# Was Freud Scientific? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 15, 2011, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-freud-scientific/596444 "2011-09-15T22:51:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![pungi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/71c47a/32.png) [@pungi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pungi)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-freud-scientific/596444/81 "2013-02-09T03:07:43Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > An hypothesis to be tested doesn’t have to explain all of the data Yeah, just the data that fits nice. Then use peer-pressure and consensus to get buy in - and there you go - Science at work. Good luck with that. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-freud-scientific/596444/82 "2013-02-09T03:28:18Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Tricky; the argument is that there is nothing the brain does that cannot be emulated by any other “computational universal” device. I suspect that the any algorithm expressible in terms of the operation of the human mind can be emulated by a Turing machine. In that respect I don’t disagree with you; the problems, rather, involve meaning and intentionality. Consider Kripke’s distinction between addition and quaddition: given a mechanical device purporting to sum any two numbers, no physical fact of the matter fixes whether the device _in fact_ performs addition, or instead some other operation that would give different answers in untried cases. Addition _just as_ performed by the human mind cannot then be something physical. Or I think, at any rate. I’ll point out that I’m not attempting to pick a fight unrelated to the main topic, just explaining myself. > [@](#): > > A lot of us disagree with Searle… I particularly love the way his argument about [“The Chinese Room”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room) has been turned right back against him. (A very great many of us believe that, yes, the room does comprehend Chinese!) I find the possibility of the room itself comprehending Chinese … iffy, to be honest. But I don’t necessarily think his Chinese Room argument is his most compelling, and often an excuse for sidetracks about artificial intelligence and the possibility thereof. See instead [Is the Brain a Digital Computer?](https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/lshapiro/web/Phil554_files/SEARLE-BDC.HTM). ---
**Author:** ![doubleminus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5daacb/32.png) [@doubleminus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doubleminus)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-freud-scientific/596444/83 "2013-02-09T16:15:59Z")
Randomness does not detract from a process in order to call it algorithmic or computational. Actually , the reverse may be true - there are algorithms that necessitate randomness in order to operate reliably and fast, like prime number testing. Also human understanding of the algorithm is strangely impossible at times. “Understanding” the results of genetic algorithms or neural networks has an unclear meaning. That is, a machine could be built, that has a reliable input/output function and whose operation is inexplicable. ---
**Author:** ![doubleminus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5daacb/32.png) [@doubleminus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doubleminus)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-freud-scientific/596444/84 "2013-02-09T16:35:22Z")
In fact, just for clarifying myself, I don’t believe that something approaching an “artificial mind” is around the corner; we’re far away from that. Stating that the brain is comparable to a universal computing device does not make our task easier; it’s comparable to being able to make an animal since we know the chemical elements that we need. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-freud-scientific/596444/85 "2013-02-10T00:19:29Z")
Total agreement re clarification. I’m an adherent of the Strong AI hypothesis (one of the very few “strong” principles I will hold with,) but I’m not fool enough to think I’ll live long enough to meet HAL 9000. The practical objections are overwhelming. I only argue in favor of the very abstract philosophical principle that, for instance, an “AI” system that is written in a (very big!) physical book – where clerks turn the pages, jot down entries into spaces in the text, read values back to each other, etc. – is actually “intelligent” and, more daring yet, is also actually “conscious.” Not everyone, even those on my side, goes quite that far! ---
**Author:** ![doubleminus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5daacb/32.png) [@doubleminus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doubleminus)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-freud-scientific/596444/86 "2013-02-10T01:51:06Z")
I agree. I should not care about the physical embodiment of a strong AI system (including clerks turning pages – well the government will probably be bigger then), and I don’t care much about the idea of consciousness stuff being “special” in any way. As a kid I vividly remember nightmares after reading a sci-fi story describing sentient beings in the form of oozy yucky green flowing stuff. Clerks and pages are _so much_ more civilized. I still have 2 problems though: 1. I imagine that “machine” will probably self-organize, i.e. we won’t need (or indeed be able) to specify its every logic gate, but only some goals to be achieved by heuristic/N.N./genetic or whatever algorithms will be devised. So it will be a machine created by a machine (or itself). In that case, I can’t see how we would be much better understanding its functioning than the functioning of our own brain. So a psychiatrist trying to cure it from depression will still have a hard job. 2. Will such a machine need a physical body resembling a human one ? In fact, I can’t quite see how not. I can’t imagine we will be able to dump “state information” from an existing adult human. Surely enough, that state information is a function of the brain at birth plus all experiences and memories since. So, in order for that machine to behave human-like, it will have to be raised human-like and therefore it will have to appear human-like to other humans that constitute its (sic) adoptive parents and the rest of the environment. The machine must be deceived by itself that it is a human, otherwise it would feel _very_ strange. It must bleed when pricked and laugh when tickled. It cannot show wires when operated upon. So, how do I know I am not that machine ? ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-freud-scientific/596444/87 "2013-02-10T04:11:08Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > P.S. Hentor: we have corresponded before, long and long ago: I was the guy who originated the “Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenberg” joke that Garry Trudeau used in a Doonesbury strip. And I’ve got a chain of provenance, and witnesses too! Yeah, I know it’s a zombie thread, but I’ve never heard, nor heard about, this alleged joke. Details, please, including “chain of provenance, and witnesses”. You both still post here, so asking won’t get my brain eaten (I _hope_), since neither of you _seem_ to be very undead. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-freud-scientific/596444/88 "2013-02-10T04:56:18Z")
Getting back to subject, I like Rationalwiki take on this, as they consult the current experts on what the current state of affairs are in scientific circles regarding controversial topics. [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sigmund\_Freud](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud) > [@](#): > > Freudianism today > > Freud’s theories about unconscious motivations have been subjected to many valid (and some spurious) criticisms, but continue to influence modern psychotherapy, albeit to a dramatically smaller degree than they did decades ago. Freudian theories currently occupy a marginal position in research psychology. A 2008 report by the American Psychoanalytic Association noted that Freudian ideas are now far more popular in literature and arts courses than psychology, calling the field’s treatment of Freud “desiccated and dead.” It claimed that Freud was generally taught simply for historical context.[28] > > Many varying (mis)understandings of Freudian beliefs have provided meal tickets to pop psychologists for generations.[citation NOT needed] I liked that last bit not needing a citation. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-freud-scientific/596444/89 "2013-02-10T06:24:31Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > Yeah, I know it’s a zombie thread, but I’ve never heard, nor heard about, this alleged joke. Details, please, including “chain of provenance, and witnesses”. You both still post here, so asking won’t get my brain eaten (I _hope_), since neither of you _seem_ to be very undead. I was going to PM you with this, as it’s off topic, but you seem to have PMs turned off, so – please forgive the momentary indulgence in a highjack… Q: What’s the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg? A: One is a flaming Nazi gasbag, and the other is just a dirigible. I originated this joke, and told it as widely as I could. A professor of literature at UCSD heard it from me. The publisher of the “Flush Rush Quarterly” heard it from him, and published it in that newsletter. Not long after…it appeared in a Doonesbury strip. (The joke format is not new. I was basing it off of: “What’s the difference between a catfish and a lawyer? One is a scum-sucking bottom feeder, and the other is just a fish.”) Such is my brush with fame… Anyway, I’m more of a ghoul than a zombie. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-freud-scientific/596444/90 "2013-02-10T15:01:34Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I was going to PM you with this, as it’s off topic, but you seem to have PMs turned off, so – please forgive the momentary indulgence in a highjack… That’s funny, I just checked, and it’s turned on. And I got a PM from someone else a few days ago… Hmm 😃 Nice joke, though! Thanks. [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-freud-scientific/596444/91 "2013-02-10T17:13:13Z")
Jeez, **Trinopus**! Can’t you go a decade without bringing up your Doonesbury joke! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-freud-scientific/596444/92 "2013-02-10T21:11:45Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Jeez, **Trinopus**! Can’t you go a decade without bringing up your Doonesbury joke! 🙂 So, have I told the dynamite story recently? 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-freud-scientific/596444.md?page=4)