[MD] A "Real" Science of Mind

[Jan-Anders]

Hi All

I realized that I didn't laugh that much the second time I watched John 
Cleese at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo

Is this because the dynamic pattern of the sketch is transformed into 
static pattern? The healing power of an explanaton is thus lost when 
served a second time and the price of last years models is more than 
halfed. Truth is perishable and only valid once for the actual event and 
the subject wherever it appears...


Jan-Anders


moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org skrev 2010-12-21 03.25:
> Hi Marsha,
> Thanks for the Opinionater.  Yes, scientific materialism.  And then
> there is the other side which claims just as righteously that the
> brain cannot be extrapolated to the mind.  Whatever the case,
> psychology has been a good source of money for many, and keeps people
> busy with explanations.  There is no doubt that these "explanations"
> have healing power for some, and therefore cannot be discounted.
> There is also the evil side of psychology which is why I consider W.
> James to have sold out just a bit.
>
> What a conundrum, damned if we do, damned if we don't.  Can't get a
> fair shake in this world where we need to know.  Who stole my cheese?
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 5:04 AM, MarshaV<valkyr at att.net>  wrote:
>> >
>> >  ? ? "First, it provides little insight into psychological phenomena...
>> >
>> >  ? ? Second, brains-in-love talk conflates levels of explanation.
>> >
>> >  ? ? The third thing wrong with neurobabble is that it has pernicious feedback effects on science itself. ?Too much immature science has received massive funding, on the assumption that it illuminates psychology. ?The idea that the neural can replace the psychological is the same idea that led to thinking that all psychological ills can be cured with drugs."
>> >
>> >
>> >  http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/a-real-science-of-mind/
>> >