Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by lutusp 3815 days ago
The article uses the word "mind" in its title, but the article is strict neuroscience, i.e. it discusses the brain from a biological perspective. The word "mind" never appears again. The mind (psychology) is not the brain (neuroscience).
2 comments
arvinjoar 3815 days ago
A bit of a nitpick (but I guess that's the HN spirit)? Just different levels of abstraction. The dream would be to be able to put all these levels of abstractions together, and have good mappings between them. Basically, I think you're painting a false dichotomy.

Just like the execution of a program can be described in Machine Code, 1's and 0's or even as electricity, or any other layer of abstraction.

link
megalodon 3815 days ago
I'm not so sure. The title should be relevant to the layer of abstraction used. You're talking of abstractions as if there is a beginning and an end level, but what if there isn't?
link
lutusp 3815 days ago
> Just different levels of abstraction.

From a scientific perspective, it's much more important than that. Neuroscience has empirical evidence, theories, and is a science. Psychology has anecdotes, no testable, falsifiable theories, and, for lack of empirical evidence, cannot be a science.

> Basically, I think you're painting a false dichotomy.

So is the director of the NIMH:

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h

Quote: "America’s psychiatrist-in-chief seemed to be reiterating what many had been saying all along: that psychiatry was a pseudoscience, unworthy of inclusion in the medical kingdom."

> The dream would be to be able to put all these levels of abstractions together, and have good mappings between them.

Yes, absolutely, and I think this will eventually happen within neuroscience. But focusing on the mind, something inaccessible to empirical investigation, is not the road to that goal.

link
dang 3815 days ago
Ok, we'll s/mind/brain/, but please let's not have an off-topic thread about this.
link
jsprogrammer 3815 days ago
The HN title now differs from the article's actual title.

How is discussion of an article's text 'off-topic', particularly when the discussion is entirely cogent and on point? If an article uses a word in the title, it should also occur in the text.

Anyway, if you're concerned about effective downmodding, you should probably head over to https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=brazzledazzle where their last comment was a personal attack.

link
DanBC 3815 days ago
The request was there because this [1] response was entirely predictable.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10877103

It's great to see lutusp back. It's a shame he comments on psychology articles. His comments on any other subject are interesting, fascinating, useful.

link
jsprogrammer 3815 days ago
What, exactly, do you see wrong with that response?
link