good point here. We are left with the problem of defining "mind" and, for words to be useful, it should have a different shade of meaning from "psyche". I've said before myself that useful words distinguish between things, and if they don't, they're arguably not much use.

In what follows, you offer your definition of "psyche" and therefore of "psychology". You seem to be suggesting that it ought to be regarded as a form of disciplined and methodical introspection. I can see your argument here, although I still don't quite share your pessimism about the prospect of learning anything about other people's psyches by observing their behaviour and words. I think it's clear that people's behaviour and words are certainly a very imperfect way of learning about their psyches and, of course, they could be misleading. Reductio ad absurdum: We can never be sure that we're not talking to a non-sentient automaton. But that doesn't mean we learn nothing. Just that we infer other people's inner thoughts indirectly. The same way that we indirectly infer the existence of everything outside our own mind.

True.

I was just being a "stickler" in defining psychology.

You can learn "about people" in ordinary science by using statistical analysis, noting behavioral patterns, etc. But you will never learn about the actual psyche using any of those methods. You have to actually observe your own psyche for a long time in order to really do true psych-ology.