There can be no psychological science until we know what the psyche is.
Different names: psyche, mind, spirit, soul, self. This is the illusive “who we are.”
The psyche has never been proven to exist in the brain or anywhere else. It has never been measured, weighted, observed, or even understood. Some may disagree saying it can be observed or even measured, but what they measure is only the product of the psyche and not the psyche itself.
There is solid evidence the psyche can exist without the brain or body, as in veridical NDEs.
Unfortunately we assume an enormous amount of data about the psyche, none of which is provable. Which brings us back to the original question “who are we.”
Psychological science proposes hypotheses which are falsifiable by experiment. In the research into memory given in the link, this might be as simple as giving someone something to read and seeing how much they could later remember.
Only a fool would contend that falsifiable hypothesis in the subject of psychology is impossible. I will refrain from responding to your posts until I am convinced that you understand what falsifiability, or indeed science, evidence or Ockham’s Razor, actually means. Please now reply to me with a mystically woolly non-sequitur full of martyr complexes and accusations of close-mindedness.
Incidentally, lekatt, here is a useful link describing the overall approach in psychological science. Who knows, applying such rigour to your own Normal Dream Experiences might win over the skeptics you complain about.
What you ask me to do is accept a doctrine of science, laws, methods, procedures, etc. made-up by man to rationalize, and justify their opinions into fact. Sorry, I say the same thing to the religious people.
If we don’t know something, we don’t know it. Period.
There is no science of psychology because the foundation is false, making all the assumptions conjectures.
About my dream experience, can’t apply any of the doctrine there either.
When I took science in school (ancient history) they did not concern themselves with psyche, mind, spirit, etc. They knew it could not be measured by physical means and didn’t try.
Science should go back to leaving the realms of mind, spirit, alone before they embarrass themselves with the general public and lose more respect.
People are still laughing over the announcement that a gene had been found that caused dumbness.
I promise I won’t do that. Just remind you science doesn’t know what a psyche is or where or how or anything else. When something is unknown, it is unknown. Now you can make all the guesses you want, but they are still guesses.
I think a lot of the posts here are hinting at something I’ve felt for a long time.
The fact that, over time, your memories and even your physical composition change, implies that, in order to answer the questions in the OP, we must stop thinking of ourselves as entities and start thinking of ourselves as processes.
If I sit on the beach, a wave approaching shore has as real an existence as I do, even though, at any given moment, it is made of a completely different set of water molecules as before.
My opinion is that if you really had some evidence of anything you wouldn’t need to make the debates personal insults. The evidence would talk for itself.
I agree, and I also think we need to time stamp our personalities. If you duplicated me, and gave both versions a problem or situation, they’d probably both react in the same way. I can assure you that if you brought the 1974 version of me to today, and gave us the same situation, we’d react very differently. Though for convenience we keep the same name, and there is a chronological link, we’re vastly different from what we were in the past.
And while I agree that memories are a big part of who we are, our hormones and bodies certainly have an influence also. A me who never gets tired, angry or horny would be a very different me.
I dunno what planet you’re on, buddy. I can understand what you mean if you are talking about the philisophical field of psychology, but when you talk about the science field, you obviously have no clue. Trust me, I’ve spent the past 3 years spending most of my time around psychologists, psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, psycheverythings, and they damn well have a real science. Whether it is based on sound facts or voodoo, whatever they are doing works, though most of my thanks goes to my psychiatrists.
Just like the people of Newton’s time could experience and use gravity without knowing what it was, so can psychologists work with the mind (though they DO know most of what they are doing - though they are still learning a lot constantly).
I share with you many of the same thoughts & ideas. I’m wondering if you have ever read anything by Edgar Cayce… have you? Years ago I would use the terms “soul” and “spirit” as if they were the same, but over time I have arrived at a different understanding. Perhaps the “soul” is a record or memory of the thoughts and actions by your spirit.
I am a whole lot more than that. But I believe that things like these are all that are necessary to distinguish me from other ‘beings’ or ‘non-beings’.
Because the chemical emotions inherent in such a complex piece of meat can be said to conform to some generalisation called “compassion”. There is a deep-seated emotional resonse to the suffering of other complex meat-pieces in all such pieces except those characterised by a condition called “psychopathy”. If “I” attribute importance to the suffering of other ‘beings’, there is less likelihood of ‘me’ falling foul of a lack of regard from another somehow-self-aware meat.
Call it enlightened self-interest or Popperian utilitarianism, the answer is effectively the same: minimisation of suffering in complex-memoried sentient meat is a reasonable goal of meat which can experience suffering. This could be said to be a Physicalist “morality”.
What makes me me is cause and effect from, perhaps, the point of my conception plus the sum of all those “memories” or lost memories since then.
What also helps is that there are other people with different experiences from which to distinguish myself. I can imagine that much of what I call my “self” is highly circumstantial and prioritized. If I were marooned on a desert island alone with a slim chance of escape, I might learn things about myself that I’d otherwise never have known and probably be shocked by it as well. My priorities will be different too and I will change, but remain me.
An animal might not know that the world exists without it but prepares its whole life for just that situation. Humans are just wired differently I suppose.
I’d say George Carlin has it right when he said that we’re an evolutionary cul-de-sac.
We are not created by the brain. there is solid evidence consciousness continues after the death of the brain. But no evidence of “us” being stored in the brain.
Compassion follows a love affair with life.
True enough, but only in the sense of onself as an individual self (and only after a sense of self has been developed in the first place - clearly an infant has not developed a sense of self to the point that it understands itself as an individual self. In other words, an infant is not “awake” - does not recognize itself as an individual self existant). If I have no emotional or intellectual attachment to those memories, then one’s sense of self as an individual self can be diminished (or can be extinguished altogether).
My Buddhist inclinations are not apparent, are they?
Suggest you do some reading about children, they do not come into this world as “blanks.” Some are able to do math better than a calculator without ever being exposed to math.
Need to do some research. Most spiritualists don’t go to church.
We don’t carry around these bodies very long, perhaps 70-90 years for most.
We do without them through eternity. The bodies are for learning purposes only.
As for the cite, if you don’t like it I have many more.
I never made the claim that a child comes into the world as “blanks”. What I am stating is that people are not “born” with a sense of themselves as an individual self (and individual ego seperate from other egos). A person becomes aware of themselves as a self sometime in the early stages of childhood (exactly when depends on the particular culture one is born into, child-rearing practices, etc.). AIANA psychologist, however, I would venture to say that it occurs somewhere between the ages of 2 and 5 years of age. Those with a background in child psychology can weigh in here and correct me if I’m wrong.
It’s quite possible for people to be born with the propensity to do things that they haven’t been exposed to or are not totally cognizant of their abilities. After all, humans are “hardwired” for a capacity for language (if you submit to the theories of Chomsky and other linguists).
An autistic person’s/idiot savant’s ability to do mathematical feats or play a piece of music exactly the same after hearing it for the first time can suggest that they themselves have not developed a normal sense of selfhood. In other words, all humans have the propensity for these abilities - it’s just in the process of mental development/development of a personal self-hood that these abilities get filtered out - use it or loose it, so to speak.
