From: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: Mind/Not Mind
Organization: just me
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 14:29:26 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <79459@ut-emx.uucp> llama@pooh.cc.utexas.edu (sine nomine) writes:
>Dave Pipes x4552 (dpipes@spica.srg) wrote:
>: [...]
>: Some people, notably early-20th century behaviorists, have argued that they
>: do not have minds, merely the illusion thereof.  Just as an example.
>
>i think that most of the behaviorists (at least the ones i studied)
>took more of a black-box approach to questions of mind. they didn't
>argue for or against the concept; they merely described the results of
>various stimuli. why those results happened wasn't a huge concern of
>theirs, at least not experimentally. my animal learning prof explained
>the black-box attitude at basically researchers feeding in a stimulus 
>and noting what the response was. 

This may well be aresponse to the problems behaviorism has in trying to
explain "mind" or "consciousness.  Strict behaviorism, mind you, which is
rare these days.
>
>: I assumed a viewpoint FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT!  I do *not* hold this 
>: viewpoint!  I merely pointed out that it could be argued, and that makes
>: any study based on assumptions about the nature of the mind suspect, to one
>: degree or another.  You will admit that a behaviorist interpretation of
>: erratic behavior could be radically different from a Freudian one, right?
>: That was the point, that it is hard to base an entire science on unproven
>: assumptions.  Even if the results are reasonable.
>
>i've not seen the beginning of this discussion, so i'm not certain,
>but the above statement sounds as if the original argument was that
>psychology is invalid because based on unproven assumptions, such as
>the existence of mind.

Yes, BUT, it was just an extreme example.  I do not expect to be able to 
hold to it religiously, but here goes...sigh...
>
>first, a great deal of the work being done in experiemental psychology
>makes no claims as to the nature of consciousness or the mind, simply
>contenting itself with formulating theories about human behavior and
>devising and testing hypotheses based on these theories. the lab in
>which i worked did experiments in small-group and dyadic interactions.
>no claims were made about the existence or nonexistence of mind in the
>participants; hypotheses tested had to do with self-reported thoughts
>and feelings and noted behaviors in covertly videotaped interactions.
>the theoretical basis for this work wasn't behaviorist, either.
>perception theory, a lot of the cognitive work being done, most of
>social psych (things like bandera's modeling theory and even the less
>experimentally-supported stuff like maslow's humanistic psych)-- none
>of these assume or deny the existence of "mind" in the sense you seem
>to be using it.

I was referring to clinical psychology, specifically Freudian or Jungian
analyses, with their constructs which describe the Id, the Ego , the
Superego, the nature of personalities and the like.  These are (I believe,
correct me if I am wrong) based on the idea that their *is* a mind, and are
some of the ways that have evolved to describe it.  I merely pointed out that
the basis for such assumptions is less strong than that for evolution, given
that evolutionary evidence includes such physical evidence as fossils.

I specifically do not feel that experimental psych, cognitive science or
similar studies fall within the purview of my objections, studying as they
do observable, repeatable phenomena.  Disparate theories of the nature of
personalities of schizophrenics would, I believe, if they are above the
level of chemical imbalances.  At least until the nature of the mind is
described in detail.

David Pipes
robear@digex.com