[floobynewb]

This is a real thing. There appear to be intimate connections between the mind and the body, in both directions. Levels higher up the hierarchy of dynamical systems within an organism appear to direct the function of lower systems. It's feedback loops all the way down.

[lutusp]

> There appear to be intimate connections between the mind and the body, in both directions.

That may be true, but only one of those can be studied scientifically.

[floobynewb]

I'm not sure I follow. There's nothing mystical about the idea. The hypothesis is testable as shown by the research. The data currently looks to support it. I'm not sure why you are saying it is unscientific. I grant you there may be alternative explanations for the data, but it is often true that science has been lead astray by incorrect framing of the question, but it's still science...

[lutusp]

> I'm not sure I follow.

The mind is not -- cannot be -- a source of empirical evidence. Science requires empirical evidence.

> The hypothesis is testable as shown by the research.

What research is that? Which scientific theory did the research either shape, or test, or potentially falsify?

> I'm not sure why you are saying it is unscientific.

The article describes, it doesn't explain. Science requires explanations, explanations that can be generalized into principles, tested, and potentially falsified.

> I grant you there may be alternative explanations for the data ...

But the data aren't explained, they're described. Test subjects were more likely to answer correctly if they received positive encouragement. That's a description. No one has tried to explain or generalize that description, turn it into something falsifiable.

> it is often true that science has been lead astray by incorrect framing of the question,

Absolutely true.

> but it's still science...

Absolutely false.

[randallsquared]

> The mind is not -- cannot be -- a source of empirical evidence. Science requires empirical evidence.

Since that's clearly not true of the brain's behavior, you seem to be making a claim that the mind is supernatural. Is that your position?

[lutusp]

>> The mind is not -- cannot be -- a source of empirical evidence. Science requires empirical evidence.

> Since that's clearly not true of the brain's behavior, you seem to be making a claim that the mind is supernatural.

No, only that the mind is not a legitimate source of empirical evidence (a negative assertion). Consider the areas that science doesn't (cannot) cover, and notice what they have in common -- usually, the inability to gather empirical evidence on whose meaning similarly equipped observers can agree.

For me to say that the mind cannot produce empirical evidence is uncontroversial -- it's certainly true. For me to claim that the mind is a supernatural entity, I would need to produce evidence for that conclusion. But I can't, so that assumption is itself unscientific.

[b1daly]

It's hard for me take this at face value given that I haven't heard that there is a scientific understanding of what the mind is. You seem to be asserting an unfalsifiable, almost axiomatic statement that the mind cannot produce empirical evidence. This flies in the face of common sense. To the extent that there is anything that can objectively be called the mind, as an agreed upon real thing there has to be empirical evidence produced by that thing. Otherwise the term has no descriptive power, and if I accept you assertion, I might as well reclassify things that I consider evidence of the mind (like utterances) to be evidence of something else. This something else is still there, in plain view by all (others behavior) and people present everyday at mental health clinics with very disturbing symptoms, every bit as real as a heart attack.