There is a difference. Being the thing implies that there is one thing. Talking about direct access implies two things - the thing being accessed directly and the thing directly accessing the thing ie. a Cartesian Theatre.or there is no difference at all between being fearful and having direct access to the mental state of being fearful. — creativesoul
Crime scene investigators don't have "direct" access to the crime either. They learn about the crime by finding evidence of the crime. The evidence has a causal relationship with the crime. The evidence is the effect, the crime the cause. If we can still determine truths about the cause, like the time of the crime, the identity of the criminal, etc. from the effect of the cause, then why wouldn't we be able to determine truths about some mind if minds establish causal relationships with the world?I only have direct access to my own mental states and I can't think of a way that I can have the same access to anyone else's. I believe science in all its current methodologies has no direct access to private subjective mental states.
An analogy is if I gave a cook eggs, flour and sugar and told them go make me a fruit salad.
However, at the same time I think that our own access to our mental states is not very helpful either. — Andrew4Handel
I think the question begging accusation is a bit backwards. A reasonable a priori answer to this question is "possibly", or, "perhaps; let's find out". The answer, "no, because minds are private" is the dubious one; that is the answer that begs the question (assumes its conclusion). — InPitzotl
The question boils down to whether the mind has observable effects from the outside and whether those effects can be used to infer facts about the mind. That minds are private in the way described in the original post does not suffice to entail that it has no observable effects that can be used to infer facts about the mind; all it really entails is that such methods cannot reveal facts about the mind "directly". — InPitzotl
To me it's painfully obvious that we can indeed study the mind, by which I mean we can derive facts related to how the mind works, using indirect means and scientific approaches. What might be a much more interesting conversation than simply denying reality would be to explore what we could study by such methods and what we cannot. — InPitzotl
I realize that; but the OP is inviting the implications of that answer, and Nagase in my estimation is responding to said invitation.I did not give that answer though. — Echarmion
I'm not sure I follow. What would combining the scientific method with empathy to get a sense of the mind look like and, if someone did something like this, then how are they being unscientific?the question is whether looking at observable effects allows you to "study" the mind, or whether you need to combine that information with unscientific methods, like empathy, to actually get a sense of the mind. — Echarmion
I'm having problems here. If someone were to tell me that, by applying the scientific method to physics, one can arrive at a complete understanding of physics, I would think that such a claim itself was unscientific. If it were false with physics that one could come up with a complete understanding of the parts, I don't know how to infer anything from it being false with mind; and if that's the case, then I really don't see the distinction you're pointing out.I would just question whether we are studying "parts of the mind" or rather "manifestations of the mind". The difference being that if you can study parts, you arrive at an accurate and complete understanding of the parts. If you can only study a manifestation, that's not necessarily the case. — Echarmion
I realize that; but the OP is inviting the implications of that answer, and Nagase in my estimation is responding to said invitation. — InPitzotl
I'm not sure I follow. What would combining the scientific method with empathy to get a sense of the mind look like and, if someone did something like this, then how are they being unscientific? — InPitzotl
I'm having problems here. If someone were to tell me that, by applying the scientific method to physics, one can arrive at a complete understanding of physics, I would think that such a claim itself was unscientific. — InPitzotl
If it were false with physics that one could come up with a complete understanding of the parts, I don't know how to infer anything from it being false with mind; and if that's the case, then I really don't see the distinction you're pointing out. — InPitzotl
I think I understand, but this doesn't really seem like it's addressing the same level as the burden carved out in the previous quote. Here's the issue as I read it:As to how it looks: you might know from observation that someone is in a bad mood today. You use empathy to get a sense of how their mind feels. — Echarmion
So here, you're using empathy to get a sense of how someone else feels. I contend that your example is non-scientific; furthermore, I could very well use empathy myself, and come up with a different conclusion. So we can conclude that empathy isn't a "perfect metric". (OTOH, mood is just one example of a mind phenomenon; visual percepts are another and, though they have the same kinds of issue, they're much more crisp... also, this kind of thing isn't unique to mind; even pregnancy tests have false positives and false negatives).the question is whether looking at observable effects allows you to "study" the mind, or whether you need to combine that information with unscientific methods, like empathy, to actually get a sense of the mind. — Echarmion
Let's use current science as an example; I'll make some fair generalizations about what we know. We know there's dark matter, and we know there is dark energy; but those terms basically mean "here be dragons"; they're fillers for physics we know is happening but cannot quite account for. We know QM works, and we know general relativity works, but we know they clash in certain areas as well. Given these examples, we know our physics is incomplete; there's dark energy but we know we don't know what it is... we have some speculations in theoretical physics but nothing quite demonstrated... and we know we don't know how to mesh QM with GR in the "correct" way, where correct means loosely scientifically demonstrated. There's no guarantee that employing the scientific method would complete our understanding of physics; but the lack of such a guarantee does not prevent us from using the scientific method to find out. So I would be happy if the physics we know appears closed, in the sense that we don't know we have such holes; but I cannot fathom calling this current state of physics complete until we at least patch the holes we know are there.Well if your understanding is not complete, what else would you apply to physics? If there isn't anything else, then whatever is beyond the scientific method is beyond any understanding whatsoever. I'd say that if we have understood all we can possibly understand, then our understanding is complete. — Echarmion
But I don't think you need perfect metrics to do science; to do science, all you require is indicative metrics. If our empathetic judgments are better than chance at judging mental states, that's enough to use them as measuring tools in double blind studies. Even better, after multiple applications of such methods are performed over a period of time, we could perform meta-analysis on studies to gain insight into whether or not empathy in such applications is a metric of at least something. Such use of empathy as a part of scientific investigations I would not consider unscientific. — InPitzotl
So I would be happy if the physics we know appears closed, in the sense that we don't know we have such holes; but I cannot fathom calling this current state of physics complete until we at least patch the holes we know are there. — InPitzotl
Too technical for what exactly?I think you're thinking about this from a perspective that is too technical. — Echarmion
I don't doubt that other people are going to be different than me, but this line of argument (by which I mean arguing against science being able to study mind by focusing on how different we are) sounds more like a rationalization than a reasoned argument. Empathy's core is to "put yourself in someone else's shoes"; that can only possibly work if there's some level of similarity between you and the person you're empathizing with. Extrapolate this, and there should be similarities between you and at least a fair number of others. Reasoning a priori about this, maybe it's global, maybe it's diffuse, maybe it comes in clumps. These averages can possibly teach you how human minds work; help you categorize these minds-at-large, how those minds work, how different they are, what the categories are, and so on and so on. By learning how human minds work, it's even possible that you would understand a human mind a lot better; after all, isn't a human human?Yes you can still arrive at averages that you can use as indicative metrics. But that will filter out those individual differences. — Echarmion
I don't believe this dichotomy; it's like asking, if I look at a cup, am I seeing the cup or am I seeing light? In fact, in a sense, it can literally be like asking this... if I look at a man screaming that he is in pain, am I seeing someone who is in pain, or am I seeing light?Without that perspective, are you studying the mind, or merely behaviour?
Can science study the mind? — Andrew4Handel
I think conversation is very informative and can be analysed for content that expresses private or mental information. — Andrew4Handel
I only have direct access to my own mental states and I can't think of a way that I can have the same access to anyone else's. I believe science in all its current methodologies has no direct access to private subjective mental states.
An analogy is if I gave a cook eggs, flour and sugar and told them go make me a fruit salad.
However, at the same time I think that our own access to our mental states is not very helpful either. — Andrew4Handel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.